FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Ms. Kathy Scarfo (President, Area G West Coast Trollers Association, Area G Trollers)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Á

1110

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Gord Wasden (President, Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia)

Ms. Cheryl Wilson (Executive Director, Coastal Community Network)

Mr. John Radosevic (President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union-CAW - West Coast)

The Chair

Chief Edwin Newman (Chairman, NFA, Native Fishing Association)

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Chief Chris Cook (President, Native Brotherhood of British Columbia)

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Chief Charlie Williams (President, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission)

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Wilson

Á

1120

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Chief Chris Cook

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Gord Wasden

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Gord Wasden

The Chair

Mr. Gord Wasden

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Chief Charlie Williams

Á

1135

Á

1140

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Chief Edwin Newman

Á

1145

Á

1150

The Chair

Chief Edwin Newman

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Á

1155

Â

1200

The Chair

Â

1215

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1220

Mr. Gord Wasden

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gord Wasden

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gord Wasden

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Radosevic

Mr. Gord Wasden

Â

1225

Mr. John Cummins

Chief Chris Cook

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Radosevic

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1230

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Â

1235

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mme Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Le président

Chief Chris Cook

Le président

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

Â

1240

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

Â

1245

The Chair

Chief Edwin Newman

The Chair

Mr. Gord Wasden

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Andy Burton

Â

1250

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Andy Burton

Chief Chris Cook

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Â

1255

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

The Chair

Mr. Gord Wasden

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Chief Edwin Newman

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Cheryl Wilson

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

·

1305

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Gord Wasden

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Mr. Gord Wasden

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

Mr. Gord Wasden

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. John Radosevic

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. John Radosevic

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

The Chair

Chief Edwin Newman

Mr. Georges Farrah

Chief Edwin Newman

Mr. Georges Farrah

Chief Edwin Newman

·

1310

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

·

1315

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

Chief Edwin Newman

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Scarfo

·

1320

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

The Chair

Chief Charlie Williams

Chief Edwin Newman

The Chair

Chief Chris Cook

The Chair

Mr. John Radosevic

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 012

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I see a quorum, so I'd like to get started. We have a finite period of time until 1 o'clock, and I'd like to give our witnesses every opportunity to tell us what they have to say on the various issues they want to talk to us about.

    Formally, I have to say that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're continuing a study on the management of the British Columbia salmon fishery.

    So far today we have with us, from the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia, Gord Wasden, and from the Area G West Coast Trollers Association we have Kathy Scarfo, executive director. Is that correct?

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo (President, Area G West Coast Trollers Association, Area G Trollers): I'm the president, actually.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

    What I'd suggest is that we give each of you 10 minutes to make your presentation to the committee. You two groups can go first. If that leads into our other invited guests arriving, they can then make their presentations, and then we will have questions.

    There's another small matter I want to advise you about. The committee has been working diligently on another matter. Something has come up with regard to that and it has to be dealt with.

    Our rules provide that in order for us to hear witnesses we must have at least five members of the committee present. In order for us to take votes we need at least nine members of the committee present. When I see that nine members have arrived, I'm going to adjourn the proceedings, with great apologies to our witnesses, with an assurance that we will deal with that matter behind closed doors as expeditiously as possible. Then we will ask you back in and we'll proceed as if nothing happened. I'm afraid we have no choice but to proceed in this manner. Because what I'm talking about will be dealt with in camera, I can give you no further description.

    Having said that, who would like to go first?

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, there are other folks from the fishing community here. I wonder if we could introduce those as well for the committee's benefit.

    The Chair: Are they going to be giving evidence? There's no point in introducing the entire audience unless they're giving evidence. l welcome everybody. I feel that those who are going to be giving evidence should certainly have their names in the record. If those who are giving evidence wish to introduce some members of their delegation, that's just fine with me.

    Ms. Scarfo, would you proceed, please?

Á  (1110)  

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Thank you.

    Some of our other delegates are here now, so I won't take up all the time.

    We are a delegation from British Columbia representing a fairly broad section of the salmon fishery. But we are also engaged in other fisheries, so they do overlap.

    First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to meet with us.

    I understand that you do have to break at some point to take your vote, and we'll just let you go about your business on that matter.

    This isn't our first visit. You have already done some work on the British Columbia fishery, so it's not as if you're completely unfamiliar with our issues.

    I'd like to quickly introduce some of the delegates I have at the table with me, and then I'll fill you in on why we're here.

    Gordie, could you introduce yourself, please?

    Mr. Gord Wasden (President, Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia): I'm Gordon Wasden, president of the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia. I'm also a member of the Namgis First Nation from Alert Bay. Thank you.

    Ms. Cheryl Wilson (Executive Director, Coastal Community Network): I'm Cheryl Wilson, the executive director of the Coastal Community Network of B.C.

    Mr. John Radosevic (President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union-CAW - West Coast): I'm John Radosevic, president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. I apologize for being a little late. The machines downstairs have broken down and there is a long lineup; people are just jammed up. So I'm sorry if we're a few minutes late here.

    The Chair: No problem whatsoever.

    Chief Edwin Newman (Chairman, NFA, Native Fishing Association): My name is Edwin Newman. I'm the chairman of the Native Fishing Association.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I'm Kathy Scarfo and I am president of the Area G West Coast Trollers, which is a fleet of 243 licences, an owner-operator fleet of small vessels that fish off the west coast trolling for salmon. I have also been involved in a lot of the economic development programs through the revitalization program and other initiatives within the local communities. As a committee, our association sits on a fairly large number of boards, nationally, internationally, and in our local region within the treaty process, trying to find solutions rather than constantly facing the ongoing conflict.

    We have a fairly broad representation here of probably most of the people who are affected by salmon. We may not hold the most licences around the table, but if you want to talk about the people in the industry and the people affected by the decisions in the salmon fleet, you've basically got the table here.

