FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, November 26, 1999

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order. I think everyone is aware of the issue we're talking about, but I'll mention it for the record. The fisheries committee is travelling pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and this is a study on the implications of the September 17, 1999, Supreme Court decision on R. v. Marshall regarding the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region.

I would particularly like to welcome to the committee this morning as well Mr. Charlie Hubbard, who is the member for the area. Without a word of doubt in my mind, if it hadn't been for Mr. Hubbard...he was very helpful in terms of this committee being able to travel to the area to hear people's points of view directly on the ground.

We'll call our first witness. Appearing as an individual is Mr. Kevin Cassidy.

If anyone feels more comfortable in the French language, that's not a problem. Speak in whatever language you're most comfortable.

Mr. Cassidy, you're on. The procedure I would like to follow, Kevin, is to get you to give a fairly brief overview of your submission, if you have one, so that we have a fair bit of time for questions. The floor is yours.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy (Individual Presentation): I'm just here to talk about what happened, how it affected me and my family, and what could be done.

First of all, it really all started the first year that the food fishery was started. It was called a food fishery, but it never was. I live about a quarter of a mile from the reserve, and for years I've watched truckloads of fish being trucked by my home. It was never a food fishery, it was all sold.

DFO had it down to 125,000 pounds this year. They were working at it, but after the Marshall decision they set again. Now, two seasons in one summer is not an easy thing to look at, and that was really the last straw. Then boats came from Big Cove. They were fishing there with valid licences in an open season, and they left there to fish in Burnt Church. That wasn't about rights, because they already had the right to fish and they were fishing. That was money. Why would they fight for rights if they're not going to follow anything that's ever been done?

We've been cut back in our traps. The size limit has increased. Everything has been done for conservation. Right now, this year, there were three seasons. It's just not right, and it's not fair.

• 0910

I'm not able to go along with this cutting of traps. That isn't something I would have done. We were trying to get it stopped other ways. But we were forced into it and it started a lot of things that probably shouldn't have happened or wouldn't have happened. For instance, I lost a truck, the use of the wharf, nets; I was advised not to fish oysters because it was too close to the wharf. We had warriors there for protection of the natives. The community of Burnt Church is very small, the non-native community. It's just things like that mostly.

And there was no regulation whatsoever, even if it was on the news different times that it was being closely monitored. We watched the wharf for one week. DFO was there for 15 minutes. That was the extent of their monitoring on the wharf, where all the lobster...well, not all the lobsters were landed.

And that's another thing: landings. They have no way of knowing how many fish were caught. They never have, because they have maybe a dozen places where they land fish. None of them are weighed—nothing. DFO counts traps. They didn't count the lobsters in traps that they pulled and average them. They have no way of knowing whether that trap had been fished two hours before or two days before. So they're not getting a count. They count the buoys and then determine how many traps there are. This summer I watched some of them fish five traps to each buoy. Some fish only one.

You can count all you want. If you don't haul them and see, you don't have a count. So how they come up with any amount of lobsters...it's impossible. It's not even an educated guess, really, as far as I am concerned. They don't have enough people working.

It's a big area. They cover from Tabusintac to the upper end of Miramichi Bay and they have one patrol boat. I fish May and June, and this year they checked my catch one time in two months, and supposedly they were working hard at it to keep an eye on the fishery.

I would like to see them around more. They just don't have the resources to do it. They have too many area managers and directors and nobody in the field to do the work.

As far as different seasons in the same area are concerned, it won't work. A fall season and a spring season in Miramichi Bay would never work. It's not fair. The lobsters are all there in the summertime. Everybody knows that. You catch 10 times as much out of one trap. I've heard some fishermen say that if they had 8 or 10 traps and could fish in the summer and fall, they'd trade their licence for that, because you'd get just as much and have nicer weather to do it in.

That's pretty well it. It's my opinion anyway.

The Chair: Thank you. That's what we want to hear, Mr. Cassidy.

Just so I'm clear and we get it straight, you fish Miramichi Bay; you're a fisherman, and you live close to Burnt Church.

• 0915

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Cassidy, before the committee.

My riding is on Vancouver Island. As I was just saying to Charles, this could be Alberni Inlet on Vancouver Island, which is a very similar setting just looking out on the water. We've had the aboriginal fishing strategy for seven years on the Pacific side. It hasn't been a good situation. In fact the committee is going to be looking at that in the next few months.

You hit on a number of the points that are the problem on the Pacific coast. There's an already full fishery and then you introduce another player, and this is what's happening here. The counts in many cases were done by the Indians themselves, for which there was no reliability. DFO was basically invisible.

It doesn't bode well, I must say, because this is almost like déjà vu; you're just looking at the same thing going over and over again. But I don't want to be the picture of doom and gloom, because I think given what went wrong on the Pacific, at least we can look at it and perhaps fix it on this coast before things go awry.

The question I have is, what percentage of native fishermen were already in the industry before the Marshall decision?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: In Burnt Church they have 13 licences.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Out of how many?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I believe 1,000 people.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So a very small percentage.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes, but—

The Chair: If I could interrupt here, you're meaning 13 licences out of 1,000 people in Burnt Church.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

The Chair: Not out of 1,000 fishermen. Okay.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: No. In Burnt Church there are only 23.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So 13 out of 23. So there are already more than half.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Since Marshall, are there more people trying to get into the industry? What does it look like now?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I don't know. Nobody seems to be saying too much. They want more licences, for sure. The fishermen.... You've probably heard this before, but we have nothing against natives fishing. That's fine, that's great, as long as no new licences are created and you don't put too many licences in an area. If they were to buy out with their buyback program.... If they buy licences from Caraquet and bring them to Burnt Church, that's not helping Burnt Church—because you have too many fishermen in that area now, you can't add more. It would be great for Caraquet, because they would have fewer fishermen.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Would a buyback work? Are the licences, first of all, available for sale, and what is the mood of the current people in the fishery? Do you think they would—

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: They would get some. Not mine, because I have to look at another 20 years or so before I retire, so I can't afford to sell it.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I made some notes, especially when you pointed out that there were not enough enforcement officers. I think that it is the case everywhere in the east Atlantic. You said that the Aboriginals, or at least the officials, were happy with simply counting the buoys and the traps. I agree that it is not enough to determine how many pounds of lobster is being caught.

• 0920

People on all sides are saying that Aboriginals should have the right to fish, but that like everyone else, they must be subject to the same regulations. If Aboriginals were required to participate in dockside weighing so that we could know how much they're catching, would you accept that as an independent fisher? That is my question for you this morning.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: First of all, our lobsters are all weighed when they come in, and when we sell them they are weighed. And the buyer turns slips into DFO so that they know how many pounds are caught. But do you mean a monitor to come and weigh them? We have that now with herring and oysters, and it's not really a problem. I can't see why anybody would be against it. I wouldn't be, as long as the cost to me isn't going to be too much.

I know some of the crab fishermen who are fishing rock crab call in to the monitoring company, Pèse-pêche. They call in what amount of crab they think they have before they get to the wharf. They're supposed to do this an hour before they get to the wharf. But they're fishing sometimes 15 minutes from the wharf. So that doesn't work; there's not a monitor on the wharf. And he pays—it's not that much—I think $10 and his phone call a day. But there's never been a monitor on the wharf. He pays $10 to tell them what he thinks he has. He doesn't see the monitor. And he asked them to give him his bills, his statements, in English, and they told him if he didn't like it, find another company.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: That was fine.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Cassidy, for coming today.

Sir, do you hold a multi-species licence? Groundfish?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I don't have groundfish, but I have lobster, oyster, eels, mackerel and herring.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How long have you been in the industry yourself, sir?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: About 20 years.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you say that after the Marshall decision came down—I'm just trying to get a feel for the mood at the time—the tension that arose from that and what we saw in the news...? Of course the media was heavily criticized by all the groups we talked to so far for exploiting the tensions that were there. But in your own mind—you talked about your home and your truck and everything, and your community—was the tension as great after Marshall as it has ever been in the fishery towns in this area?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: After Marshall, it was worse, for sure.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The worst you've ever seen?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes. My wife still won't walk. She used to walk every day, and they don't any more.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, if you were on this committee and you can make a recommendation to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, what is the number one recommendation you could make?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Everybody should be under the same rules and regulations. Basically the rules and regulations are good, but if only a percentage have to follow them, then it's not right. You're going to have the same thing again.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Does anyone here have a question? Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Cassidy.

In your opening comments, you mentioned the food fishery and the over-exploitation of that. In your estimation, there are more lobster caught than are being consumed by the native community.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I think you mentioned that they're being put on the market and sold.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Paul Steckle: How have the people in the community responded to this, knowing that is going on? Have there been complaints launched to DFO? Obviously when something is happening that is jeopardizing an industry.... What have you, the non-native community, done to make DFO aware of what's happening, and what have they done in response to that complaint?

• 0925

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: We've complained right from the first that they were being sold, and nothing was being done. The only thing I ever had back from DFO was that Ottawa said there was no evidence they were being sold.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Given that they had no evidence of that, was there someone there to monitor the fact that your complaints could be legitimate?

Whose word was being taken? Was it their word against yours? I'm only trying to create a situation here where we understand the fault, if there is a fault—or if there's no fault, then we need to determine that as well.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: DFO had a great chance. I heard yesterday from a person in DFO that they had seized 6,000 pounds, I believe he said, from the food fishery and released them—

Mr. Paul Steckle: Is this part of Marshall?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes. So if you're carrying 6,000 pounds, I don't think you're going to eat them. I don't know if they made arrests or not, but they seized lobsters being transported, and nothing ever came of it.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Are these people who are buying the lobster and the fish from the food industry side of the fishing industry traditional buyers of fish or is this a black market?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: A lot of it is traditional buyers, but it's still a black market too. I know there's a lot peddled around the communities around home. And people will go and buy them on the reserve. I've been asked at different times where this person's house is, because he's there to pick up lobsters.

Mr. Paul Steckle: As for questioning these people as to their fish source, is there cooperation by these people who are traditional buyers or is there an unwillingness to cooperate?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I don't really know. I haven't had any contact with them. When the fall season opens down in Richibucto, then you see a lot more fish leaving the reserve in Burnt Church, because they can take them to Big Cove and sell them through the commercial fishermen there to the buyers on the wharf. So it's the food fishery that always steps up when the fall season opens.

Mr. Paul Steckle: In your estimation, can it be substantiated that there is illegal fishing in the sense that the purpose for fishing is no longer simply for food fishing?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Oh, yes, that could be. It would have to be monitored correctly, as there's nothing weighed, as nobody knows how many come ashore. If they were all landed in one area, and all weighed, then they would know what was being done with them, and they'd be able to track them then.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

This may not be a fair question, but I'll ask it anyway, Kevin. Malpeque Bay is actually in my riding in P.E.I., and we see some of this too. What, in your opinion, should happen to a licensed buyer if he or she knowingly buys lobster out of the food fishery?

• 0930

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: It would probably be fair, for the first offence, to have a good fine and reprimand. The second time, I think he should lose his licence.

The Chair: Thank you. Coming off of Paul's questioning, are there native guardians monitoring the food fishery as well in the Burnt Church area?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes.

The Chair: Is that information given to DFO?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I don't know.

The Chair: The last questions I have deal with enforcement. You indicated you yourself had your catch checked only once by an enforcement officer in two months. In terms of discussions with local enforcement officers, do you feel they know what's going on, and does it gets filtered down as it goes up the system? What's your view on that?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes. The officers who are out in the boats know what's going on.

The Chair: They know what's going on and they're not getting the support from either the regional or national office of DFO?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I don't think so, no.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? I'll take one last question, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I see you've mentioned those concerns of the house where you could buy lobsters, and the DFO officer who doesn't have support, in your perception, of either the regional or national offices. Is it impossible to give us any written documentation in terms of a specific incident and when that happened? Could you give any names of people who may be willing to come forward to verify what you have said about the DFO officers watching it but not being able to do anything about it? If you know of anyone who is willing to come forward, if you can provide us with names, that would be very helpful for this committee—if they wish. If not, then that's fine.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: I could look into that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on a couple of points that Kevin has already alluded to.

First of all, Kevin, when you talk about DFO officers not checking your own boat or your own fishing.... I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that most fishermen here in Miramichi are very much concerned about conservation and the future of the industry. Most officers know the fishermen who are involved with things who shouldn't be. When Kevin says they only checked him once in a season, they certainly have confidence that he's one of these people who is trying to look after our industry. It's not really a criticism of the officers, in a sense, but more a point to be made regarding the great interest most fisherpeople have in terms of a business that is their livelihood.

Kevin, you also alluded to the incident that happened in Burnt Church, which got national press and a great deal of recognition—and not the best sort of recognition for the Burnt Church people, whether they were native or non-native.

Mr. Chairman, the point Kevin has made is the same point as I made in the House. There was an intervention. There was a group of boats that came from other areas into the Burnt Church area, which is like a nursery, a place where the lobsters procreate and develop for the future season. In terms of our Burnt Church native people, the coming of those boats on the Friday night in question certainly was a major factor that caused this whole difficulty with Burnt Church.

Kevin, would you like to allude to that in terms of the perception that your people and the people in the bay had when commercial fishermen, who had fished during the season down below in the southern area, came up on this occasion, which developed into this situation that we encountered?

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: Yes, as I said, that was the last straw. Licensed fishermen left an open zone, and why weren't all fishermen from Richibucto there? The non-native commercial fishermen in Richibucto hold the same licence. Why should they not have been allowed to fish in that zone too?

When they came, I overheard one native telling another one he should bring traps there because with every four traps he'd get a tub of lobsters. It's a lot. And what he was doing that day was bringing 70 more traps to set.

• 0935

The natives in Burnt Church didn't like it. There are a lot of people on the reserve who could have used the money that was made. And there were a few people who did most of the fishing who really didn't need that extra income—councillors, etc. They had the money to buy a boat and the traps, so they had them. The ones who perhaps could get enough money for six or seven traps or ten traps, they were out of the picture altogether. The people who needed it didn't get it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. And thank you, Mr. Cassidy, very much.

Mr. Kevin Cassidy: You're welcome.

The Chair: The next witness is Mr. Bruce Whipple from the Northumberland Salmon Protection Association.

Go ahead. Is this a verbal presentation?

Mr. Bruce Whipple (Past President, Northumberland Salmon Protection Association): Yes. At the outset I'll just read this, and I'll have a few asides and a few comments at the end. I have a few notes written down.

We'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. Although we represent the Atlantic salmon, we hope our ideas will be transposed to other natural resources.