    The reason we're here is because we have a crisis in British Columbia of unprecedented proportions. In 1998 we came to you and said we had a problem, but we had no idea of the size of the problem. Basically what we're facing now is incredible hardship within our communities, incredible lack of trust, and an incredible lack of opportunity to harvest what are abundant stocks in British Columbia. What we've come to bring to you here today is not new to you, but the severity of the problem and some of the added problems that are being piled on to this are what we'd like to share with you.

    What I'm going to do is let my colleagues speak first, and then I will sum up.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't introduce Chris Cook. Do you want to introduce yourself?

    Chief Chris Cook (President, Native Brotherhood of British Columbia): I'm Chris Cook. I'm the president of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and I'm also a band councillor from Alert Bay Nimpkish Band Council.

    The Chair: Who is going to go next then? Mr. Wasden?

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Actually, we have Charlie.

    Could you also introduce yourself?

    Chief Charlie Williams (President, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission): My name is Charlie Williams. I'm the president of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission.

    The Chair: So who is going to go next? Mr. Radosevic?

    Mr. John Radosevic: This delegation is here to say that the direction in which we're heading is not working. It's not the first time we've been here to say that, and it's not the first time others here on the Hill have said that.

    All you have to do is go to your House standing committee report of a few years ago. Go to the Senate standing committee fisheries report of a couple of years ago. Go to your Auditor General's report of a couple of years ago. Look at Stephen Owen's report of two years ago. All these reports contain a slice of the same things we're talking about.

    In essence, what we're saying is the Department of Fisheries isn't listening to us. They aren't listening to you and they aren't listening to the other people here on the Hill who have had a fair bit to say about the same issues we're bringing to you again today.

    Kathy has indicated that there are a lot of fish, and there are. In many cases, the runs have returned to historical size. The thing that is not happening is commercial fishing. Commercial fishing opportunities are not happening because of the management strategies and policies of the Department of Fisheries, pure and simple.

    Again, that's not just me talking. Take a look at your own reports from your own standing committees and your auditors general, your Senate committees, and Stephen Owen's report if you want confirmation of what I'm saying.

    What we're saying here today is that the Department of Fisheries is telling you, or has told people in Canada, that they are fixing these things. They're not being fixed. The result is no commercial fisheries.

    The result is also that what was once a $1-billion industry is one tenth of that now. We used to have $200 million in landed value, and it's down to $35 million now. We used to have people who were making four times what they're making now.

    We were told when the Mifflin and Anderson plans reduced the fleet that those that were left would be better off. In fact, incomes are one quarter what they were. Even though the fleet is only half the size, the incomes are one quarter what they were when those promises were made.

    We didn't come here to lambaste anybody, but what we're coming here to say is, surely to God, after experiment after experiment, and failed result after failed result, there has to be a gap analysis by somebody. Somebody has to say, okay, what was the intended result and what was the result, and then look at the reason why there is a gap between what was supposed to happen and what is in fact happening.

    There is a huge gap. We're here to say it again, and we're asking for some remedies in the recommendations we have here.

    We really don't expect to be able to solve a one- or two-decade-old problem overnight, but we're asking this committee and the MPs around this table to support our call for an examination again, but not just an examination that pulls a couple of DFO bureaucrats into a room and says, well, is this true? We're asking for a real, thorough, public inquiry into whether or not the direction in which the Department of Fisheries has been taking us for the last two decades is the direction in which we ought to continue. Have the strategies that we've embarked on worked? Those are some questions.

    Above all, we want some of the things that Stephen Owen called for in terms of a real consultative process that listens to the people in the province who have been telling them not to do some of these things, that the results are going to be poor. We want those people to be listened to. Stephen Owen's process called for a number of things, as did the Auditor General, around the consultative process.

    Some people have been charged, and there are some other recommendations there that we would like to hit on. I won't comment on those; I'll let other people comment on them.

    We have a crisis insofar as the fish farms are concerned. Other people here can comment on that, but my comment to you is that it's not working. Surely you must see that.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Just so the record is clear, sir, I'm holding in front of me something entitled “B.C. Salmon Fisheries in Peril, A Brief Presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries, January 2003.” It contains an executive summary, among other things, with recommendations. Is that what you're referring to when you're talking about the recommendations?

    Mr. John Radosevic: Yes.

    The Chair: Just so we identify it for the record, is this a joint presentation that all of you have made?

    Mr. John Radosevic: That's correct.

    The Chair: So the recommendations you're referring to are those contained on page 5. Is that correct?

    Mr. John Radosevic: That's correct.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Who's next?

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Cheryl Wilson will be next, from the Coastal Community Network.

    Mr. John Radosevic: Excuse me, there was one recommendation you're going to hear today that was not contained in that, and that is the recommendation around the consultative process. The group has since added that recommendation. That's key.

    The Chair: Very good. Who's going to tell us about that?

    Mr. John Radosevic: Kathy will do that in her wrap-up.

    The Chair: Ms. Wilson, go ahead.

    Ms. Cheryl Wilson: I'm here to talk about the coastal communities. The rural coastal communities in B.C. have continued to be severely affected by the mismanagement of the fishing industry, not from the lack of resources.

    We've had the largest population declines in our history. The declines have varied from 12.5% on the north coast to 10.2% on the north island and 4.1% on the west coast, compared to 4.9% growth rates overall in B.C.

    The economic and social conditions are really deplorable in many of those rural coastal communities. The social capital that has existed to help sustain the communities is disappearing because of the population losses.

    We can't retain people, particularly young people, who are needed for a sustainable economy. A viable commercial fishing industry is needed to contribute to the economic development of the coastal communities.

    Communities need to benefit from the abundance of resources that are surrounding them. We've long argued for the adjacent sea principle. It's sad that a province rich in resources can have rural communities that are suffering, socially and economically, unnecessarily, because of mismanagement at the government level.

    Thank you.

Á  (1120)  

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Next will be Chris Cook.

    Chief Chris Cook: Gilakasla. Thank you.