Had we been making this presentation a week ago, our presentation might have been much different. With the Supreme Court clarification, we believe we have a better understanding of how resource management is to be carried out. Many of our questions have been answered, but we are still prepared to make a brief and succinct presentation.

The Northumberland Salmon Protection Association is a non-profit volunteer organization. Our main activities are with the protection and the enhancement of the Atlantic salmon, but we also have an interest in sea run trout and striped bass. Specific activities include broodstock collection and stocking programs, a major downstream smolt project, and overseeing the Atlantic Salmon Federation's fish friends project in 11 local schools. We spend hundreds of volunteer hours and many thousands of dollars each year on our efforts.

Thus, we think we speak from a distinct and unique background. Unlike other groups you may hear from today and elsewhere, we have no vested interests other than that of conservation and protection of the resource.

We think it is imperative that all user groups proceed with prudence and caution so as not to obliterate any resource. After all, would the user groups want half of 100%, or 100% of nothing? It is time that all sides stop making exaggerated claims and raising the ante. It is time for opposing interests to stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of the resource. It is time for all concerned to sit down around the table and make some common-sense agreements on the sharing of the resources. The role of the federal and provincial governments should be that of facilitators. If this is not done, then the courts will impose rules and limits on us, rules and limits we might not like.

The Northumberland Salmon Protection Association would also like to make some specific observations and suggestions as they relate to the Atlantic salmon.

First, we think there has been some semblance of sanity in the sharing of the resource on the Miramichi. Both natives and non-natives seem to treat the resource with some respect. The native bands at Red Bank and Eel Ground negotiate yearly quotas for salmon and grilse with DFO. They also operate, in cooperation with DFO, their science and warden programs, thus contributing to resource management.

I must say, at this time, I'm not quite familiar with the Burnt Church agreement. So I didn't mention it here.

• 0940

Non-natives such as anglers make their contribution to resource management through daily limits and yearly limits. They release all large salmon as well through hook-and-release programs, and they buy their licenses. Of course, all is not positive. Both natives and non-natives can help the resource further by reducing poaching, handling fish properly when releasing them, and taking all the gill nets out of the river. This is a good example of what we would like to see: a micro-managed resource, rather than having it macro-managed from the top.

Overall, we are not quite meeting our spawning escapement on the Miramichi. In terms of the numbers we had out the other day, we're at 80% to 90% of the spawning escapement for the total Miramichi this year, so we're not where we have to be. It is therefore imperative that all user groups make fewer demands. We're not looking for more demands in resources. Real conservationists will not ask for more or threaten the resource further. The resource is not a tool for greed. We're hearing that in other resources, and we're concerned the same thing might happen with salmon. It is something that we must cherish and respect, because we have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to maintain that resource.

More specifically again, on the Miramichi we have a group that could serve as a model for resource sharing not only for salmon but for other resources. The Miramichi Watershed Management Committee is a compendium of all user groups on the river. Its members include natives, industry, outfitters and conservation groups such as ours. Although it's not perfect, it could be a useful tool for managing salmon resources, and similar committees could function for other resources.

We also think it is time for DFO to regain hatcheries and operate them. If we can increase the salmon resource, there will be more for all to share. We believe DFO—and, in turn, the Government of Canada—has an obligation to maintain the salmon resource. Part of that obligation is to maintain hatchery operations on the Atlantic coast, just as it has done on the Pacific coast. Should DFO not see fit to retake control of hatcheries, they should at least support stocking programs on a 50-50 basis with conservation groups. Small groups need to spend time working in the river, not trying to raise funds to operate hatcheries.

In closing, we would appeal to all groups, native and non-native, to tone down the rhetoric, to get together, and to share the resource in a reasonable way. We appeal to DFO to facilitate negotiations with a watershed group that includes natives and non-natives. Let's work together to keep the Miramichi the world's best salmon river.

We think we have a pretty good sharing here in the Miramichi in salmon resources as it is, but we're hoping Marshall will not create an imbalance in that resource. We think the sharing is now done in the spirit of the Marshall ruling, and we hope it stays that way.

On the term “reasonable livelihood”, we gave some consideration to that. At least, I should say that I have, and the best I can come up with is that, whatever the resource, perhaps native average incomes should equate to non-native average incomes. That would perhaps be one way of defining it.

There's one thing we are a little concerned with. We would hope all user groups would recognize the authority of the federal and provincial governments in resource management. We think that is very important. If you don't have recognition of authority, you basically have mayhem.

That's it. Thank you for your time. We hope things work out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Whipple.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bruce, I admire the straight conservation efforts of your group. Quite frankly, we get many groups in front of us here. Virtually every one of them says conservation is number one, but we've seen what's happened to the salmon, we've seen what's happened to the cod, and we have seen collapse of the sockeye fishery in the Fraser on the Pacific coast. Conservation sounds nice, but it seems that many people say it's fine as long as they get their grab of the pie.

• 0945

I share your concern with this Marshall decision, because the Atlantic salmon situation is dicey right now. We had a graph presented yesterday. It was very strong. It showed that there were 900,000 Atlantic salmon in 1975, but now there are 90,000. There are only 10% left.

Do you feel there is a mood for all the players to cooperate, or do you think this is going to be another me-first situation?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Well, we hope it's not another me-first situation. We've had a pretty good balance, native and non-native, with salmon resources, and that's been facilitated through DFO. I don't always agree with DFO, but I give them credit where it's due.

I would hope there could be even more cooperation. The DFO negotiates these agreements separately with the native bands, and they kind of work with the non-native groups separately. I don't see any reason we all couldn't sit at the same table more often. We have a pretty good working relationship.

I think both groups understand the peril of the resource, and they're willing to work together to do something for it, at least. Of course, on both sides there are poachers. There are poachers among the non-natives, and there are poachers in the native community as well; there always are. But hopefully enforcement can look after that part of the problem.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

I believe you're right. The Miramichi is one of the finest salmon rivers in the world, but in Nova Scotia we have another one as well, and it's called the Margaree. In terms of that hatchery as well, your comments are well noted on the lack of funding or at least the lack of interest by DFO when it comes to hatchery management on both our coasts, actually, even within our inland waters. That's a message we'll take back to the minister as well.

But, sir, in regard to the conservation side, groups like yours have to be congratulated for actually doing the work, as my colleague Mr. Gilmour said. We call them hip-wader soldiers. At least, I think that's what the term was. In an area where we have the lower Sackville River, there's an organization trying to reintroduce the salmon there as well.

Are you getting the support from the local DFO, not only in terms of manpower but in terms of resources as well? If you're not, why do you think that is?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I think it's budget cutbacks, obviously. We don't get the enforcement that we once had. I can think back to the early sixties. Charlie might correct me on this, but I think in Sunny Corner alone there were 17 wardens. They don't even have 10 wardens for the whole Miramichi system now, and it's a huge system. So the enforcement is not there that used to be there, definitely, but that's a matter of priorities.

Where is DFO putting their money? They're not putting it into hatcheries and they're not putting it into enforcement. There's a lot of money going into the science branch. I understand that, and I like that too.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The government has appointed Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault to meet with aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in order to come up with some solutions for the minister as well. Has your organization been in contact with these gentlemen, do you know of any organizations that have been, or have you had meetings to discuss the Marshall decision?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Not that I'm aware of. Our group certainly hasn't. Other members of the watershed group may have, but I'm not aware of any of them doing so as of yet.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: After the Marshall decision, sir, would you say the provincial reaction to the situation that happened at Burnt Church was either positive or negative, or was it more of a bystander point of view?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Do you mean the provincial government's point of view?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Did they come down? Did they try to assist? With the lack of the federal government doing anything—we've heard about it consistently, and we're about to hear it again from Mr. Ken Clark—was the province there at all to offset any kind of—

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Which resource are you talking about?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You live in this area of Burnt Church. I'm talking about all the areas of the Miramichi.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Yes, but I'm not familiar with the lobster situation. I'm much more familiar with salmon upriver, and with what the situation is with salmon.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But the tensions were felt even in the Miramichi.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Oh, yes. We're obviously not happy in the Miramichi when we get that kind of press. It doesn't speak well for us, and I think that's why I say the rhetoric has to be toned down. It is toning down gradually.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It may be an unfair question, but did the province help in any positive way at all, in your view?

• 0950

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I didn't think the provinces got involved in that situation at all in any way. They were more interested in the forestry, in the lumbering, obviously. The stance they took there was basically a non-stance in the sense that they were going to maintain the status quo until it was verified. That was their thinking.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

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

Sir, I'm a member of Parliament from Labrador, so I take great interest in salmon fishing. I'm also a salmon angler—I have been since I was a small child—so it would be remiss of me not to have a short discussion with you here this morning. I've heard of the mighty Miramichi for a long, long time. You've probably heard of the Eagle River as well.

I'd like to discuss two points with you. One is the question of management, because you show a great interest and great involvement in your watershed management. And the other is the issue of where the wild Atlantic salmon are going or not going vis-à-vis reproduction or survival on return to the rivers involved here.

I saw that chart yesterday from Mr. Bird. Quite frankly, I have very great difficulty believing it, because maybe I don't want to come to grips with the realities of life. But I do know that the larger salmon returns to rivers are different from what they used to be, because I used to guide on rivers with fishing lodges and so on.

What do you feel are the reasons? I have lots in my mind on a personal level, but what do you feel are the reasons leading to this demise of the two-winters-out salmon, or whatever, returning to streams to spawn? What do you feel are the reasons for why, while our smolts are coming downstream in what I believe are fairly good numbers, something is not happening from the time they reach the mouth of the rivers until they return to the rivers again as salmon?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I'll deal with the smolt problem first. That could be the problem with salmon down the road.

I don't know if you're familiar with Dr. Wayne Fairchild's work for 4-nonylphenols. He's done some studies, and we're contributing some resources to that study on the Miramichi this year and continuing into next year. Based on preliminary appearances, it appears that 4-nonylphenols are mimicking estrogen and basically messing up the sex life of the smolts or the salmon. It appears that his studies are almost...I shouldn't say proving, but they're moving in the direction of proving that this is a major problem with the smolts, and they may not survive very long. It may not be immediate, because they go through the estuary here. You find these 4-nonylphenols in household waste, pulp mill effluents, residues from old spray programs, and so on, and those could all contribute to that problem.

The smolts come downriver and go through that, and maybe three weeks later they could be dying at sea somewhere. Basically, for all the fish he kept—he had to get three or four different groups—that's what things seemed to show.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Do you know what I think is happening in Labrador? This is my observation. Yours is an interesting one, because we don't have these kinds of emissions like the ones you're talking about in our Labrador streams. But do you know what we don't have? We don't have the caplin on the shores like we used to have years ago, because they've been caught up by nets.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: You don't have the bottom feeders.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: We don't have the bottom feeders.

I believe what's happening is that when the smolts come downstream—this is my view—the seagulls are so bloody hungry that they're just dabbing away. They're gathering up so many of them that in terms of the percentage that are ready to leave the stream to go to sea, by the time they're at the mouth there aren't that many left. And then, once they get to sea—I have my observations—I think they're attacked greatly by seals.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: The watershed group is prepared to do a seal study starting next year, I think, but I'm not sure about the seals. I think they study seals to death.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Yes, but that's because they get those big marks. You've seen lots of big marks on the side of salmon. They are claw marks and mouth marks, and you can only relate to them as seal marks.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: They could be.

• 0955

The Chair: In fairness to the government, the committee made an ancillary report under Charlie's chairmanship. In fact we had a reasonable response back from the department—which is a little bit unusual—which said the government was going to move on getting eminent persons to study seals further. So that's a positive sign.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: It depends on where you study them. The place to study them is where they are when the salmon go by. There's no sense studying seals out at sea. You should study them at the mouth of river or when the smolts are running in the spring. Check them then. Don't check them three months later.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: They also run on the high seas, as you very well know.

The Chair: I want to move back, if we can, off seals and onto Marshall.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm not sure if we're entirely on Marshall, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to refer to a few things that Bruce mentioned in his report.

We'd of course like to commend Bruce and the association for the work they've done here on the river over the last 20 or 25 years. This year and last year they were working on monitoring the smolts. They were trying to determine when those fish go out to sea and if they're getting out there, and they were trying to count the numbers.

I'd like to mention this to the committee because we have a major problem in science with the hatchery. Mr. Chairman, we had here on the river the oldest hatchery in Canada, which was devolved or turned over to a local group. Bruce was very much involved with that devolution, and in fact it's one of the groups that is now trying to assist and see that the hatchery continues.

With that, there has been a major problem in terms of funding. The group that took it over is in need of moneys. If they want to continue, they're going to either have to get additional money or find some solution to the salmon involvement in that hatchery.

Several years ago when the hatchery was at its top performance, it was putting in the river about six million small fish each year. Bruce, I think you're down now to about 200,000 or 300,000 fish.

You also alluded to this this morning, Bruce. This year, in terms of the study of the fish coming back to the river—and we never seem to be able to make this point very effectively in Ottawa—of the fishery returning and going through the counting station, something like 20% of the fish that come back—

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Of the early run fish, the June fish, 20% were clipped fish that we had stocked, and it's significant on the Miramichi when you get those kinds of numbers in any stocking program.

So people beside us who argue against stocking or biologists who argue against stocking...there has to be a balance. We don't want to pollute the river with stocking, but you don't want to let it go bare either.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In the traditional fishery we seemed to have a difference, Mr. Chair, between the fall run and the June run. The June run was the big run.

There are some commercial fishermen here with us this morning. That run of fish, which Bruce alludes to, is the one we are most concerned with. It's almost ironical in terms of putting out 200,000 smolts or 200,000 small fish that suddenly we get 20% of that hatchery group coming back to the river in June.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Bruce would like to comment on that further.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I would just like to say that we have probably one of the best runs of salmon left in the world anywhere, in North America certainly. This may be the last bastion of large salmon populations. We're trying our damnedest to hang onto it. We need all the support we can get.

This year we're just under escapement. The Main Northwest, which ironically is the river with the native bands on it—and our group works on it mainly—is doing better than the Main Southwest, which is mainly an angling fishery.

The Chair: Just before I go to you, Peter, you said in your statement when you were going through it that you'd like to see micro-management rather than macro-management. What did you mean by that?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I would like to see the DFO come into the community and sit down each year with the native and non-native user groups—a large management group would be a good forum for doing that—and making a plan for the river, for the salmon resource.

I would like to see the lobster people do the same thing, instead of having one group over here and one group over there and DFO up there somewhere. They should sit down with the guidance of DFO and get together and make some kind of a lobster plan.

The Chair: You said earlier that now the enforcement is not there.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: That's right.

The Chair: There were 17 wardens in the Miramichi system.

• 1000

Mr. Bruce Whipple: No, there were 17 in one community.

The Chair: In one community?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Yes, in one branch of the river.

The Chair: Where can we get that information? I mean, here we are—maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will—we have low salmon stocks, and the pressure of the impact on the fishing resources, whether it's lobster or anything else, is the highest it's ever been. Yet if you go back in history, you'll find we had far greater DFO presence, in terms of enforcement officers, than we have now. It should be the opposite.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: That makes sense.

The Chair: New technology certainly won't replace an enforcement officer entirely. So where can we find that information about what the enforcement level was at one point in time? Can you give it to us? What is it now?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: I wouldn't have it all for the Miramichi system. Bobby Alain at the Tracadie office would have that, I would assume, on DFO enforcement.

The Chair: All right. We'll ask our researcher to get that information if he can, because it seems strange to me.

Make your question a very short one, Peter, because we have to move on. We're going to have an extra witness this morning.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Whipple, we've heard from other organizations involved with hatcheries about their concerns over the aquaculture industry, a burgeoning industry. We've seen lots of press from New Brunswick about the unfortunate salmon kills and everything from the ISA. Can you comment very briefly on your concerns over the burgeoning aquaculture industry when it comes to fin-fish?

Mr. Bruce Whipple: It doesn't really apply to the Miramichi, because we don't have aquaculture fish here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Not yet.

Mr. Bruce Whipple: Not yet. And it's not good territory for aquaculture, with the water temperatures and so on—not for salmon, at least.

As for infectious salmon anemia, about the only way it could travel here would be by people bringing live fish in from outside. Through stocking trout or something like that, it could be transposed. And that's another factor. Our group is very much opposed to importing exotic fish, non-native fish, for that reason. Our fish here are in pretty good shape right now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Whipple. I certainly congratulate you on picking up the slack in the hatchery and everything else that has been cut back due to deficit-fighting, I guess you can call it. We heard from Mr. Hubbard loud and clear on the hatchery here. We heard it in spades. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Ken Clark, a councillor for the city of Miramichi and a commercial fisherman.

Ken, welcome. Please overview your presentation of less than ten minutes. Go ahead, Ken; you're on.

Mr. Kenneth Clark (Councillor, City of Miramichi): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I wear the hat of a city councillor here in this city, but today I'll put the commercial fisherman's hat on and speak from experience.

The commercial fishery consists of several sectors, comprised of inshore, midshore, and offshore. These sectors contain various gear types in a large variety of licensing scenarios. Being an inshore fisherman with nearly thirty years' experience, I will limit my presentation today to the inshore fishery, with particular attention paid to the lobster.

The inshore fishery in this area, the Miramichi, consists mainly of a nearshore operation involving boats under 45 feet. These boats make mostly day trips and carry out fishing operations within a geographical area that does not extend very far from the owners' homes. The catches are generally sold to local plants, and the crews normally consist of local residents. A high percentage of the revenue generated by these inshore fishermen remains in their individual communities.

Although the inshore fishery exists in all of Atlantic Canada, it exists as a series of small local operations rather than one large industry. It is important to understand this, as something that may seem to have a small effect on the overall industry could be devastating to local communities.

The decision in the Marshall case is an issue that could wreak havoc on some of these small communities if a management plan is not properly drawn up and implemented.

When the Supreme Court gave their decision, they specifically stated that any treaty right is subject to regulation. The commercial fishing industry has a set of regulations that, with little adjustment, can be adapted to meet this need. These regulations are the result of years of observation and practical knowledge, coupled with the need to create the optimum conditions in order to ensure the future viability of the industry. The primary issue, however, is to put in place a single set of rules and regulations that will apply to anyone involved in the fishery.

• 1005

One of the most important regulations for managing the fishery, lobster in particular, is seasons. These seasons must be observed as they now exist, with no exceptions. If natives are to participate and share fully in the commercial fishery, then they must do so during the regular open commercial season in the zone in which they reside. The current practice of the so-called native food fishery, which operates outside the regular commercial season, must end. Everyone must respect the seasons for which they are licensed.

No local band rules or regulations should override any rule or regulation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. No regulations can work by themselves. They must have someone to ensure they are being adhered to. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans regulates and polices the commercial fishery and should continue to do so.

I should note here that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should feel shame for the inadequate equipment provided to his people in the field. In order to monitor this valuable fishery, some funding is going to have to be found to provide adequate patrol boats.

A question that will have to be answered is, how can natives be accommodated both in the actual fishery and at the management level? Since the actual fishery is near its saturation point, the preferred method of entry would be to purchase licences from present holders. As to an entry point into management, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should at his earliest opportunity create an advisory board consisting of both commercial and native fishermen.

When we speak of a moderate livelihood in terms of the inshore fisherman, we must remember that his entire income does not come from the lobster fishery but from a variety of species for which he is licensed. For an inshore fisherman in this area to earn a moderate livelihood from fishing, the majority of the available fishing time is spent catching fish, for which he works long hours for low pay. Lobster may be the backbone of his income, but it does not make up the entire carcass.

To consider a moderate livelihood by commercial fishermen versus natives, as noted by the Supreme Court, the only fair way would be to compare the annual income after expenses and all applicable taxes have been paid. Keep in mind that a commercial fisherman can earn only a small amount of income outside his fishing activity before he risks losing his fishing licences.

Who may be entitled to this moderate livelihood should be straightforward. A simple calculation will give the percentage of non-native people out of the general population who are involved in specific fisheries for a livelihood. A corresponding percentage of natives out of the native population could expect to earn a livelihood from the same fisheries.

Regulation of the fishery appears to me to be a much simpler matter since, as I stated earlier, the Supreme Court in its ruling specifically said the native fishery could be regulated. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the perfect tools to do the job. All that seems to be lacking is the will to use them.

It is my belief that a large amount of the blame for the confrontations that took place after the Supreme Court handed down its decision on September 17, 1999, lies with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his failure to act promptly in enforcing the existing fishing regulations.

The inshore fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is a main component in this region's economic well-being. It supports hundreds of communities and thousands of jobs. The dithering and political correctness in Ottawa must stop. No uncontrolled fishing can be allowed to continue. The solution is simple: get to work and act now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clark, for calling it as you see it. That's what we like to hear.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

Yes, you didn't sugar-coat it. You put it pretty straightforwardly, and that's just fine.

What percentage of the licences in this area are held by native fishermen right now?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: We just have the one band in this area, and they have approximately 13 licences. I believe in the lobster fishery there are about 170 to 180 commercial licences in total, and that would be the area from Escuminac to Tracadie.

• 1010

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In your mind, would the licences be available for purchase? Are there people who currently hold licences and would be willing to retire them or have them bought out should a buyback program come into place?

Mr. Ken Clark: I certainly believe there are licences available out there. That's exactly how the licences were transferred to the band in Burnt Church in the past couple of years. Some of the commercial fishermen sold their lobster permits back to DFO, and they then transferred them to the Burnt Church band as communal licences.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

I appreciate your comments about DFO. We've heard it quite often in front of this committee that, first of all, they need to have decent equipment for their people on the ground. They also need to step back from this political correctness and do their job.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mine is just a quick question to Mr. Clark.

Thank you for coming, by the way. It was a very forthright presentation.

In your first paragraph, you've referenced that the inshore fishery in all of Atlantic Canada exists as a series of small local operations rather than one large industry. Then you go on to say “It is important to understand [that] something that may seem to have a small effect on the overall industry could be devastating to the local communities.“

I'm just wondering really what you are referring to there. Could you elaborate for the committee?

Mr. Ken Clark: Shortly after the Marshall decision was handed down, the local band in Burnt Church began an uncontrolled fishery. That would be bad enough by itself, but Indian bands from outside the area, some of them in zones where the commercial fishery was open, started to congregate in this area. The lobster fishery at that time of year is quite lucrative in the Miramichi Bay, and the reference I was making there was that if people are going to move long distances to put enormous pressure on a stock of fish in a single area, it could be very crippling to the fishery in that particular local area.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

Just for the record, the jury's still out on whether or not the DFO has replied properly yet to the seal report. I just had to throw that back in there.

Sir, you're the first person to actually appear before the committee and try to define what is considered a moderate livelihood. What's the current income of the average fisherman in this area from fishing?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: I have no idea. I couldn't hazard a guess. I can tell you that my average income would be probably be in the $30,000 range.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: From fishing?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: From fishing. That would be a combination of fishing and several other sources of income. The fishing income itself would probably be closer to $20,000.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of the future, you talked about the solution being to get to work and to act now. You talked about the inshore fishery and the coastal communities and the impact that any downturn has on the thousands of communities in Atlantic Canada. Right now, we have a top-down approach in which DFO dictates what the management will be either through a corporate-based one or through ITQ and EA systems and that. Would you consider, or at least propose, that a more community-based management system with Fisheries should take place for the future, where the resource is managed at the local level, with DFO having the overall say in terms of enforcement, resources, and issues of that nature?

Mr. Ken Clark: I certainly concur with that statement. One of the biggest problems of the last few years is that the DFO has created a number of advisory boards and then has failed to heed any of the advice. These advisory boards were made up of different people who were involved in the industry, both the fishermen and people from the processing sector. Basically, all they were was a window dressing. DFO seemed to use them in a manipulative way to try to help improve their image, not to help improve what's going on in the industry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Clark.

Perhaps you can put on your councillor hat for just one second. You are fully aware that when advice is given to a certain department, that department or that government has the right to completely ignore that advice. This is what one of my fears is, although I'm speaking hypothetically now that the recommendations we make may not be adhered to by the department. If that happens, what do you say? We make recommendations that could be of a unanimous nature from the evidence that we've heard. Do you think the government should really adhere to the advice we give in terms of what we've heard? Or do you think they still have the continual right to just ignore us and proceed along their merry way?

• 1015

Mr. Kenneth Clark: As councillors, we receive advice from experts in different fields. If you don't know anything about a subject, it is the best idea to listen very carefully to the advice you're given and go with those recommendations. As far as I'm concerned, the people who are involved in the industry would be the experts in this case. They've had firsthand knowledge and practical experience, something most people at the top level do not have. To have advice given from people of that calibre and to have it completely ignored throws into disrepute the entire scenario of creating that advisory board to start with.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Just before I turn to someone else, in your brief on page 1 you say, meaning the natives, that “they must do so”—meaning to fish, I guess—“during the regular open commercial season in the zone in which they reside”. I want to deal with that: “in the zone in which they reside”.

In the November 17 clarification, the Supreme Court said much the same thing. They said the treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local:

In the absence of a fresh agreement with the Crown, the exercise of the treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community with which the “separate but similar” treaty was made.

I'll use the example of a a bay in my riding, Malpeque Bay, which is something like Miramichi Bay, a very sensitive bay, a breeding ground for lobster, etc. The Lennox Island Band is on that bay. Now, the difficulty with the zone in which they reside is that if that's the only area in which they can be given their recognized right, either there's going to be more impact on the lobster fishery in that very sensitive bay, or an almost impossible number of lobster fishermen who fish in that area now are going to have to retire.

How do you deal with that question? I understand your point and I understand where it's coming from, but there is a problem here in terms of how you deal with it in the local area in those sensitive bays.

Mr. Kenneth Clark: One thing you have to keep in mind is that even though the Supreme Court handed down a decision that gives the right to fish to aboriginals, they shouldn't expect every aboriginal man, woman, or child to have a permit so that they can go out there and fish. The numbers have to bear some correspondence between the percentage of people from the general population involved in a fishery now in the non-native population...the same percentage would have to be moved into the native communities.

There are more resources available than a lobster fishery that these people can make a moderate livelihood from. So focusing all your attention on just one fishery versus the entire population of a reserve is probably not a fair comparison.

The Chair: Thank you. That's a good point.

Mr. O'Brien.

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

Mr. Clark, in your second-last paragraph in your report, you talk about regulating the fishery. You mention that the Minister of Fisheries has the tools to do the job but basically lacks the will to do it.

From my perspective, the minister took the position of cooperation and negotiation and met with the 35 bands in the APC. There were a couple of dissident bands, as you know, and they were basically in this area of Burnt Church. He responded to the band thing outside. You're saying—and I want to clarify this with you—that wasn't the right approach, that he could have taken an enforcement approach, which would have been the preferred route.

Mr. Kenneth Clark: In any situation that's going to change something drastically, it is important to maintain at least the status quo. In this area, according to the commercial fishing regulations, the season is closed. Since the Supreme Court, in their explanation of the decision, said that the native fishery could be regulated, a simple approach—right at the beginning—to impose the commercial fishing regulations the minister had at hand at the time would probably have defused the situation. I think his failure to act contributed to the escalation of the confrontations that took place after that.

• 1020

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: So the escalation of the confrontation that took place, and the national media play that we saw, came following these pots going into the water from Burnt Church and from Big Cove, I believe.

Mr. Kenneth Clark: Yes, Big Cove and Indian Island. There were two other bands there.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: And you feel that was a contributing factor to that violence...?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: Well, over the past few years, approximately eight years now, in the Burnt Church area the natives have carried on with what's called the food fishery. It took place in a small area adjacent to the reserve. That took place in August and September. In the spring of the year, the fishermen that traditionally fished in an area within a 10- to 15-mile radius of that spot where the food fishery had taken place found that there were no lobster left on their traditional grounds. They had to move outside their area. As a matter of fact, it brought some fishermen from the Neguac and Tabusintac areas into quite a conflict over encroachment on each others' territory.

The fishermen recognized that there would probably be a relationship between the food fishery and the disappearing lobster in the spring, the food fishery being contained in a small area. So in regard to this uncontrolled fishery, expanded to cover an area that would be 15 to 20 times larger, their fear therefore was that the area affected in the spring would be 15 to 20 times larger. That would take in practically the entire Miramichi outer bay, which would affect 150 licence holders. It caused a panic attack among the fishermen.

And of course it was one way, you must remember, that fishermen have of policing themselves. It's not uncommon in the fishing industry when someone encroaches on your territory to give them a reminder that they perhaps shouldn't be there. That's basically how things transpired.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Actually I grew up on a fishing boat from Labrador, so I can clearly understand what you're talking about. It's called encroachment on turf. I know a lot about that. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Very quickly, I know you said in your report that the way—or one of the ways—to resolve this is through buyback. Can you clarify for me what you're really saying to us? It's probably a very good recommendation for us to bring back. How do you see trying to take the current situation as it relates to the commercial fisheries and the expected new influx of fishers from the native community zone and bridging that gap to find a balance, so that we don't have extra pressure put on the resource and can still match the numbers we want in terms of conservation and having a self-sustaining fishery? It's a big challenge, isn't it?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: It certainly is. One of the big things we have to understand is that in the last several years the commercial fishermen have actually given up numbers of traps each year. As a conservation measure, they have decreased the number of traps they set. To allow new entrants to come in now and put extra traps in the water would be completely defeating the purpose of the exercise of the last several years.