    I represent the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, the coastal communities from Haida Gwaii to the Fraser River, and some of the bands and tribal bands up the different rivers, the Skeena and not too far up the Fraser.

    I'm here to thank you today for having the opportunity to share with you, the standing committee. One of the reasons we're here is I feel that we haven't been heard. Somebody asked me at one of the many meetings we were at, what is the Mifflin plan? Do you know anything good about the Mifflin plan? For us, as a coastal people, after I thought about it for about ten minutes, as somebody else was sharing, there was nothing good for us. My own community from Alert Bay is wiped out. Eighty-five percent of the workforce on the reservation of Alert Bay have lost their fishing opportunities. We were told, as were our people among the first nations commercial fisherman, that once we had a buyback things were going to get better. We were told we would have more fishing opportunities, that we would be able to have a good livelihood, and here we are five years later and I don't think we're even seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the pain we've been having within our coastal communities.

    The jobs were lost. The first nations commercial fishermen who kept their boats are on the edge of losing what they have left, because if you take a look at what's in our area, the coastal communities, and especially in the Johnstone Strait areas 12 and 13, in the last five years I believe the fishermen have had seven days of fishing. When I say days, I'm talking about a three-hour day or a six-hour day. That is not okay.

    We had a convention in November, the seventy-first convention of the Native Brotherhood, which is the oldest active organization in Canada. We got a strong message and a mandate from our people that this is not okay.

    We believe that from where we're coming from, the people on the coast and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have played politics with our fish. The AFS fishery and the pilot sales that are going on in the Fraser River have completely wiped out our commercial fishery in Johnstone Strait. And that's one thing, a strong message, we got from the convention, that there has to be some equal opportunity for the first nations commercial fishery, and I believe that includes all fisheries. To take away the fishing of fish that are travelling through our different areas and giving it to the AFS fishery and the pilot sales is not what you would call an equal opportunity. That's not happening.

    So we would like some changes, and hopefully we'll have an equal playing field. As the first nations commercial fishermen we are sitting down with our brothers from all the different sectors here. You see, I believe for one of the first times we've all come together on the B.C. coast because it's wiping us out. With that, I hear the corporations talking about imposing quotas on the major companies, like the one I fish for, the Canadian Fishing Company. The owner of the Canadian Fishing Company, Jimmy Pattison, owns 40% of the licences on the B.C. coast in the salmon industry, and 70% of those fishermen are from first nations. If we come to a quota system again, I was told, why send 100 boats out when you can send 30? Again, the first nations will be victims of change. We will be the hardest hit again.

    I wanted to share that, and I'm really honoured that we are able to come here and share that, and also with a representation from the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. We are the representatives of the coastal people, and that came out strongly from the convention. The aboriginal fisheries are the ones who have the ear of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They're putting people on the boards. How can you talk about a commercial fishery when you're up on the river and talking about our coastal area?

Á  (1125)  

    I have one thing to share with you. What's the difference between a million fish caught up in the river in pilot sales and the AFS fishery, which has caught a million fish in Johnstone Strait? It is a commercial fishery. I was told by Mr. Chamut at a meeting in February that the aboriginal Fisheries and Oceans gets $400,000 to $500,000 to run their organization. I told them we would like to get some help for our organization, which is the oldest organization on the coast in British Columbia, in Canada. He said straight out, “Chris, you can't get anything; we look at you as a commercial identity.”

    So what's the difference? The people representing the people selling fish up and down the river...we sell fish to the same people. We would like that to change, and we would like some help from you people with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

    I'd like to thank you. I am one of the chiefs from my area, and I feel honoured to be heard. I would like to thank you for having listened to myself and my people. I bring that message from my people. I wanted to be heard for once because I feel the message is not going past Vancouver. That's one of the reasons why I was sent here, to be able to sit here and talk to the standing committee, and today I have a little hope when I sit around this table to be heard. Gilakasla.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, sir.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Next will be Gord Wasden.

    Mr. Gord Wasden: I've introduced myself as the president of the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association.

    Our association is an affiliate, an arm, of the Native Brotherhood. We represent 40 fishermen, 40 owner-operators and operators. I'm going to give you a little background on fishing.

    Our biggest problem here is access to the resource. There have been many inquiries on the Pacific fishing industry, the resource and the problems with the resource. We don't have a problem with salmon, we don't have a problem with our resource out there, despite the picture that I believe you people sometimes hear and understand.

    I had a comment made to me today. I was talking to a fellow and I asked him, how do you see the Pacific fishery? Oh boy, he says, it's just like east coast cod.

    Salmon aren't the east coast cod. Pacific salmon are a very unique fish in themselves. They're cyclical fish. They have a two- and a four-year cycle predominantly. We've had problems in our industry before with declining stocks due to all kinds of reasons, some of it to do with fishing, some of it to do with climate, environmental reasons. We've always managed to rebuild the stocks as commercial fishermen. We respect that. Fishing is our livelihood. That is our bank. That's where we make our living. Without a healthy bank we're in big trouble. So there's nobody in British Columbia who represents and protects the salmon any more than us as commercial fishermen. That is our livelihood and it has been for years, since time immemorial, on the B.C. coast.

    I'm going to give you two examples of what I'm talking about, about abundance. We have an abundance of fish. Some stocks in some seasons don't come in as strong as other stocks. They're cyclical. There's an even year and an odd year. The pinks are an odd-year stock to the Fraser River.

    In 2001 the commercial fishery in areas 12 and 13 had a 12-hour fishery on sockeye. That was acceptable because the sockeye weren't a strong run that year. It would have been nice to get a little bit more time, but anyway, we lived with that one. But the pinks follow in right after the sockeye. We had 20 million plus pinks come through that area in 2001. That is one of the biggest runs I've seen. We got a 12-hour fishery on the end of that run, on the tail end of that run. We had 12 hours to fish 20 million pinks that went up to the spawning beds.