The buyback situation would involve buying existing licences from people who may be ready to retire or who, for some reason or another, would like to move out of fishery. The licences could be transferred to the native population.

But on that same note, right now a lobster licence purchased anywhere in this zone—the line stretches from the Quebec border down to Escuminac—would give you the right to fish anywhere in this zone. There has to be some measure of control also put on that all the licences that would be retiring in the entire zone 23, which is what they call this lobster area, wouldn't be able to move to any one particular local area. Although the trap numbers in the zone wouldn't increase, the trap numbers in a local area certainly would.

• 1025

The Chair: I think I have you. Give me a couple of harbour names, Charlie.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Neguac.

The Chair: Okay, you're saying that if a licence were bought in Neguac, that's where it would have to be fished, not elsewhere in the zone?

Mr. Kenneth Clark: What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be allowing licences to be bought, we'll say, in Dalhousie, Bathurst, or Caraquet, moving everything into the Miramichi Bay area. There could be several ports around the Miramichi Bay area where fishermen traditionally cover the same ground; therefore, defining it to a very small local area would have little significance. But to go into the overall zone of area 23 and move them from the extremities to a particular local area would certainly have a devastating effect. It would increase the number of traps in that area tremendously.

The Chair: You could have excessive local impact.

Did you have a question, Charlie?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, just for the record, I see my friend Don Ward is here, from Red Bank, who will be presenting later, I believe. And the Red Bank First Nation have a licence that is fished in Point Sapin. They travel about 50 miles with their gear to go and fish in that harbour. So we don't have to think in terms of where they may live, but, more importantly, where the licence may be granted.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is that fish then brought to that river, or brought back?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It is a commercial-type licence.

Donnie, are you presenting later, as well?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ward is the next witnesses.

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark, for your presentation.

Mr. Kenneth Clark: Thank you.

The Chair: The timing is appropriate. We go to Don Ward, councillor, Red Bank First Nation.

You're on, Don. I believe you have an oral presentation, then we'll go to questions. Welcome.

Mr. Don Ward (Councillor, Red Bank First Nation): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'm from the Red Bank First Nation. I'm appearing on behalf of Chief Michael Augustine, who is away today. He had to be at some other business and couldn't appear.

The Red Bank First Nation has a population of about 500 people. We have one lobster licence, and we also fish for food in salmon. We've been fishing for salmon in the food fishery for, I would say, approximately the last 10 years. It hasn't been easy for the first nation to try to implement the policy of DFO in having no sale of salmon, a ban on the sale of salmon.

In the years that we've administered the program that was given to us, we've encountered a number of difficulties. The difficulty we've encountered in trying to keep our people from indiscriminately fishing is that we've had to hire people to go to work and do other things. The employment rate at the reserve is no different from that at any other reserve. It's very high: approximately 85% to 90% of the population on-reserve are unemployed. So the only employment, the biggest employment, we have on reserve is when we have this AFS, or whatever you want to call it. We're given I think a little less than $400,000 a year. We were given slightly more than that, but in the last three- to four-year period, the reserve has been cut back by 15%.

• 1030

In the fiscal year 1994, when we first started the program, the reserve, because of the difficulties it incurred, incurred a deficit of approximately $204,000, and that's still on the books in Red Bank First Nation. Because we felt it was that important for us to stop our people from fishing and to try to protect the salmon, we went that far in the hole in that particular year.

In the next fiscal year, we incurred a slight surplus. In the next fiscal year, 1996, we again incurred a deficit of approximately $30,000. In 1997, we incurred approximately $113,000. The Red Bank First Nation has approximately $350,000 deficit on record as a result of keeping our people off the river fishing. And we only fish for food. We don't fish for the sale of salmon, although if that does occur, it occurs on a very small scale, and there may be more trading than actual sale of salmon.

In 1997—I forget what year it was—the DFO gave us a commercial licence to fish lobster in Escuminac. The DFO gave us a boat, some of the lobster traps, and the gear. The band quickly jumped into that, and to our surprise, we realized that the boat was very poorly equipped. In our first year of operation—and we have this on record—we actually went into deficit as a result of the nice boat the DFO gave us. The boat was very poorly equipped; it's not in use now. We haven't been able to use it in the last two years because of the fact that the boat was just rotting away and the keel was very dangerous. I guess it couldn't be taken out into the ocean.

So as a result of that, we haven't done any commercial lobster fishery in the last two years. We've been highlighting these concerns to DFO officials whenever they visit our first nation. Currently we do not fish for lobster commercially, and although we do have a boat, it's not worth a hill of beans.

I would take questions in terms of how the reserve feels. The Marshall decision is certainly a decision that we welcome as native people. It's finally been proven that our forefathers before us had the wisdom to enter into the right kinds of treaties.

You've heard a lot of talk—even in the news reports yesterday—that Donald Marshall was not living on a reserve. Donald Marshall is a card-carrying status Indian, the same as I am a card-carrying status Indian. There are people out there claiming they're status Indians, but there's only one way you can become an Indian in this country, and that's if you're born to an Indian mother and Indian father. That's the only way we believe in, and it's a very strong belief of the leadership across the province of New Brunswick. A lot of people have tried to get on the band wagon in trying to claim or state that they are native people, but that's to be proven, I guess.

So in the decision that was handed down, the Red Bank First Nation would be more than welcome to take advantage of the fact that we can go out there and fish commercially, which we have been seriously limited in in the past. That's where I'll leave it.

I know the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been working with us and we've been working with them. We do all of their enforcement on Red Bank First Nation waters. Enforcement means that if there are any illegal nets out there or any kinds of illegal activity going on, our fisheries guardians or fisheries officers at the reserve level take care of that.

I'll leave it at that, and maybe I'll entertain the questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ward, to clarify, you were saying the DFO gave you the boat for lobster fishing. Did the band not fish lobster before that time?

• 1035

Mr. Don Ward: No, we didn't.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Now that the Marshall decision has come down, do you want to access that fishery?

Mr. Don Ward: As I said earlier, we have a lobster boat that DFO turned over to us, but the boat is not worth a hill of beans. The band incurred a deficit of approximately $40,000 in the repair of this boat, but to no avail. It was like repairing an old used car. It's now no good to us.

It's just like the deficits we incurred in the salmon fishery. We just couldn't do it any more. We can't keep going into deficit situations when we try to do something. We just can't. We can't afford it.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Should a buyback scheme come into place, then, would the band avail themselves of that program and move into the lobster fishery or would they not?

Mr. Don Ward: Any time a first nation in this country—and our first nation is no different—can put its people to work, the answer will be yes. So I'm sure we'd take advantage of it, yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

I can't help but think that DFO's bible or manual is based on the novel by Farley Mowat, The Boat Who Wouldn't Float. That's probably the boat you got, in the end.

Mr. Don Ward: We had it for the first year, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Ward, I first of all want to thank you for telling us about life on a reserve. I think the entire Canadian population was shocked by what they heard with regard to the Membertou Reserve in Cape Breton, and what happened yesterday with those five children. I'm sure I speak for the committee when I say that our hearts and prayers go out to those children and to those families.

That's just another example of what can happen on a reserve. It must be very disheartening for aboriginal individuals to see their children do that to themselves, for whatever the particular reasons.

You, sir, had mentioned that an Indian would be from an Indian mother and an Indian father. But in terms of status qualifications, is it not correct that an aboriginal man living on reserve as a status Indian can marry, for example, a Caucasian woman from the city, she could live on a reserve, and both she and the children would become status? Is that not correct?

Mr. Don Ward: That's true, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The other way, it's reversed. If an aboriginal woman goes to the city, marries a non-aboriginal man, and they have children, she loses her status and the children are not considered status. Is that correct?

Mr. Don Ward: It's a very simple term. I don't want to get into who is a status and who isn't. I was just responding to the comments that were made. A number of people are now claiming they're native people when they're not.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's correct.

Mr. Don Ward: I don't intend to debate that here with you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's fine.

Mr. Don Ward: The double-grandmother clause is a very simple clause. If my mother is a non-native, I marry a non-native, and we have children, those children will not be native. That's the double-grandmother clause.

There's only one way you can manufacture an Indian in this country, and as I stated earlier, you have to do it over a period of time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That leads me to my next question, a question I have asked of most aboriginal leaders. In your opinion, does the Marshall decision apply to non-status aboriginal people?

Mr. Don Ward: I suppose the courts will come up with some type of ruling on that, but as I said, I don't want to debate that with you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

You mentioned native guardians. Your reserve should be commended for trying to enforce conservation measures on your own, without incurring any kind of financial benefits from DFO. Really, in all actuality, the DFO should be assisting you financially in that regard.

Why do you think the federal government is not providing you any financial resources in order to maintain conservation?

Mr. Don Ward: DFO does provide us with an agreement each year. The agreements have been cut back by 15%, as I stated. In our agreement the amount is slightly less than $300,000. It used to be $470,000, or somewhere around there.

In the process, a certain amount of people are hired to fish with two trap nets. We have two trap nets. We capture all our fish live and we set the larger salmon free so that they can go and spawn. We're allowed to keep any number of grilse and we're allowed to keep a number of salmon. I think there's one salmon kept per household on each reserve. We keep something like 450 salmon.

• 1040

So by no means are we keeping any large amount of salmon for ceremonial or food purposes. We're keeping them only because people would like to have at least one salmon per household.

In the implementation of that agreement, a lot of times we hire more people than we really need because people demand their right to go fishing. We have difficulty implementing this, and we get into financial difficulty. A lot of times, if you use common sense and try to keep a person from setting a gill-net rather than using our trap system, which is better....

We tend to choose the trap system to provide the individual with a job, and sometimes, in the provision of that job, deficits occur.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Donald mentioned something here that I know I picked up on, and I hope the committee heard, that in terms of Red Bank, their licence is looked upon as a band licence.

I think you're saying, Donnie, that the chief and council have looked upon that as an enterprise. When we talk about how licences may eventually be allocated, there is a difference between it being operated in terms of a certain number of boats or licences and the band managing it as an industry or as a business, or 13 individuals, whatever it might be, from that band being granted licences.

Donnie, maybe you could just reflect on that. I know you said in terms of Red Bank it was a new licence when you got it. You tried to manage it in terms of your band and your chief and council, and you weren't able to make money with it. If Red Bank, for example, had six licences, would they be allocated to six people or would they be managed by the chief and council for the good of the band in general?

Mr. Don Ward: Charlie, you're a politician and so am I. We've both been around for a long time. I don't think I'd dare make the judgment to say who gets the licence and who doesn't. I think that would have to be ascertained by the band membership of Red Bank.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But what I'm asking you—

Mr. Don Ward: I don't want to be the unlucky person to decide, hey, Charlie Hubbard gets a licence but this one doesn't. I think what we'd have to do there is probably take into consideration the amount of licences we would get, and they probably would be operated at the first nations level. They would have to be operated with a lot of due care and a lot of regulation, yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.

The Chair: With regard to the boat that doesn't float—

Mr. Don Ward: The Titanic?

The Chair: —I'm making the assumption that this was obtained under the aboriginal fishing strategy.

Mr. Don Ward: Yes, it was.

The Chair: Is there no provision under the strategy such that when the boat was purchased it would have been put in decent repair?

Now, I don't know if there is or not, Don, but—

Mr. Don Ward: The boat was not in very good condition when DFO turned it over to us. We just didn't have the expertise at reserve level. I mean, we haven't participated in the lobster fisheries, so we didn't have the expertise to take a look at what lobster fishing entailed. We found out that the global positioning system, or whatever it is that's installed on the boat to tell you where your traps are and what your location is out at sea, was obviously missing.

For instance, what's needed to haul traps out of the water was missing.

The Chair: The winch.

Mr. Don Ward: Yes, the winch was missing. A number of things were missing off the boat. By the time we got around to repairing the boat and fixing it so that it was seaworthy, the boat itself had deteriorated to the point where the keel itself was starting to rot away. The next fiscal year, we just couldn't do it any more. We couldn't take a chance on sending people out on the boat.

The Chair: I've been led to believe, and I know of a couple of instances where it's happened this way, that if DFO, under the aboriginal fishing strategy, is buying out a licence and a boat from a fisherman for a band, then part of the deal was that certainly everything would be in good repair, and the fishermen would be provided as well for a period of time to train the native people on how to fish efficiently and operate the boat. That didn't happen in your case?

• 1045

Mr. Don Ward: I think we hired two people from Baie-Sainte-Anne, both non-natives, to help us out.

The Chair: But you hired them; they weren't provided as part of the arrangement under the aboriginal fishing strategy. I think you've been—

Mr. Don Ward: Any lobster we caught, we sold. I think it was the lower part of the fishing licence we fished on. It started some time in August and we fished the latter part of the season. The end result, after we figured out our profit and expenses, was that the band itself incurred approximately a $40,000 deficit.

The Chair: My understanding of the AFS is that you should have been provided with the expertise to show your people how to fish. It should have been a money-making venture in which you had trained people on the boat, fishing with that licence and boat. We will check it out, because that's not the way the AFS was supposed to operate, in my opinion, in terms of lobster licences.

Are there any other questions? Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Don, in a scenario where you've taken on a licence and it's profitable, how is the general wealth of that enterprise distributed? We talked about who should have the licence if there was a licence to be granted. Is this shared by the general populace, the 500 people of your band, or however many there are? How is that done? What happens to the spoils at the end of the day?

Mr. Don Ward: The Red Bank First Nation operates a number of programs. We have a lot of programs that currently do not receive enough funding. You name it, we operate it. We operate mostly all the programs that normally used to be operated by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. When AFS came into the picture with the lobster boat, we were more or less very glad. We took it on not realizing, because of lack of experience, what we were really getting into.

On any spoils you mentioned, or whatever, believe me, there were none. The boat itself was spoiled. We really didn't have the pleasure of having a surplus in that particular area, so we wouldn't have known what to do with it if we had.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Am I hearing that when you were given that licence to fish lobster, there were certain benefits or moneys taken away from you by Indian Affairs?

Mr. Don Ward: I would hope this committee would realize.... This committee is a national committee. Its members sit in the House of Commons, and I know our MP, Charlie, used to be the chair or co-chair of it. He's well aware of our first nations' needs. We sit down with him quite frequently.

We were not pleased when we suffered a 15% cutback. It seemed to me we were doing a really good job, and then we turned around and got cut for it. I think that's the wrong approach to take. When a first nation is willing to stand up and be counted and cooperate with DFO, you people should seriously take a look at why those cuts took place, and take a look at some of the deficits I mentioned here.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I want to ask just one more question. Having spent many years in government at various levels, when there are deficits, those deficits continue until we find the mechanism to get rid of them, whether we write them off or borrow money to service them, for whatever period of time that might be. Has your $350,000 deficit been covered by the federal government? Is it still on the books today, and have you borrowed money?

Mr. Don Ward: Deficits are deficits, and no matter what you do, they're on the books. When they're on the books, the only way to get rid of them is to find extra money to do it. Unfortunately, our first nation hasn't been able to do that. We just can't.

• 1050

Mr. Paul Steckle: So they're still on the books.

Mr. Don Ward: They're still on the books.

Mr. Paul Steckle: You've borrowed money and you're servicing that debt.

Mr. Don Ward: We have chartered accountants who come in and do our books. We don't necessarily do our own figures. The chartered accountants do them for us. I wouldn't be sitting here if I didn't believe in the system, but when a chartered accountant comes in and tells you, “Hey, listen, you guys had better smarten up in this particular area”, we have to.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes. Thank you very much, Don. I didn't mean to be personal—

Mr. Don Ward: Oh, that's okay.

Mr. Paul Steckle: —but I think it's good for us to understand that deficits are deficits, no matter where they're incurred.

Mr. Don Ward: Right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Gilmour, last question.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Don, you say in your comments that you want to cooperate with DFO. Would the band be willing to work under the same rules as non-native fishermen?

Mr. Don Ward: Our first nation, as I said in my earlier remarks, has always been able to sit down with DFO and come up with some kind of plan. If we hadn't come up with that plan, I don't think there would be much sports fishing for salmon in the Miramichi area.

We have always been sort of pioneers in terms of making sure the salmon stocks in our area of the river were well maintained and well looked after. We're proud to say that. We've been instrumental in making sure of that and trying to convince our people. It hasn't been easy, and we continue to have that problem. The problem may get worse or it may get better; it depends.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Do I take that as a yes?

Mr. Don Ward: Probably. I know I won't tell you a straightforward yes or no. I have to sort of explain.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ward, for your presentation and the information you provided.

Mr. Don Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Somebody wants to talk to you on that boat business and the AFS out there. Thanks, Don.

From the city of Neguac we have the mayor, Richard Breault. As an islander, I have a real problem pronouncing names; there's no question about it.

Go ahead, Richard.

Mr. Richard Breault (Mayor, Village of Neguac): It's a village, not a city, but you never know.

The Chair: Okay. I think you probably know the procedure, Richard. We'd like to keep the presentation reasonably short so we have some time for questions.

Mr. Richard Breault: I'll present in French, but certainly feel free afterward to ask any questions. If you prefer to ask them in English, I certainly have no problem with that.

I'll quickly read through it, and I'm sure afterwards you'll have a few questions to ask me.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis in the Miramichi Bay fishery has shaken our community to the core. The people here have gone through a period of tension unparalleled since 1758, when the Acadians were deported and the British troops tried to capture our ancestors as they fled.

Thanks to the protection of the Mi'kmak Nation, the Acadians of Neguac were spared death. Since then, there have always been good relations between the Acadian community and the Mi'kmak community. The Burnt Church Mi'kmak nation is our saviour, and we respect it.

But the assurance that a fair and equitable solution would be reached following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Marshall case, which recognizes Aboriginal fishing rights, was so long in coming that our community has been hurt. I am glad that the federal fisheries Minister, the honourable Herb Dhaliwal, has announced the appointment of Mr. James MacKenzie and his assistant Mr. Gilles Thériault as mediators. Finally, a step in the right direction. I hope this will help to reduce tensions in Bay of Miramichi.

• 1055

We want to say that the community of Neguac respects the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. But it is important to spell out that the Aboriginal right to fish must not undermine the ability of the Neguac fishing fleet to continue its full participation in the economy of our community. Our fishermen have been making their living from the sea for more than two centuries in the Bay of Miramichi, and they too have rights.

We want to stress to you the importance of developing management plans that will protect the fish stock for future generations. I appeal to you to continue working toward a solution that will be acceptable for all stakeholders and one that will put an end to this crisis in the fishery.

The fishermen of our community have for some time now been responsive to the need to support management and conservation measures that will ensure balanced fish stocks, especially the lobster stock, a vital species for our economy. The lobster fishery is undoubtedly one of the main engines of economic development in our region. Our fishermen are proud of their trade and they make sure that their wharves are well managed as well. In addition, they participate actively in our community's development.

Please note that the fishermen of Neguac have confirmed explicitly to me that they support the principle of including Aboriginal fishermen in the fishery, during the same seasons and subject to the same regulations. The Aboriginal right to fish is clear, but it must be exercised in the framework of recognized management methods that will allow regeneration of the stocks.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently clarified that the power to regulate even extends to other real and pressing areas of public interest. It noted the need for regional and economic fairness. In addition, the Court has recognized that the non-Aboriginal community has the right to continue participating in the fishery.

In turn, we recognize that the Mi'kmak nation is also entitled to be consulted.

Since the Sparrow decision, there seems to have been a lack of understanding by the federal government of the nature of local fish stocks. This has lead to tension among the communities of fishermen.

Following the Marshall decision, the hesitation by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada contributed to the escalation of the crisis among different communities in our region. Unfortunately it was all the citizenry who suffered the effects of the crisis. And yet, don't we live in Canada? The country where dialogue is favoured and social equity is recognized?

Must we blame everything on Mr. Dhaliwal for his approach, which he thought was the fairest? Must we blame everything on the officials of his department, for not knowing what to do? Must we blame everything on certain fishermen for active aggression? Must we blame everything on the Aboriginal peoples who want to exercise their right? I say no! These people are not the cause of the problem. The problem is to a great extent the fault of ignorance on the part of members of the Parliament of Canada of the problems facing the Atlantic fishery.

The proceedings in the House of Commons make it clear that Canadian affairs of state give priority most often to the problems of central Canada and western Canada. Atlantic Canada is often the forgotten region. You, as members of the committee, have an opportunity to rectify this neglect!

I recommended to the various stakeholders in the Bay of Miramichi that they undertake dialogue designed to ensure social peace. This dialogue must spell out clear joint management agreements for the fishery, which will make harmony possible among the communities. The Parliament of Canada must also give a clearer and more specific mandate to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

• 1100

In addition, serious action must be taken by the federal and provincial governments to reduce the high rate of unemployment in the Bay of Miramichi. This would open other economic options to people here.

Finally, it is through respect and trust that all stakeholders can together reach alternative solutions. The dialogue process must include participation by local people. It can no longer be done from Ottawa. The problem is an Atlantic problem and in our case it is a Bay of Miramichi problem. And the solution must be found here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak. I realize that it has not been an easy time recently for the elected representatives of our region. I want to recognize and pay tribute to the hard work that our member of Parliament, Mr. Charles Hubbard, has devoted to this issue. Thank you and good luck!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breault.

[English]

Mr. Bernier, you're first.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Mr. Breault.

I would like to start by congratulating you on the document you have just presented. I think it clearly shows how difficult crisis management is. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been. Three years ago, in the Gaspé region, we experienced a problem that was somewhat similar, in the Chaleurs Bay, when the Aboriginal groups asked to exercise their right to fish under one of their treaties.

I must also acknowledge that I have learned some history here today. It goes without saying that I knew about the great deportation; I am the Member for Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, where we have Acadian communities. But I did not know that here in Neguac, the Mi'kmak nation protected Acadians. It goes to show that we must always know where we have come from to know where we are going.

I have also noted in your document the firm desire of the fishing communities in Neguac to integrate Aboriginal fishers. How will this integration take place? How is the relationship with them? Have you had any discussions, either with the town council or the fishermen's associations and the Aboriginal bands, in order to prepare the groundwork?

I also noted the comment in your document that Ottawa is often too far removed from the problems you are experiencing here. I have noted that in many regions, people are starting to get together to talk. Has there been any dialogue here, or have any of the various groups gotten together?

Mr. Richard Breault: As far as I know, there has still not been any official dialogue.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: There has not been any.

Mr. Richard Breault: There must have been some discussions on the impact that the crisis had on community relations. The Chief and I did meet to ensure there was some level of peace. But we did not discuss the fishery directly, and I do not know if there were any meetings on the crisis in the fishery as such.

I must also point out that the municipality does not have a role to play as a stakeholder. That is not our role. We were not elected to get involved in that type of activity, nor do we have the financial resources to do so. Of course, if the parties were to invite us to participate, we could consider it, but I leave that decision in the hands of those involved.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Fine. Rest assured, as far as I am concerned; I will not try to trap you, and I will not suggest that you get involved in other areas of jurisdiction. You can count on me for that.

I would like to take advantage of your appearance here to ask you about Ottawa's far-removed position. About three years ago, when Mr. George Baker was our chairman, the committee recommended in its report on the East Coast that the government review fishery management and the way the TACs are allocated. That was recommendation 19. It was unanimous; it received the support of all five parties represented on the committee.

• 1105

Given the current situation, do you think that it would be a good time, once things have calmed down, to reopen the issue, to try to review fisheries management? For example, do you think there should be more decentralization and more responsibilities placed in the hands of regional authorities? Should we have to wait for a response from Ottawa when a problem arises in Neguac, or at home?

Mr. Richard Breault: I'm not sure that it is really necessary to decentralize everything, but it would certainly be good to disperse things a bit. That is where the problem lies. Decentralization does, to some extent, make it possible to give, share or grant power that is not necessarily what was desired, such as the power for all stakeholders to participate in distribution. Of course, distribution is important, but there should always be someone there to make the final decision, and that is the role of the federal government.

But if we are talking about decentralization, about moving decision-making from Ottawa to the Atlantic, when that is obviously required, it would be very important.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

[English]

I want to say that I echo your views. The fact is that the government has appointed a couple of individuals, Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault, not only to defuse the situation but in order to get information. It's a sort of fact-finding mission, but the fault I find in that process—and I'm going to ask you to agree or disagree, or maybe to make your own comment—is the fact that Mr. MacKenzie is speaking to the aboriginal groups and Mr. Thériault will be speaking to the non-aboriginal groups. I assume they'll then go to Ottawa, talk to each other, and come out with some recommendations to the minister. But we've heard time and time again people saying that this way of negotiation is flawed, that the way of finding information is flawed, and that it should be more like the process the standing committee is following, whereby we're bringing groups in together in order to hear their dialogue.

Would you not agree that Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault should be speaking to the groups together at the table instead of separately, and that they should then be coming up with some sort of arrangement or plan in that regard for the minister?

Mr. Richard Breault: That's a pretty hard question to answer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's why we ask it.

Mr. Richard Breault: I would say I have no problem with the procedures they're taking, as long as they can do it quickly. Going out and getting the information is number one. I don't think they've ever said they would not have the interveners or the people who are party to this problem meeting together. I haven't heard them say that. If they're approaching it one way, I would imagine they need to go out to clearly get the information and that all parties concerned feel comfortable in discussing with them first.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mentioned the fact that the federal government, the parliamentarians in Ottawa, sort of neglect or don't understand the situation in Atlantic Canada. I can't agree with you more, but unfortunately our fishermen on the west coast would say the same thing; our aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen in the prairie provinces, where the world's largest inland fishery goes on, would say the same thing; and our northerners would say the same thing about Ottawa as well. Parliamentarians have a Windsor, Ontario, to Quebec City mentality, and the extremities in Canada can go pound sand in terms of legislation, or at least in terms of respect.

But I do want to mention one thing, and I'll say this for Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. O'Brien, and for Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Bernier and myself: along with Mr. Easter, the chairman, we are here to hear exactly your points of view. We've done a whole mess of reports. We did an east coast report and a west coast report, both unanimous. That was the first time in the history of the House of Commons that five political parties have agreed to anything. Unfortunately, the government of the day just ignored those reports, like it could ignore our recommendations as well.

So I do want to comment on the fact that I hear what you're saying about the lack of attention or at least detail towards Atlantic Canada, and we'll definitely be taking it back as well.

My last question for you, sir, is on the cuts to DFO in your city of Neguac and to your region. We heard that at one time there were seventeen officers for one specific area. Can you just give us a quick, brief detail on what the cuts have meant in terms of what your perception is of the management of the fisheries in your area?

• 1110

Mr. Richard Breault: Any time you have cuts, you'll have a reduction in services. That's all there is to it. With the changes because of that in the methods of conservation, you'll have problems that will arise from it. It's very simple.

To respond to the first point, I would mention that there are other areas in the fisheries problem, but I don't think there are other areas...there are certain ones in Atlantic Canada that have the 25% unemployment rate. You can't sit there and say that's not a problem. Other areas in this nation have excellent unemployment rates. We don't. People felt that their backs were against the wall. You have to help us make sure we can reduce that unemployment rate. People in Atlantic Canada are willing to work, but we do need jobs to work at.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have Mr. Hubbard, and then a supplementary from Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I have a comment first. Mr. Stoffer says the government never listens, but I would have to disagree with that.

We are from different sides of the political spectrum, but in our reports that have been completed—and I would say this as a former chairman, Peter—if you read the replies, I know the government hasn't responded to everything, but it does certainly look at them and it does make some very favourable decisions in terms of recommendations that this committee has made in the past.

Mr. Breault, probably just for the sake of the committee and maybe for the record, the fishery is a very important part of the economy for the village of Neguac, for that area of my constituency. In terms of what you indicate about the unemployment and the problems with trying to obtain other forms of livelihood there, you might want to indicate how important to your community the number of people working at your fish plant is, and how important the fact that you do have a fisheries officer located in Neguac is.

Mr. Richard Breault: There is always a presence maintained. If there were cuts, there were cuts across the nation, but at least an office was maintained. Certainly we'd like to see more services, but maybe an improved economy will help that out in the future.

As for the number of fishermen involved, for the region there are some 100 persons involved in fishing just for lobster. Approximately 400 people work as fish plant workers. I think it's vitally important, because it's approximately 40% of our economy. The other 40% is somewhat related to the forestry economy, so these are all seasonal economies. We're trying to slowly break free a bit from those seasonal economies; however, nobody can just walk away from them. Fishing is the mainstay, the bread and butter right now, but we're looking at different types of opportunities, like tourism or call centre operations. We have a perfectly bilingual community, and I think we would be an excellent area to have a call centre operation.