    This year coming, this season coming, is going to tell the story. What about this over-spawning? We hear about over-spawning. I believe over-spawning is an issue. We'll see. This season will tell. My feeling is I think we've done some damage by not fishing those fish.

    This year, in 2002, it was sockeye. I met with a regional director in Vancouver--

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: I'm sorry, sir, the 20 million pink, that was 2001, did you say?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: In 2001, correct, yes.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gord Wasden: The return from 2001 will be coming back this year, in 2003.

    I met with the minister prior to our season this year, and it sounded interesting. I was quite excited; now we're going to fish. For all the dues we've paid for this fishery since 1995, we haven't fished. We've been asked to conserve and conserve, but we have our fish back. They're here. Now we have the opportunity to go fish these fish. In 2002 I'm told, “You're going to get out there; you're going to get some time this year.”

    Well, we did. We got 16 hours, a little less than last year, but for 16 hours we got on the sockeye. DFO's own numbers give an escapement of 16 million. Those fish have all gone up the river again, 16 million fish, and we sit here.

    We do have problems with some of our stocks. A lot of the time the finger is pointed at the commercial fisherman, but we have to look. As commercial fishermen, we know that a lot of it is about habitat. The habitat destruction that happens on the Fraser River is crazy.

    I'm trying to educate you people here. You hear all this bad news, but it isn't all bad. We do have stocks that are of concern, of great concern to us, and we are the ones who can rebuild those stocks.

    In 1996, I believe it was, David Anderson put a zero mortality rate on coho. In other words, every coho had to get through. We had to rebuild the tops in coho. With that zero mortality rate and the devastation to coastal communities socially and economically, to the commercial fishing fleet, some families will never recover from it; families broke up over it because the bank was shut down. They shut the bank off.

    That's why we're here today. I want you people to remember that the Pacific fishing industry is not in the crisis you guys get from the message that is delivered to you. I don't believe it is the correct message. We do have the odd problem there, but we've had it all our lives, and we've always been able to correct those problems.

    So for that, thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, sir.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: We'll have Charlie.

    Chief Charlie Williams: My name is Charlie Williams, and I'm also hereditary chief for my tribe. I'm from the area that has come to be known as the Broughton Archipelago.

    Broughton Archipelago has 28 fin fish farms in it, and we have major concerns with the very existence of fish farms within our territory because of the diseases they carry—IHN, sea lice—and contamination of clam beds. I don't have the biology background, but I have local, traditional, and cultural knowledge within our territory and I see the day-to-day changes, along with the neighbouring tribes—we're family tribes in that area. We see the day-to-day changes from this very industry.

    Concerning the crash of the pinks last year, we did a press release two years ago to try to inform the public, DFO, and provincial government of our concerns about the outbreak of sea lice. No action was taken then, and now, with the crash of the pinks last year, they want to do scientific studies. It's too late for scientific studies. What's going to happen if the extinction of pinks happened within the Broughton with the lifting of the moratorium, with the possible expansion of fin fish coastwide? Are both levels of government really prepared to have that legacy of wiping out the wild stock?

    It's not just salmon. It's the shellfish, it's the cod, it's the halibut--all marine resources, all of the marine environment. There are serious concerns, where we're pulling in cod with different sicknesses you can notice on them. There's a difference in everything we do that used to be normal day-to-day activity for our people--with the harvesting of clams, where prime clam beds that used to be are not there any more. They're contaminated; they're extinct; they're filthy. People wouldn't eat anything from there if they'd seen what's actually happened out there. I'd bet people wouldn't really support this industry if they had first-hand knowledge.

    I was born and raised within our community, and I've utilized all our resources all the time. Now we've got concerns about what the impacts are, and no one knows. Governments should realize what has happened in different countries and learn from that, where all the wild species in some countries have been wiped out. Do we want to have that legacy of wiping out our stocks? Are people really prepared to wipe out the shrimp, the prawn, the crab, the clam, the sea urchins, abalone?

    Even with abalone, there are farm fences in areas where there used to be abalone growing. We need better management resources. There needs to be understanding from governments that local knowledge would be very beneficial to anything that's happening within our territories. We're the ones affected by the decisions that are made in Ottawa and Vancouver and Victoria and surrounding communities. The industries that come from different countries don't care about our livelihood. Their interests are just their main funding source. Making money: that's their interest. They're wiping out a way of life. To us, this is like smallpox.

    We see the day-to-day changes. As I say, I don't have the scientific background from sitting in classrooms learning things from day to day, being taught from one person to the next. I was taught our culture; I was taught our traditions. We've been there since the beginning of time and we'll continue to be there. That's the kind of knowledge governments have to start respecting and taking into consideration in the decisions they make. It hurts our people to have decisions made in other areas of the country that affect our life.

    Hopefully, this trip will make a difference for our people. It's not just the native community; it's the non-native community. It's the commercial industry on both sides.

Á  (1135)  

    Gilford Island has the most farms within the territory. There are about 28 farms in their area, and where there used to be prime pink runs on streams and rivers, they've crashed. In the Kwakiutl territory, where I'm from, when fish farms entered our waters in the mid-nineties, our tribe did everything we could to fight the existence of fish farms because from the neighbouring tribes we'd seen the impact. Because of our effort, although there were supposed to be 14 fish farms within our territory, there are only two. And we're right at the edge of the Broughton Archipelago, where our pink run was healthy this year, but there was a crash further south of us, where there's a heavy concentration of fish farms.

    I hope people really take into consideration local knowledge, because if you ignore it, that's where people are hurt when decisions are made. We have people coming in from different countries for their own personal gain, for shellfish aquaculture, for instance. I went to a workshop not long ago on the impact on Port Alberni. In Alberni Inlet most of their commercial wild harvesters are almost out of work because they only have a few weeks left when they can harvest. When you lease out one of these clam beds, it's a 20-year lease. If we harvested anything off that, we'd be charged with trespassing.

    We've been oppressed by different things, such as residential schools and those types of things. Those are things we don't want to keep being put under. I support the efforts of the non-natives in our area because we can live together. We've lived side by side, and we've been able to protect the resources in our best interests because we live in those communities, while now we have people from different countries coming in to destroy our way of life. They've destroyed their own areas. Why can't they learn from that? Why can't they just stay there and live through the effects of the decisions they've made? Why come and impact our life?

    And I really hope, I really strongly urge, that people take into consideration local knowledge. I'm not a commercial fisherman, but I've seen the commercial industry within our area, and I became president of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission. I've come to the end of my term, a two-year term, and it's amazing for me to sit down with commercial fishermen, where they have the knowledge of where the fish are and what streams have the most. It's just everything. They know the tide, they know where to fish, they know when not to fish. They talk about fishing and the full moon, the tides, everything. They know all that, and it's amazing for me to hear that.

    These are the things other people have to start understanding. They know the cycle. They live there and they see the day-to-day changes, but others come and do studies and some research, they come into our area for just as long as it takes to do the study or they meet with people, but they're not inclusive of everybody. They do short-term studies to make reports to people they work for. I keep pressing that local knowledge is going to be key to everything that can be done; it should be the key.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Next I would like to have the honour of introducing Chief Ed Newman.

    The Chair: Ms. Scarfo, since we've gone this far, I'd like you to complete your testimony before I break for the in camera session. I just wonder how many more there will be. If we can hear from Chief Newman before you wrap up, then we can take a brief break to go in camera, because I know members of the committee have questions of you.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: That's fine, or I can wrap up after if you prefer.

    The Chair: No, I'd prefer that we hear from you now that we've gone this far completely.

    Yes, Chief Newman, go ahead.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.

    The last time I came before this committee, Roméo LeBlanc was the Minister of Fisheries. But I come here with the same issue we talked about that time: the devastation of our Indian communities because of actions that have been taken by the Government of Canada.

    I've heard your Prime Minister talk about the fact that the government has to deal with the poverty that exists in Indian communities. But all we hear is talk; we don't see any action. Committees have been put in place to deal with it. We don't hear whether those committees are in action or what they're doing.

    I'm the chairman of the Native Fishing Association. Our parent organization is the Native Brotherhood of B.C. As a result of the session we had with you the last time I was here, the Government of Canada created the Native Fishing Association and gave us funding of $11 million to put this lending institution in place.

    The reason it was put in place was that it was illegal, according to the Indian Act they control Indian people by, for Indian people to go to banks to borrow money.

    In order to increase the level of our participation in an efficient industry, the Government of Canada, with the help of Roméo LeBlanc and Pierre De Bané, who came after Roméo LeBlanc, put this program in place. And since that time the Native Fishing Association has lent $24 million to our fishermen.

    It was a very successful business until Mifflin and the buyback program. They called that a voluntary buyback program, but for the Indian people it wasn't voluntary; it was forced. We were forced to sell because of the kind of management plans that were put in place by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

    Limited entry created a problem for our people. The quota system created a problem for our people. Area licensing created a problem for our people. The buyback of our salmon licences was the final nail in our coffin. We lost over 400 salmon licences during that buyback program.

    We were the victims of those programs, and the message I want to bring to you today is that we're getting tired of being the victims of the kind of management plans the Department of Fisheries puts in place with the blessing of the Government of Canada. And yet your Prime Minister says we're going to deal with the poverty that exists in native communities.

    There is a lot of money being made in the oceans on the west coast. Millions of dollars are being made, and Indian people are on the outside looking in. If you look at the licensing system on the west coast, you will find that it's controlled by very few people. The big corporations and investors control it.

    It seems that the Department of Fisheries has now privatized the fishing industry. This is what the quota system has done for the industry. Mr. Cook has said to you that the quotas that are going to be put in place are going to go into the hands of the big corporations and investors.

    I used to run a halibut boat for B.C. Packers. When the quota system came into the halibut fishery, I didn't get the quota. B.C. Packers got the quota because they owned the boat. I don't fish halibut any more; yet I was a very good halibut fisherman. This is going to put a lot of our people on the beach again.

    Since the buyback started four years ago, the Native Fishing Association has been writing letters to the Minister of Fisheries and to the Minister of Indian Affairs. We have appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and tried to talk about our problem. But nobody seems to want to deal with it. I guess they hope we'll just go away and disappear.

Á  (1145)  

    When I write a letter to the Minister of Fisheries, he tells me “I'm not responsible for Indian people. The fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of Indian people belongs to the Minister of Indian Affairs. You talk to him.” The Minister of Indian Affairs tells me, “I don't have a mandate to deal with the fisheries. If you have problems in the fishery, go see the Minister of Fisheries.” Those are the kinds of answers we've been getting all this time.

    We even wrote a letter to the Auditor General asking her how the government can put $11 million in place to help Indian people in the fishery and then take it away. That's the story of how you deal with Indian people. You continually put something in place, but you always find some way to take it away. That's something we can't understand.

    The Minister of Indian Affairs told me, “We have a program to take care of Indian people. It's called 'Gathering Strength--Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan'.” As a result of some kind of fiasco with Jane Stewart, $385 million was put in place. That $385 million has been squandered by the funding agencies that deal with Indian people. It hasn't done anything for Indian people. They've created welfare-type programs with that money. They don't do anything for Indian people.

    The Minister of Fisheries told me, “We have a plan in place to take care of displaced fishermen. You will be taken care of. We've put $400 million in place to take care of displaced fishermen.” But he didn't tell us that $276 million of that went to buy back the licences. The rest of it was again squandered by the people who were supposed to be spending it. It wasn't spent to help the displaced fishermen. It was spent on other things. I have reports of how that money was spent, and if you look at them they'll make you sick. That's the way we Indian people have been looked after.