The Chair: That's a pretty good advertisement.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I think that when someone has the ear of all five parties of the House, they must take advantage of it.

I too had noted what Mr. Stoffer pointed out in his question. A 25% unemployment rate was mentioned, and it is very comparable to the rate in the Gaspé peninsula. I would like to ask him if he has any ideas for us; he has given us some. I wanted to know if there were a shortage of ideas or projects in the region. He said earlier on that there is one fisheries officer; does his municipality have an agency or any development officers?

Finally, I would like to know what kind of an impact the changes to employment insurance have had on a coastal fishery community which resembles the ones in my riding. Have many people here been affected by these changes?

I would also like to know if many people here have been affected by the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy.

Mr. Richard Breault: In response to your last question, I must say that I am not aware of TAGS having had a major impact in our region, because we fish mainly lobster here.

• 1115

With respect to your question on initiatives, I must point out that both the federal and provincial governments are very open. However, bear in mind that natural resource-based economies cannot be changed overnight. The situation is certainly not very attractive for other industries. The low level of education is a problem.

All of these factors are causing some difficulty and reducing our ability to stimulate economic development. Our communities are also very small. So it is difficult for a municipality to afford to have economic development officers. We have services to provide, like road maintenance and legal services. Those are our priorities.

More and more is being done at the municipal level. The federal government has suggested several development projects. Human Resources Development Canada and other departments have participated in developing them. Some of the strategies should perhaps be reviewed. ACOA should perhaps focus its efforts on development in rural coastal regions like ours.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I have a couple of questions.

I'm not pessimistic, as Mr. Stoffer is, in terms of the response we'll get from the Government of Canada on this report. But I will say, and I've said this to the minister already, that if this committee's recommendations in the east coast and west coast report that we previously documented and tabled in the Parliament of Canada had been listened to in terms of the bureaucratic management of DFO and 200 Kent Street and getting more direction and response at the local level, Minister Dhaliwal would not have been left in the uncertain position in which he was left, which you outline in your brief. I say that in all honesty.

I guess it's something like having to tell them what you're going to tell them. You have to tell them, and then tell them what you told them. We're at the point now with DFO of telling them what we told them two previous times. We hear you loud and clear.

My question really relates to the DFO office in your village. I assume you may have had some discussions with people at that level—I'm still going to go with Richard. What do you feel is the direction or the action that DFO people are getting at the local level? Do they feel they're getting enough support at that level in terms of this particular issue, the Marshall case?

Mr. Richard Breault: I would prefer not to comment on it, because I'm in sort of a difficult situation. I have two brothers who are in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so I'll just maintain that. I don't have an answer for you concerning that.

The Chair: You wouldn't be suggesting that if you laid it on the table as people believe it exists, there would be repercussions for your brothers who work for DFO?

Mr. Richard Breault: No, that's not what I meant. I haven't really spoken with any officials from DFO concerning this. But there has really never been an openness from regional levels, if you can call it that, towards discussing with municipalities. We're not the only municipality that hasn't been spoken to. But there isn't that degree of operation yet, and maybe there should be.

But as for whether we expected that sort of conversation, I should point out that I'm not so sure I'm really looking for that. We have so many other things to do in our municipality that it's important.... We don't always have the degree of expertise to be able to discuss, and that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to point out that it is the federal government's role to settle the situation.

• 1120

The Chair: Okay, we hear you. The federal government needs to provide the leadership and accept the responsibility, I guess is what you're saying.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breault.

Next we have the Maritime Fishermen's Union, Local 1. Reg Comeau is heading the delegation, and he has a number of people with him.

Reg, if you could, when you get settled, introduce the people with you, it would be helpful. And Reg, could you keep it fairly brief in the opening presentation so that we have some time for discussion? We are running on a pretty tight schedule.

The floor is yours.

Mr. Reginald Comeau (Maritime Fishermen's Union, Local 1): Mr. President, we're going to read a small brief in French so that our camarade, Yvan Bernier, can relax his ear for a while. Also, Zoel, a fisherman from Neguac, is going to read a small brief that he prepared himself last night. Also with me is Louis Schofield from Baie-Sainte-Anne. With these people from Neguac and Baie-Sainte-Anne, I hope I will not have to speak too much.

[Translation]

I would like to start by telling you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, that Charlie and I are very happy to be with you here this morning. In the few hours you will be spending with us today, you will undoubtedly be in a position to take note of the negative impact the Marshall decision has had not only on fishers, but on the entire community.

I would like to point out that here in eastern New Brunswick, we represent more than 4,000 inshore fishers, in other words, more than 1,350 inshore skippers-owners as well as their crew members.

We represent peaceful people, who have always sought to live in harmony, agreement and as good neighbours in our region. I must also point out that about 2,000 Aboriginals live in the area around Big Cove and Indian Island, in the Richibucto region. Here in Burnt Church or in the Miramichi, there are about 1,200 Aboriginals. They live together with the fishers in the same area.

In the Richibucto region, there are about 450 fishers, whereas there up to 600 in the past. They are all inshore fishers.

We have been here for over 200 years and we have been fishing all along. As the Supreme Court pointed out on November 17, we also have historic rights. It is very difficult for us to accept that we are considered violent people, when we know full well that the violence is coming mainly from the federal government in Ottawa.

The unfortunate incidents that occurred after the Marshall decision should not reoccur, in our opinion. After having met several times, we concluded that our organization had to go to work to reestablish peace and harmony in this region.

Without repeating what we told you a few weeks ago from Halifax via video-conferencing, or what was said in Moncton yesterday, we would like to tell you about what happened in Richibucto, but mainly here.

Mr. Zoel Breau will give you his personal account of the situation as he experienced it, and he will also tell you about his fishing practices over the years.

• 1125

Louis Schofield, from Baie-Sainte-Anne, will do the same. Although he speaks English, it seems that he is one of our best Acadians.

As I was saying earlier, Acadian fishers and anglophones have been living together in this region for 200 years. Thanks to the inshore fishery, we have built up communities like Baie-Sainte-Anne, Escuminac, Neguac and Richibucto. Major fishing communities were built up on both sides of the Chaleurs Bay, in the Gaspé area and New Brunswick. Reserves, although they are perhaps a bit smaller, were also built. These communities and reserves run the risk of being destabilized if we cannot reach an understanding and work together.

Bear in mind that these communities have prospered to a large extent thanks to the inshore fishery, namely lobster, and to a lesser extent, herring, mackerel and smelt. We used to fish salmon and cod and hope to be able to resume those activities once the stocks have been replenished.

We have always fished and lived in harmony with the resource. Over the past few years we have adopted economic models. We have worked in co-operation with DFO to manage the resource in a more intelligent way. Our resource has never collapsed, as was the case in other fisheries, whether they be midshore or offshore fisheries. The inshore fisheries in the southern part of the gulf have never experienced a collapse, and that is primarily because we have adopted innovative management policies. Our multi-species licence policy enables fishers to diversify, and not concentrate their efforts on a single species. There is no room for specialization here, and it should never have been expected in the gulf. It should never have existed. We must convince other gulf fishers that a multi-species approach is the only fishery for the future.

We must also ensure that the Aboriginal nations that want to fish understand that. This multi-species licence policy must be coupled with the fisher-owner policy that was mentioned by Mr. Belliveau and other witnesses yesterday. We believe that it is the only way to ensure that there is a viable fishery for the coastal communities. Aboriginals and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must understand and agree to adopt these policies if we want to continue developing a harmonious fishery that will enable Aboriginal communities to develop economically as other communities have.

To achieve that, some conditions must be put in place, and I have drawn up a list. When we meet with fishers, they always repeat their common theme: that there should only be one lobster season in a given fishing zone or district.

Secondly, they tell us that all participants must follow the same rules and regulations. That is the only way to achieve harmony in the coastal fishery.

They also point out the fact that they cannot tolerate additional constraints. They agree that Aboriginals must have access to the fishery, but they want the impact at the local level to be minimized. To achieve this, inshore licences must be bought back in areas where Aboriginals want to enter the fishery.

The other absolutely essential condition for a harmonious fishery is the fact that the fisher-owner does not foresee everyone being able to adopt this mechanism to go into the fishery. Aboriginals will also have to become fishers-owners, even if the licences go to reserves.

• 1130

Another issue that we want to debate with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and to which we want to draw the attention of members of the House of Commons, is the fact that we must have access to all species that are in our area. As some witnesses have already told you, including the ones you heard from yesterday in Moncton, we currently do not have access to all species, and that might well compromise the future of the coastal fishery and destroy the harmony that already exists in the communities that are adjacent to reserves. We feel that coastal fishers and Aboriginals must have access to all species in their areas.

Another point that comes up constantly at our meetings is the fact that if fishers must be displaced, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government will have to compensate them. That's the bottom line. There must be compensation for fishers who retire as well as for Aboriginals so that they can integrate the fishery. Fishers must also be compensated for losses they will incur next spring because of the anarchy that reigned in the fishery this fall.

Last, but not least, fishers state that the Aboriginals must be trained—if possible, by fishers and fishing communities—so that they can compete with us on the water. We do not want to create a ghetto of Aboriginal fishermen; we want them to be able to compete with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Breau.

[Translation]

Mr. Zoel Breau (Member, Association des pêcheurs des Maritimes, local 1): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hubbard and members of the standing House of Commons committee, I must give you some background on my early days as a fisherman to establish some reference points. Before becoming a fisherman, I worked in a completely different field, but I did nevertheless deal with fishers, and that gave me an idea of the challenges they face.

When I started working as a deck hand in the early 1980s, I had never seen a licence control system, but during the first year, I participated in escape hatch experiments on a voluntary basis. The objective was to minimize price manipulation in lobster in order to prevent losses during discarding. There were rectangular and round panels. It took about 15 years to design a standard escape hatch for the gulf. The rectangular panel is without a doubt the most effective and it has become a conservation method that has enabled us to improve the state of the resource. At the same time, DFO's monitoring program sought to eliminate poaching, during the season and outside the season, and the results were very positive in most regions.

As a fishermen's representative and office staff member of the Maritimes Fishermen's Union, I went through several crises, starting with the one in 1990, when the price of lobster dropped significantly for reasons beyond our control. We took part in an auction, but thanks to a grandiose advertising campaign by our governments, we broadened our markets and came out of the crisis on top.

In the early 1990s, I also participated as an intervener, with my counterparts from the Bay of Fundy and southwest Nova Scotia, in a battle against the Americans over minimum carapace size. There was a ban on live lobster from the United States that was under 3 1/4 inches.

As a resident of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, where various management methods are in place, I received a lot of information. In order to improve my knowledge, in 1993 I attended an international conference on lobster in Portland, Maine. Various regions of the United States, and most of the lobster fishing zones in Canada, Australia, Ireland and England were represented. These participants gave me an overview of the different management and conservation methods used in the lobster fishery.

The tools I acquired gave me confidence and encouraged me to ask the fishermen to support new management and conservation measures likely to increase the resource.

• 1135

At the same time, scientists were suggesting that we adopt management methods to ensure a better balance of stocks so we do not find ourselves facing the same sort of crisis in the lobster fishery as had occurred in the cod fishery. As you know, fishery equipment and technology have greatly improved over the past 20 years.

It was not an easy job to gain the confidence of the majority of fishermen in order to bring about the necessary changes for improving the resource. In order to do so, we had to throw back into the water a percentage of our usual landings, sometimes as high as 10%. It was smooth sailing as, from year to year, we reaped the benefits of our efforts. The stability of our fishery seemed within our grasp.

Then the Sparrow decision came upon us: the Aboriginals were henceforth allowed to fish lobster for food and ceremonial purposes. Confident in the management measures implemented to ensure conservation of the resource, Stephen Augustine from the Big Cove reserve and I worked together in disseminating information on the Sparrow ruling. We visited all the Native and non-Native villages. The message from the commercial fishermen was that we should integrate the native fishers in the commercial fishery and at the same time make sure there was a balance in the resources. We supported the idea of making room for the Aboriginals provided that they took part in the commercial fishery in compliance with the same management methods, including the rules relating to season.

We were hit below the belt when DFO gave the Burnt Church reserve a quota of 300,000 pounds that it could fish outside the usual season. This compromised the management plans and raised the possibility of a collapse in stocks. Moreover, this ability to fish outside the season gave the Aboriginals unrealistic ideas about the size of the fish stock. Being the only ones to fish this stock in the autumn, they were able to see how large it was because moulting had just taken place.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that by allowing a fall fishery, DFO induced certain Aboriginal fishermen to sell their licences. That is merely a personal impression that I'm not able to substantiate. The fact remains that when you are the only ones to fish in the autumn, you are inclined to think that you will be able to enjoy great economic benefits from this activity by increasing your landings and earnings. This off-season fishery had an immediate negative impact on the landings of local fishermen. They began fishing in other territories and this gave rise to certain conflicts among fishermen. At the same time, this off-season fishery made our local fishermen far more hesitant about accepting new management measures such as minimum shell size.

Following the November 17 Supreme Court clarification, however, there was a glimmer of hope in view of the Court's clear statement to DFO that it still had the power to regulate the fishery in Canada for all participants.

The outcome I would encourage is for Aboriginals to fish and enjoy economic benefits in the same way as we the commercial fishermen do in order to develop their community economy and live in harmony with the neighbouring communities.

We would request the Aboriginals to sit down with our representatives to discuss and study this complex issue, particularly the lobster fishery, to ensure that we are never again faced with the situation of overfishing either in the short or long term. Such stability will also ensure a consistent supply to our plants in the interest of the plant workers.

Let me say in conclusion that I have described to you some of the events that took place over the past two decades in the lobster fishery that allowed me to gain the confidence of the fishermen. The same scenario also applies in the integration of Aboriginal fishermen to this fishery; this is something that requires confidence and mutual respect.

• 1140

We are ready to engage in a decision-making process with the Aboriginal leaders provided that they are open to the idea of a single management. We seriously believe that this approach is the only one that can result in a balanced fishery without conflict and with promise for the future. This urgent issue must become the number one priority of the Department of Fisheries.

Wounds must be healed. People must continue to live together as neighbours without feeling judged. At the present time, people in the communities next to the reserves as well as those in the reserves are very stressed and have trouble restoring communication. Ottawa must continue to take an overall approach to this problem without forgetting its local impact. It is more important than ever for Ottawa to play its role as a mediator in order to restore a favourable social climate. Fishermen's helpers will also require compensation since several of them will be displaced.

I have made some notes and would like to convey them to you.