    We finally got a response from the Minister of Indian Affairs, and his special assistant for B.C. was asked to meet with us. As a result of that meeting we were asked to develop a business plan to back up a study we'd done to try to show the government what had happened--what the buyback and the Mifflin plan had created on Indian reserves: total devastation, total unemployment, and a lot of social problems for our people.

    Our social housing deficits are so high. Some of our bands have over $1 million in housing deficits. The situation is so severe that the Auditor General sent Joe Mitire out to B.C. to find out why there was such a problem in housing. We talked to Joe Mitire and told him the cause was directly related to the fact that the Government of Canada took away economic opportunities when it took our fishing licences away. That created the problem. So we were asked by the Minister of Indian Affairs, through his agent, to develop a business plan and tell them how we felt they could help aboriginal fishermen try to get back into the fishery.

    We're very concerned about our young people. A lot of our young people are now unemployed with no place to go. They want to get back into the fishery. With the price of licences, it's very difficult for us to try to help our young people get back in.

    The Minister of Fisheries seems to think the treaty process is going to solve all the problems. That's the biggest pile of you-know-what I've ever heard. We know that the treaty process isn't going to do anything for us. We know that the communal licensing system is not going to cure our problems. You need to have a certain number of private entrepreneurs involved in the fishery to make it work. We should have the opportunity to become private owners.

    That's the message I want to bring you. We're getting tired of being the victims of the kinds of programs and policies that are put in place by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Indian Affairs. Whatever the Department of Fisheries has done to us, the Department of Indian Affairs has totally disregarded it. They didn't pay any attention to what happened to their Indian people in the fisheries, and that is their responsibility.

    We have a business plan that we developed--

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: I don't want to interrupt, but I wonder if you could perhaps wrap up your remarks. I know our committee members are very anxious to ask questions, and I'm mindful of the time.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Yes, I'm just wrapping up, Mr. Chairman. We came over 3,000 miles to see you. It's a hit-and-run deal, we know that.

    We have a business plan we would like to present to you today. We want you to look at it and find out how you can help us try to put the Indian people back in the fishery to make sure our native communities can become healthy again.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Madam Scarfo.

[Translation]

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Thank you. I will speak in English if you do not mind, because I am from British Columbia.

[English]

    I am going to speak in English to make it easier for most of the delegation I have here with me.

    First, for the record, there is a letter here from the Coastal Community Network we'd like to present to the committee. If you could, please give that to the members.

    I have to say that it's a bit of a shock to be in Ottawa today. I arrived and it was -25^o. I thought I'd go skating on the Rideau Canal, but I didn't expect to skate between Parliament Hill and here.

    In the west there is this line that Canada is run by central Canada and that we in the west seem to be forgotten. After being in Ottawa for a few days, I have to say that I've almost forgotten about the west. I've forgotten what it smells and looks like, and it is so different here that it's very easy to see how difficult it is for politicians with the responsibility you have to actually identify with some of the communities your decisions impact on.

    A lot of what we've found in our delegation to date has been preconceived notions of what the problems we're facing are and preconceived notions as to what we are like on the west coast, what our stocks are like, and what the habitat and our communities are really like. It's very hard to explain to people the terrain we live in, the remoteness of our communities, and the lack of road access. This is not agricultural land right down to the beach. This is rocky shores with small harbours and no roads and with a history of relying on vibrant, healthy salmon stocks. This is a stock so unlike cod that it's hard to describe. It is a part of the makeup of British Columbia in so many ways because it represents the biodiversity of British Columbia, and it relies on that biodiversity. The economic base that has grown from that stock is what makes our province what it really is.

    Salmon fishing has a four-year renewable cycle. The logging industry would love to have that kind of timeframe. The impacts and the rebuilding programs are very short-term. The turnarounds are very quick and the need for timely decision-making and timely recognition of problems is absolutely critical.

    We're here basically to deliver a message we've delivered before, and it's not a message that's foreign to any of you around the table because I've read your reports and your recommendations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not living up to its mandate. Been there, done that, said that. What are we going to do about it? There are a few problems that are not new, where basically the department is proceeding down a track. The train left the station a while ago, but it doesn't know how to change, and we need to help them.

    The adjacency principle needs to be applied. Communities, first nation communities and our other coastal communities that rely on salmon, have to be involved in the process. A situation where principles are written yet ignored on a regular basis in the consultation process, where communities are not at the table, where first nations are not consulted on things such as fish farms that have a huge impact on them, where a fish farming policy does not abide by the precautionary principle as identified and agreed to under the United Nations, cannot continue to proceed. We need open, transparent, and accountable processes.

    On top of that, add on new changing developments such as the implementation of species at risk legislation and cutbacks in financing and capacity within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Do they have the expertise that is required to meet their objectives? Do they have the funding to meet those objectives? Right now the question is, do they want to meet their objectives? Is there a desire for wild salmon in British Columbia? Is there a desire by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to maintain healthy communities? Is there a desire by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to meet their obligations to first nations? Is there a desire by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to have viable commercial salmon fisheries? Every action they have taken says no.

Á  (1155)  

    So once again we're going to ask for the same thing we have asked for in the past—another public inquiry. By this we don't mean what's happening right now with the sockeye review, where the department basically audits itself. We all know what the response from that will be: “They're doing a pretty good job, given the circumstances.” We need a review and public debate on whether or not the department is meeting those objectives, and what policies need to be completely changed to meet those objectives, not unlike what is happening on the east coast with the Atlantic policy review. Let's look at the big picture, take a comprehensive look, and stop doing crises management in British Columbia.

    We need meaningful consultation. We've all asked for consultation. We've all been consulted, but only under the definition of the department. What we want is meaningful consultation with the right people at the table, not just some of the people chosen depending on the outcome that is wanted. I can speak to this very clearly. As the representative of one of the communities most severely impacted by the Canada-U.S. treaty, I sat in the hallway throughout the whole process and was refused a seat at the table, even as an observer. My fleet relies on Fraser River sockeye, and yet I sat in the hallway during the Fraser panel meetings, because I'm not allowed to attend those meetings. The government picks and chooses who it will have at the table, depending on the outcome. This is not meaningful consultation.

    Fisheries planning processes involved two days of sitting around a table trying to plan something without the baseline of information, which is absolutely critical to making the process meaningful. This is not consultation. It's actually insulting.

    We need to address the fish farm issue. This is a situation that has gone out of control. There is clear evidence that we need to proceed with extreme caution and that there are environmental impacts from this policy. Yet the federal government is not applying the precautionary principle, which says that lack of evidence means one does not proceed. You do not use this as the excuse, as they have on the west coast, to basically say, “Show me the smoking gun. Smoke a cigarette, keel over, then we'll believe you.” This is against their mandate and its putting too much at risk. We need to address this.

    In the immediate situation with the commercial fleets and the first nations communities up and down this coast, we need not wait for the implementation of SARA to tell us we have a crisis, and then after we're all dead and out of the water, analyze the impacts. We need an integrated fisheries management process to do an environmental impact assessment with a cost-benefit analysis of these fishing plans every year.

    The example of last season, where 15 million Fraser River sockeye were in the Gulf of Georgia and we did not fish, and will not fish this year, in order to protect 88 Sakinaw Lake fish is unacceptable. The cost is ridiculous. The penalty to the fishermen is ridiculous, and the rebuilding program is inefficient. To forego millions of dollars to our communities to protect 88 fish, when the problem is not the harvest size or 90% habitat destruction, is absolutely ridiculous. It is unacceptable to British Columbians and should be to all Canadians who have invested money in the B.C. restructuring program, which is now not seeing the results we should be seeing.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and make an accusation. I'm going to accuse the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of continuing to make political decisions rather than science-based decisions in its fisheries management process. It may not be a hard thing for some people to say, but I don't make this accusation lightly, and I don't make it without grounds.

    When you ask why we have set the exploitation rates of 2% to 3% on Thompson coho since 1998—a species supposedly endangered, even though there are 70,000 of them—and you ask how that decision was made and what difference it could make to the stock under the recovery program if you harvested 5% or 10%, you're told that it would make absolutely no biological difference. Financially it would make a huge difference for the commercial fleet and the communities that rely on us.

  (1200)  

    Yet the decision is made based on the politics of the public perception that looks best. When I have Department of Fisheries and Oceans biologists telling me they know that putting too many fish back on the grounds is counterproductive but it's what the public understands, then I think that accusation stands very well.

    I think it's incumbent on you to ask the questions of the department, and to work with us to make sure we can stop this process and stop this train before it goes any further.

    I would like to ask all of you who have not yet been to the west coast to please come out and see for yourselves what the situation really is.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I want to thank all of the presenters. While the meeting took an hour, each of you was very succinct in your presentation. I do thank you on behalf of committee members.

    We will do our very, very best to be extremely brief in the in camera discussion. We will get back to you just as quickly as we can, because I'm sure members of the committee have questions.

    So what we need to do now is clear the room of all people other than members of the committee. I'm going to ask the clerk to start the clock, because I'm going to try to keep it under five minutes if possible.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]

    [Public proceedings resume]

  (1215)  

    The Chair: We're back on the record. Thank you for your indulgence.

    Just before we broke, Chief Williams, you had a document you wanted to provide to us. Is that correct?

    Chief Charlie Williams: Yes.

    The Chair: I believe you gave it to somebody. What is it, just so we can identify it for the record?

    Chief Charlie Williams: It's a list of the tribes I represent, a territorial map of the area, and some concerns and recommendations on the fishing problem we're faced with.

    The Chair: All right. It's titled “Limited Opportunities... Disintegrating Communities... Endangered Kwakwaka'wakw Identity...”.

    Chief Charlie Williams: Yes.

    The Chair: That'll be received. Thank you.

    On the second issue, we want to make sure the names of everybody who has taken the time to come all this way are represented in the record for posterity. I believe you have a list, Mr. Radosevic. You can provide that to the clerk. Everybody's names will be appended as having attended this meeting and, unless they've spoken up to the contrary, having agreed with the presentation that was made.

    On the way this will proceed, we have approximately 41 minutes. That's not a lot of time, so we would certainly appreciate both questions and answers being as succinct as possible. We'll start with the official opposition critic for fisheries, and he gets 10 minutes of questions. Then we'll proceed to Monsieur Roy from the Bloc Québécois. Then we'll move over to the Liberal side and just keep progressing that way.

    We'll start with Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to thank the group for their presentations this morning. Kathy, I thought your statement about being in Ottawa for a few days and forgetting what it was like at home was rather profound. I think this place can have that kind of effect on people, especially those of us who spend too much of the year here.

    I want to go quickly and directly to the issue of the fishery in 2002. Mr. Wasden, you talked about the 2001 12-hour fishery, the 2002 16-hour fishery, and the 16 million escapement. I wonder if you could expand on that notion and perhaps advise the committee on the escapement and the harvest this year, and perhaps compare it to a similar year in the past.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Gord Wasden: A 16-million run is a very huge run. In the past with the commercial fishery, on a 16-million run we used to fish four days a week starting, years ago, in June. As it moved on we'd start in mid-July and we'd fish a three- to four-day week, depending on whether it was a full-fleet fishery, meaning having the whole fleet out there. We would fish them; we'd harvest them. You'd go out for a four-day week and you'd come in with 4,000 sockeye. You were king; you were strutting up the dock.

    We've done everything that's been asked of us. We've reduced our fleet by half under the Mifflin plan and done everything. Now this 16-million run comes back. The numbers I won't be very good at, but I think we used to harvest somewhere in the neighbourhood of 7 to 8 million in these runs. There were different spawning beds, but some spawning beds would have 350,000 spawners. The stronger systems would have up to maybe 1.3 million spawners. For that 1.3 million spawners you would get your return back. Of the 1.3 million spawners, you might get back 6 million or 7 million fish through that system. That's the rejuvenation of that system. Now we fish on a 12-hour fishery.