[English]

The Chair: Zoel, can you be fairly fast?

Mr. Zoel Breau: Yes, they're very short.

The Chair: Good.

[Translation]

Mr. Zoel Breau: I could also have emphasized to you the stress that looking after this Native fishery issue occasioned for me as fishermen's representative. These fishermen are facing an uncertain future and thus are experiencing a great deal of frustration. There is doubt about the ability of the MFU executive to manage this situation which is beyond its control as well as the capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I find it deplorable to see the lack of action and directives on the part of DFO that resulted in this confrontation on the eve of the year 2000. As a fishermen's representative, I have always taken a positive look at the future in spite of all our disappointments and all our difficulties. Like the fishermen, I can keep my head high because we are in no way responsible for the unfortunate unfolding of this event. I would like to congratulate the fishermen on their understanding and their patience faced with a situation that goes back to the beginning of the 1990s. Normally, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should have had enough time to reach an understanding on an integrated fishery involving both groups.

It is increasingly maintained that the number of fishermen is too high and that the stocks are being fished to the maximum, therefore it is normal for the fishermen to feel under threat when fishing is taking place off-season.

I'd like to thank you for giving me your time. I hope that the recommendations of your task force will help us put this situation right and that the wise men who will be settling this issue will bring this millennium to a close on a positive note so that we can start the year 2000 in peace and fraternity. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Schofield, did you have something to add?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Louis Schofield (Secretary-Treasurer, Maritime Fishermen's Union, Local 1): What he means by that is when I speak English, I speak with a French accent, and when I speak French, I speak with an English accent.

The Chair: Go ahead, Louis.

Mr. Louis Schofield: Well, there's not much I can say that's new. I can only say I was at the meeting yesterday in Moncton, and I did participate with Mike Belliveau and all the Maritime Fishermen's Union executive in producing the document that was read by Mike Belliveau yesterday.

With all the people who did intervene today on all the different aspects, I cannot say anything that's really new, unless I can talk a little bit about the historical situation, why the conflict arose, and why Baie-Sainte-Anne was so much a part of it.

• 1145

First of all, Baie-Sainte-Anne is a unique village in all of eastern New Brunswick in the sense that it contains a mix of different backgrounds. The majority are French, but there are also some people of English, Irish, Scottish, Mi'kmaq, and Portuguese ancestry.

It's a very competitive place. People are proud to be fishermen. Probably one of the main reasons why the conflict was so acute was because before there was the conflict on the Miramichi with the natives, there was a big conflict over fishing in the non-season in the 1980s, 1970s, and 1960s. Over those years there had been a constant struggle. There was a time when the mentality of the people of Baie-Sainte-Anne was in favour of going fishing illegally in the off-season. There was an outlaw mentality.

When the Maritime Fishermen's Union was formed, people started expressing their concern that the poaching activity was becoming so intense that when people were fishing in season, their resource was dwindling every year. With the help of the Maritime Fishermen's Union and at that time funds from the federal government, a system was put in place whereby a lot of fishermen were taken to court for fishing illegally in the off-season.

It took years, but the mentality of the fishermen changed. People started seeing the benefit of having a regulated fishery and especially a closed season. Gradually, it was almost eliminated. Right after we stopped fishing off-season, the catch started increasing very much—two, three, four times—things people had never seen before.

When the food fishery started back in the 1990s, gradually we started seeing some signs that the resources were dwindling again, probably not as much as they were in the 1970s because of all the other measures that were put in place, and it was a source of much distress to the fishermen.

Finally, when the Sparrow decision came and people saw all the traps going into the water right in front of their eyes, a lot of them lost their dignity and their faith in Canada. They decided they had to protect what they wanted to do and all the gains they had experienced and to take things into their own hands. I don't think you can really blame them for that.

• 1150

If you look at the historical situation and the Seven Years War and the deportation of the Acadians and everything that made us what we are today, I think one of the main things is that in 1755 the Acadians were deported all around the world. Some of them stayed here, and with the help of the Mi'kmaq we managed to survive. When the fishing companies, especially from Jersey Island, needed experienced fishermen, a lot of them settled around the coast of New Brunswick.

The same person who signed the deportation of the Acadians, Lawrence, also signed a treaty with the Mi'kmaq. But I don't think it was a fair treaty in a way, because he signed it in principle but at the same time he excluded the Mi'kmaq from participating in the fishery with the establishment of all of the communities around the coast. What I'm getting at is if Canada and the British Empire acted wrongly with those people, they should compensate for it, if they were excluded from the fishery.

The worst thing that can happen is that they are put in a situation where they have to fight, and at the same time the resources will dwindle and there won't be anything for anybody.

I think the challenge for Canadian society is to evaluate what damage was done to those communities, and if they want to integrate it smoothly but not to the pace the natives would like to have, then they should be compensated. But it should be society that pays for it and not the fishing community.

The Chair: Thank you.

Turning to questions, Mr. Bernier first, then Mr. Stoffer.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We don't have a lot of time for questions, Mr. Bernier, so be brief.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have two questions. My first is a very short one. Perhaps Mr. Comeau can give me a quick answer.

The fourth principle is that of the fisherman-owner. Am I to assume that the licence holder must himself be the vessel operator to avoid having corporate entities as licence holder?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: That is the only way of completely integrating the Natives into the inshore fishery because in such a way they will have the feeling of belonging not only to the fishery but to the community as well. This approach would result in the development of a certain leadership and encourage the individual to protect the resource.

Both the resource and the individual would end up on the winning side and the community as well. The Aboriginals will have to adopt this principle if they want to compete with us because they will have to do so. We are not ready to give up this principle that has shown its worth up until now.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I agree that the principle has shown its worth. It may be my interpretation but I think we should encourage each other to show mutual prudence. The Aboriginals are managing their business in order to ensure a decent living for the good of their community. It is also a protection for you since it would not be possible to have enough licences for all the Aboriginals living there.

• 1155

We may perhaps have to go along with a Native fisherman boat-owner supporting, let's say, 10 families. That was the idea I was trying to get across.

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Yes, I understand, but I am not sure that's what the Natives want. The Natives are no more courageous than we are. They are not any lazier but they are no more courageous. If they are to go out to the sea, they must have some personal motivation.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking me whether they will have to share this livelihood with the other Natives. That is something that the Natives will have to determine by themselves. Nonetheless, the fishermen will have to be trained, perhaps by our fishermen who will be leaving. For a certain period some of our fishermen might be going out to sea to work with these new Native fishermen. I don't think that this can be done without any effort. They will have to come around to adopting this principle, as I already said, and they can engage in a dialogue with the rest of the Native community so this principle is accepted.

Natives, whether they be in Burnt Church or Big Cove in Nova Scotia should not have to make due with the inshore fishery. Some of them could become fish dealers. You cannot tell the Natives to start fishing without any advanced preparation and imagine that they will be successful.

I don't want to take a colonialist attitude but I think they're going to have to espouse some of our practices if they want to be successful.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

I wish to thank Mr. Schofield for his presentation and for giving us a quick, brief history on the Mi'kmaq and the Acadians and how they lived together and worked together, and how the coastal communities even back then were having great difficulty. The first thought that came to my mind was that maybe this Lawrence fellow was a Liberal, but I'm not going to say that out of respect to my colleagues over on the other side.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: You have a large Liberal right here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Comeau, I wish to be brief and to move on in order to allow the other members to ask questions as well.

Yesterday a presenter in Moncton indicated to us in a slight way, not overtly, that the Maritime Fishermen's Union was in some way responsible or condoned the actions of what happened at Burnt Church and those areas: what we all saw on TV with the cutting of the traps and everything. I'd like to give you the opportunity to speak publicly to say that in no way, shape, or form did the executive or did the management of the Maritime Fishermen's Union accept, condone, control, authorize, or even partake in that type of incident that we saw very clearly on television.

Mr. Reginald Comeau: I'm just going to say I was as surprised as you were to see that the fishermen went during the night and the morning of October 3 to do the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' job, but I would like to comment.... One thing I can assure you—the media can say whatever they want—is that the MFU was not an instigator in the cutting of traps. The cutting of traps was done on October 3, but we have to realize that the fishermen themselves did that because they were forced to.

But Louis deals with the fishermen more than me.

Mr. Louis Schofield: I'm a fisherman myself, from Baie-Sainte-Anne. I'm also a member of the Maritime Fishermen's Union. At that time I was fishing tuna in Nova Scotia, but I was in very close contact with the MFU leadership and also with some fishermen. I knew things were brewing up and things were going to happen, but I can say it was spontaneous and it was done by local fishermen. As far as the leadership of the MFU is concerned, we did everything we could.

• 1200

On September 19—I think that's when it was—we did send a brief to the Prime Minister telling him of the explosive situation that was happening. Right after the situation, we were the ones who organized the demonstration in Moncton to make sure that Dhaliwal came over here to talk about the crisis, and we did ask for a moratorium on the basis of social peace, because we did not want the violence to escalate into bloodshed.

The Chair: Are there any questions here? Charlie.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Schofield went back a long way in history in terms of his presentation, Mr. Chairman, but I think the record would indicate that the lobster fishery in the last fifty years has developed into a very lucrative fishery. With that, I think we have to lay certain blame on the Government of Canada in terms of how it dealt with native people in terms of that fishery.

I know that probably in the 1960s, a lobster licence might have been worth about 25 cents or whatever to purchase. I think the native communities at that time could have purchased licences just as easily as some of our other fishermen purchased licences. For some reason, Mr. Chairman, they did not opt to purchase those first licences in great numbers.

Is that the history of it, Reg? Some people did buy—

Mr. Reginald Comeau: I'm not going to answer for the natives, but I know for a fact that there were something like 38 commercial native fishermen in Burnt Church in the sixties.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, and they have dropped out of the resource through the regulations that the federal government placed on the purchase of licences. We have seen over the years a decline in the number of native fishermen from Burnt Church and other communities. Maybe they had reason not to want to pay that 25 cents or whatever price it did come to, but I think that was probably part of this whole problem.

The Chair: I just have a couple of points, if I could.

In your six or seven points, Reg, you emphasize in point four the fisher-owner principle. On that point, I believe the minister has said—and I think I'm right on this—it would be a communal licence for a communal fishery. The Supreme Court's November 17 clarification says:

The Governor in Council has the power to amend the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations to accommodate a limited commercial fishery as described in the September 17, 1999 majority judgment...

What you're proposing, what the minister is saying, and to a great extent what the culture of the Mi'kmaq community or the native community is are at divergence. How do we rectify that? You're saying “fisher-owner principle”. As I understand the Mi'kmaq culture, the native culture, they'd prefer it to be communal licence. In fact one of the bands was before us this morning. The Red Bank First Nation operated as a band fishery. How do we rectify those two?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Well, since the advent of the food fisheries in the Sparrow ruling, we've seen that the natives who did indeed fish with their own boats and fish with us were having a certain success. The ones who were not motivated because the rules were different for them or who didn't have the same interest were less successful.

Through discussions with the natives, we have come to the conclusion that they indeed do wish to operate their own vessels. They have to be equipped, so some money will have to be put in that fishery for them, but that's what they really want. In a sense, they want to be the same as us on the water. Maybe they will share the revenue differently once they dock, or when they land their fish.

• 1205

The minister or some other leader can say whatever they want, but the reality of life is totally different, Mr. Easter, and we're talking about that. As I say, we did have a lot of conversations with individual native fishermen, and there's no way out. So the Department of Fisheries will have to convince the natives that it's the only way.

The Chair: You're not suggesting that this fisher-owner principle involve an individual licence—or are you?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: It's not an individual licence, but still it should be a community thing. But we have not said there will be 20 boats chasing 200 traps. That will not be possible.

I know they could do it in any way they wish, but still it has to be done in a way so that it is also economically viable for the boat that is operating on the water.

The Chair: I think that clarifies it.

I have one other question. It hasn't been mentioned a lot in the hearings, but I think it was mentioned yesterday. I'm not sure if it was you, Reg, or Zoel who mentioned the business of deckhands. It's quite simple, as we've seen under the aboriginal fishing strategy, to buy out a boat and a licence and to compensate the captain for that. I think we recognized that in many instances there are two or three livelihoods tied to that licence and that boat. How do you see the Government of Canada dealing with that aspect, which goes beyond the buyout of the licence and the boat? There are other livelihoods involved. What do you suggest in terms of the so-called package to deal with that equation?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Personally, and I'm not speaking for the union or for Zoel or Louis, I think those deckhands who were hoping to buy out another fisherman should be asked by the natives and by the government to help the natives understand the fishery, and there should be trainers for the natives who will be on the water. This is a long-term process. We're talking five to ten years. They should be well compensated for that. I think that's the way we're going to reunite with the natives. We have to use our imagination. But something can be done, including with DFO, because they are smart people. Some of them have been there for the last five or six years, maybe more, and they know the fishery. Why not use them? That's my personal opinion. We haven't really discussed that.

The Chair: Okay. If you have any further information on that in the future, I'd like to hear it.

Be very brief, Yvan, because we have one more witness before dinner, and we'll spend 15 minutes with her.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'll ask my question. It may require a good deal of thought. Perhaps it could be taken under advisement. I don't often have an opportunity to meet people from the MFU.

My question concerns the fifth principle. I agree with the advisability of multi-species licences and a greater accessibility of all species. I think that this an aim we should reach for.

However, as Mr. Comeau noted, the fisheries are specialized and that is one of the problems. Yesterday I was speaking to one of the representatives of the specialized cod fishermen. They each have their own way of looking at things.

So my trick question is the following. Would you be willing to take a look at, I'm not talking about accepting immediately but rather examining, some of the methods used by these specialized fisheries in order for you to join in the fishery? I'm thinking of a particular example. There are inshore fishermen in Cape Breton who bought an ITQ, an individual quota, of the cod fishery but who manage it as they choose. The fishermen have taken a part of this system and have adapted it to their method.

You won't be able to give me a definitive answer today. I'm trying to see how these two management methods can be adjusted so that you are able to reach your objective and the others do not feel that they are being insulted.

• 1210

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Of course we have to strike a balance somewhere. We have to learn to share with the Natives and the other fishermen have to learn to share with us. I don't know whether everything is on the table but we are open to discussions.

As Wayne knows, American farmers are extremely specialized but no one says that the total debt of American farmers is much higher than the Canadian debt. We don't want to end up that way in fisheries.

The other day I was reading in the Telegraph that according to the government of New Brunswick, fishermen were very much in debt but they forgot to mention that it was the specialized fishermen.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you.

Mr. Louis Schofield: The question dealt with the multi-species fishery. In 1977, when the 200-mile zone was established, the government attempted to create a fleet to catch fish and compete at the international level to demonstrate that Canada was capable of fishing so that other countries would not come and take our resources.

At the time, this led to the creation of a sort of artificial fleet. It was a bit like a gold rush because there were government subsidies. All this resulted in an artificial situation. There are problems to be solved. Don't forget that these fish would usually come by the coast and the fishermen would catch them. They were not compensated. We ended up losing and we had to adapt to other species. We survived but it is hard for us to support this artificial effort.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

I think yesterday's performance maybe opened up another occupation for Mike Belliveau. He could go into being a movie star based on what I saw last night.

As the next witness, we have Millie Augustine, who we've agreed to give 15 minutes—and it will be a 15-minute limit, because we do have to break for lunch.

Millie, welcome. You're with the Big Cove and I believe a Mi'kmaq lawyer. Am I correct?

Ms. Millie Augustine (Individual Presentation): Yes, I am.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Millie Augustine: First of all, thank you very much for hearing me.

There was a comment made earlier about a person getting right to the point. Well, I've always been known to be very blunt, and it's not going to be any different today.

To start off with, I had no intention of getting up to speak until I walked in this morning, and I have nothing.... I just put some notes down while I was sitting there.

What I found amazing about this standing committee is that you have no aboriginal people sitting around this table to ask the same questions you are asking. You have a mayor sitting here, and I think that's because he's representing the Miramichi. I think you should have had an aboriginal person sitting here also to be able to ask questions.

As well, I do not see any women around here. I'm really amazed. I find it quite insulting, because this affects our lives as well. The decisions you make are going to affect our everyday lives, that's for sure. But you do not have any aboriginal people sitting here asking questions to natives and non-natives.

I am limited to 15 minutes. I was never asked to come here as a witness and I have been very vocal on a lot of these issues. I don't know how you selected the people, but with me being blunt today you probably will try to cut me off in about 10 minutes instead. I'm here to tell you how this Marshall case has affected my people.

• 1215

Before I get on to that, the negotiators that were picked by the minister and non-natives as well, it's the same domineering effect that's happened over the years: you know what's good for us; we have no say in our lives. It has to stop.

When the Marshall case came out, yes, we were really happy about it, because you know what it meant to us? It meant we had the right to work for the first time; it meant employment, for the first time being part of the employment sector, something we've been excluded from for years. I hear comments made saying we're a burden to taxpayers. We know that, and we're not proud of it. We've been trying to find employment out there, and we've been completely excluded.

I heard Thériault last year make the comment that in the northern part of New Brunswick there's a 26% unemployment rate, the highest in New Brunswick and just unacceptable. It's obvious he himself did not recognize the aboriginal community as being part of this province. And it's obvious the government recognizes that 85% unemployment rate right across Canada—and this is something you've heard before—is acceptable, because I've never seen the government make any major attempt in creating employment in native communities.

That's what this case means to us, to make a living. Who likes to be on welfare? We've been forced for many generations to be on welfare, on government handouts. Enough is enough. To us this was a blessing. We knew that treaty existed, and we know there are many more treaties that will come up. Now that the government has lost its case, it says let's negotiate. We tried to negotiate with you for years, and you pushed us aside.

We had no choice but to use this treaty, and we will use many more treaties to come if needed. I do not believe the court is the answer, but we have no choice. Marshall was charged because he was fishing for eels to try to make a living. He's in the same position as Burnt Church, Big Cove, and so on—85% unemployment!

How can you sit there and turn around and say sit here and listen to this about communities—it's going to affect our livelihood. We have no livelihood. We have welfare; you call it royalty—it's just welfare, it's government handouts. Well, enough is enough.

Look at the situation I heard on the news last night, young people in Nova Scotia trying to commit suicide. Well, when you take any community, whether it's native or non-native, that lives in poverty like that, they will turn to alcohol and drugs. They will try to commit suicide.

Now, when I'm sitting here listening, you've got a mayor representing here and we've got the chief in there. Did you invite any native fishermen here to hear this side as well? They'd be vouching that they've uncovered many major problems. They say DFO is not doing its job. It is to us. I went out there last year, two different days in one week. The first day, that boat was stopped three times. The next day it was twice.

If this is a situation where one guy—a non-native—is stopped only once and for the native people it's on a daily basis, I call that harassment. DFO is indeed doing their job. But I have a feeling they're being hired just to go after the aboriginal fishermen.

I do have a problem with DFO. They're out there in the water, but remember something: the vast majority of them are from the local area and they are related to the native fishermen. I feel there is a major conflict of interest there. And how many aboriginal DFO wardens are out there? You won't find any, because they think no, no, we're aboriginal people, we don't have the same right to go to DFO school, the schools that you have. All they offer us is guardians and small little training and that's it, but we'll never reach that level to become DFO officers like your men do.

Now, I was sitting here and I find they talk about the food fishery, they talk about other types of fishery, they say lobster is their main source of income. Hey, we've never even had that opportunity. We never had any kind of lobster income or any other type of fishers' income; we were excluded from it.

• 1220

I notice the government jumped onto this pay equity. It took them 14 years for the pay equity. It's taken over 240 years to be able to come to this Marshall case that's saying we have a right to work.

The minister has a lot of pressure put on him; he has to resolve this problem. And I think that's very wrong. What you have to do is look at the whole employment situation. How would you feel if this Miramichi had an 85% unemployment? Be assured they would all be down here. Everybody from Ottawa would come down and say it's unacceptable, it's a crisis. Then why is it not deemed a crisis in the aboriginal communities?

All they want is a share of the resources. When you have 85% unemployment and all of a sudden the Marshall case comes up, wouldn't you want to go out there and fish as well, since there are no other jobs? We can't get jobs because of racism. I sent out 149 résumés, and I got one job offer. I went to university, majored in business, and I went to law school. I had one job offer, and that was pouring coffee at Tim Hortons.

You take a situation such as at Miramichi and Neguac. You go down there. Even though millions of dollars are spent there yearly by the native community, how many aboriginal people are working there? There are none. But then you come down to Burnt Church, how many non-natives are working there? There are quite a few, because we were brought up to respect all nationalities. We base it on qualifications.

I'm from Big Cove, but I've seen even in Burnt Church we have people there who have social work degrees, they have teachers' degrees, they have law degrees, and they're on welfare. I myself was recently on welfare as well because I couldn't get a job. I tried to get a government job. There was one guy who applied for a job in corrections and he went to see about why he wasn't called. The guy had a stack of applications in his pile, he opened it up and the first one in great big letters said “INDIAN”. We're automatically disqualified from any type of job because of the colour of our skin.

I blame the government, because what happens is the government has that racist attitude and of course the rest of society is going to have the same attitude. You have to get over that and realize we're part of this country too. Yes, Chrétien's great for going to Africa and criticizing the way the blacks are used up there. But he got dinged for it, because you know what happened there, he was told: we just went to Canada and studied the say you use the aboriginal people and we applied the same procedure as you did in Canada.

We're a dying nation. My people are killing themselves with their own hands. There's public safety, big frigging deal, but there's public safety in apartheid, so the Indians had better stop fishing. Yes, we'll stop fishing, and like this lady said over here, I was in Burnt Church the whole time that stuff happened. I stayed right at the wharf, I slept in my car, and never left. This lady was over there said, yes, public safety, we've been attacked for years because we wanted to go out.

This did not just begin with what happened last fall; it's been ongoing, except you guys turned a blind eye to it. We've been beaten upon for many years because we wanted to go out there and work. And yet at the same time people are saying we're a burden. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. We can't be on welfare, but we can't work either. What's it going to take for society to realize we're part of this country too? We want to work.

They said we were lazy. Look at the logging issue. During the logging issue there were men, women, and teenagers who went up there. In fact it showed right there we weren't lazy; it's just that we were never given the opportunity.

I can see the concern of the non-native fishermen here, but at the same time I place the responsibility on the government, because you have shunned us for too many years. For example, if you turn around and create jobs in Burnt Church, for every job you create out there, it's one less person who's going to be out on the water. If that's the only source of income we're going to get, any sort of employment, be assured the vast majority will be out there.

That's why I'm recommending to you to involve all governments, whether it be provincial, federal, and so on. Also, in terms of these government service jobs in government buildings, even in the Department of Indian Affairs, which is supposed to represent us, I think in Amherst they have 130 employees and there are fewer than 10 people who are aboriginal working over there. A lot of this money coming into the Department of Indian Affairs creates jobs for non-natives, but it never creates jobs for us.

• 1225

The Chair: Ms. Augustine, we'd like time for a couple of questions.

And on your first point, it was mentioned yesterday as well that there were no aboriginal people travelling on this committee, and that is true. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, who is from Nunavut, is a member of this committee and had wanted to be here, but we're also dealing with the Nisga'a treaty at the same time, and she's on that committee as well. She's the only member we have of aboriginal descent, so that's the reason there.

Are there any quick questions? Mr. Stoffer.

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

I wish to thank the witness for her question and the passion she displayed. There's no question there's frustration. I want to say for the record that you're right, there is very high unemployment on the reserve. There's no question. I have always figured as a person who immigrated to this country that an unemployed person is an unemployed person for their community, and it's quite tragic no matter what happens.

I understand you're a lawyer. Is that correct?

Ms. Millie Augustine: Yes, I am.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You talk about your people very passionately, and I appreciate that. In fact it fills me with pride when I hear of that with the pride you have.

Yesterday we heard a presentation from I think a Mr. Bud Bird, who had indicated that what he feels is more or less what this country needs is maybe a new treaty, maybe a new negotiation with the aboriginal people for a reunification—i.e., the status and the non-status getting together to be reunified, to basically do away with the Indian Act, which obviously hasn't served anybody well except for bureaucrats, and have a reunification of aboriginal people and maybe on a nation-to-nation or, as you say, government-to-government level, cooperate and then come up with a new...not just in fishing, but in logging and other aspects as well, for opportunities for all people in coastal communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to work together for the new millennium. I'd like your comment on that.

My question for you as a lawyer is you had mentioned the Marshall decision and the relief you and your people had felt, in that it gave you economic opportunity to go out and work. And you're right. I've never believed for a second, and I don't believe anyone on this committee believes, that aboriginal people are lazy in any way. They wish to work. They wish to have that opportunity. But in your legal opinion, if I may ask, do you believe that the Marshall decision applies to non-status aboriginal people?

Ms. Millie Augustine: Yes. A status person from the government side is a card. That's the only thing that makes you an Indian, because we have non-native women on the reserve who carry those same status cards and they're deemed full-blooded. I myself married a non-native. I lost my status. I regained it in 1985. My grandchildren do not have status. Now what's happening? When my children and my grandchildren do not have status, but you take non-native women living in the community, they get tax-free benefits when they work on a reserve—a lot of them do work on a reserve—and they carry that status card.

Is the only thing that makes an aboriginal person the card? No government is going to tell me that I am not an Indian. I've never seen such a powerful minister to turn.... I was born an aboriginal person, an aboriginal woman, and just like that, because I said I do, I became a white woman. If I had married a black or a Chinese guy, would that make me a black woman or a Chinese woman? To start out with that was very discriminatory for the women. If you take a white woman who married a native male, they gain status. They're 100% full-blooded Indians all of a sudden. No, I think there's something wrong with that system.

I know situations. Down home there was a French woman who married a native person. Their grandchildren have status. There was gender discrimination here, and this still applies. We're labelled in Bill C-31. Just the labelling itself is discriminatory.

What's happening here? Even the Métis claim.... What it is is there are wannabes out there. As a matter of fact, I found out that some of those guys who were cutting our traps that time in Burnt Church are themselves claiming they're Mi'kmaqs, yet at the same time they're crucifying us.

We can't have both worlds. If you get gung-ho about being an Indian, all right, move onto the reserve and face the poverty like the rest of the people are facing and the racism out there whereby you can't get jobs. There are people out there who have masters degrees. They're aboriginals and can't get jobs. They're on welfare.

So what's happening with the status bit? It's like I said, the minister can take the card and stick it for all I care. Nobody is going to tell me who I am. I know I'm an aboriginal person, and just because I don't live on the reserve.... I live off the reserve, but I'm in the native communities all the time.

• 1230

You say on one hand you want us to leave the reserves and start going out there, but in this situation now you're contradicting yourselves. Only the people living on the reserves can turn around and enjoy the treaty rights. I don't give a damn where I live, I'm going to practise my treaty right one way or another.

The way I look at it is that at the time of the signing of the treaties there were no reserves, there were no status cards. I don't appreciate the federal government dictating to us who is an Indian and who's not. We know ourselves who they are.

There are people out there.... I'll give you an example. I have a step-sister who was brought up with us and she married a Cree from South Dakota, and up in Ottawa registered. The father is white because he's not recognized as status in Canada. Now their daughter has married another Cree, so therefore there's more Indian blood in those people than probably everybody in New Brunswick, for God's sake, yet that child who was just born recently is not a status Indian. They're full-blooded Cree and Mi'kmaq, yet their grandchildren do not have status.

Like I said, if there are wannabes out there they're going to have to prove their Indian blood. Some of them are claiming it at 16 generations back—if they cut their finger they've lost their Indian blood. But there are others out there—it's a Catch 22—who have more Indian blood than I do. I know them personally. I knew both of their grandmothers, yet they don't have status today.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for allowing Millie to intervene. I've never met Millie before, but I know she represents a greater understanding to your committee.

In fairness, Millie, we did put out a press release here in this community—I think it went through a good part of this area of New Brunswick—whereby if anyone wanted to appear before this committee they could have called my office or made a presentation to the clerk. So I think it has been fairly well covered in terms of your coming here.

Millie, we would like to thank you for coming. I always appreciate your views. I don't always agree with them—

Ms. Millie Augustine: You're a politician.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: —but I certainly know that you bring a better understanding to all of us in terms of the problems aboriginals face.

The Chair: There are many different points of view, I might say in closing, Ms. Augustine. We have tried to keep the witnesses as balanced as we could to see that all points of view are indeed before the table, and as witnesses.

Thank you again. We appreciate your information.

Ms. Millie Augustine: I have one comment. I'm here on behalf of the grassroots aboriginal people. There were telephone calls to me from all the reserves in New Brunswick, and they said it's obvious there was nobody here on the list who would be speaking for the grassroots people. That's the reason why I'm the only one here.

The Chair: We'll make note of your criticism, and accept it. Thank you.

We will adjourn, members. You'll have to check out during lunch hour. We'll reconvene at 1:15 sharp. The first witness will be at 1:15. The meeting is adjourned until 1:15.