    The first opening we had this year was more what we call an assessment fishery. We've had these fisheries in the past. They gave us a 12-hour fishery. It was an assessment fishery: let's see what's in the area. That was very important information for DFO, to see what was in the area and what was coming. It was a little early, but we realized that, and the fishing wasn't that great on that opening. There were a few fish on the other side of the island, San Juan.

    Then the next opening we got was on August 9, was it? On August 9 they gave us a six-hour fishery. But you still have to look at this as the same thing. This is an indication of what's coming, the strength of the run.

    I told you before what you'd do on a four-day week if you came in with 4,000 sockeye. On the six-hour opening we had on August 9--I think Charlie alluded to tides and stuff like that--this particular six-hour opening this year was opened on a bad tide. It was brought up to DFO and it was just coincidental that it happened. It wasn't supposed to happen, but it did happen, so we opened on a bad tide. Well, the average for the fleet that was out there was over 3,000 on that six-hour fishery. That tells you there were lots of fish. We knew there were lots of fish, and that was it.

    Is that sort of what you wanted me to say?

    Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

    The run was 16 million. What was the commercial harvest out of that?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: The commercial harvest was 2 million, I believe.

    Mr. John Cummins: In an ordinary year what would the commercial harvest be?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: On a run that size we've harvested up to 11.5 million, 12 million.

    Mr. John Cummins: What we're talking about here is probably 7 million or 8 million fish that could have been harvested but weren't harvested. What was the cost to the B.C. economy?

    Mr. John Radosevic: It was $200 million.

    Mr. Gord Wasden: We are the outside fishery. What happened there was that there were some openings on the Fraser River, quite a few openings for AFS fisheries and commercial fisheries on the Fraser River. I don't know what the number is.

  (1225)  

    Mr. John Cummins: They took about the same as the commercial fishery, if my memory serves me correctly.

    Chief Chris Cook: I believe the first nations fishery had 16 openings on the Fraser River.

    Mr. John Cummins: Now, when you put 8 million or 9 million more fish into the spawning grounds, you're asking for trouble. Does somebody want to comment briefly on that? For the record, what's the problem? Why does it cause a problem?

    Mr. John Radosevic: If there's only so much spawning-bed room available, then the fish that come up after the ones that have already spawned dig up the eggs that were already there, so you end up in a situation where the eggs are dug up because there are too many fish that foul the grounds. We had a situation on the Skeena one year where that happened. It caused an outbreak of disease that wiped out a major part of that run. Basically, what happens is you just overcrowd the grounds and get all the carcasses, as well as the fact that they dig up the eggs of the fish that were just before them. It is not a viable situation.

    This section here is an important one for you to read because I think this is a big debate. A lot of the environmental groups don't understand this; they think the more the better. It's important that you take a look at the scientific information on that and come to the conclusion, as this chart shows, that the right number on the spawning grounds gives you the maximum return. Having too few or too many is not a good thing.

    Mr. John Cummins: In the spring of 2001 we had before this committee Ian Todd, who was a former executive secretary of, I believe, the Pacific Salmon Commission. We also had Mike Forrest and two “scientists” from DFO. We were discussing the issue of the late-run fish returning early and the department's plan of 2001 to curtail harvest of mid-summer runs to protect these late-summer-run fish. Mr. Todd said that was bad fisheries practice because you were going to end up with overcrowding of spawning grounds with the summer runs and so on.

    Does someone there wish to comment on that? Would you have concurred with Mr. Todd's advice to this committee back in the spring of 2001?

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I'll take that.

    I think that given Ian Todd's experience and the role and responsibilities he had for many years in managing what were fairly good fisheries through maintaining healthy stocks and providing opportunity for fleets, his credibility speaks for itself. His recommendation is valid.

    The situation in-season did not even develop to be what was anticipated pre-season. A fixed exploitation rate was set on a stated fixed return. Well, salmon don't come back in fixed numbers; they vary. The variation this season was extreme. We got way more fish back than had been anticipated, yet an exploitation rate was set that didn't vary.

    If you look at the documents that will be coming out in the DFO draft of the sockeye review, according to that, pre-season they did talk about a varied exploitation rate, zero to 15% if the run was a certain size, 15% to 45% if it was a larger size, and 60% if it was bigger.

    That did not occur, and part of it was that when the Canadians went to the U.S., somebody forgot to put that in, so we were boxed in pre-season with a fixed number. That's not good fisheries management on a stock that varies like this. You need real-time, in-season, adaptive management that addresses the circumstances. If late-run fish are not doing what you anticipated they were going to do, namely that they enter the river too early, you have to be able to make an in-season decision. The chain of command in decision making within DFO was a serious problem this year. You need to have too many people saying yes before a decision actually reaches a conclusion.

    The Chair: This will be your last question, Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: The question is, why is DFO not flexible? I'm going to give you the leading part of the question, if you will. There are two parts to it, and one is that the management structure within DFO sees no problem with taking coast guard managers and putting them in charge of fisheries management, and we had that in 2001. We had a man who ran a coast guard vessel in the year 2000 acting as a fisheries manager on the Fraser in 2001. That's one problem.

    The other problem is that it would appear that no one in particular is in charge of fisheries management. I heard of one meeting last summer where there were 41 people participating in the meeting on whether or not to open a fishery in the Fraser River, and when consensus couldn't be reached, they went to a vote.

    So my question is, on those two items I mentioned, do you concur with my feelings? Is that perhaps one reason DFO isn't flexible now, because they sort of lacked that historical and corporate knowledge to effectively manage the fishery?

  (1230)  

    Mr. John Radosevic: I'd like to take a cut at that.

    The fact of the matter is that the Department of Fisheries has a policy whereby they box themselves in with an extremely weak stock management regime. It has very few resources, so even if they wanted to open it up--in some cases even fuel for their patrol boats is an issue--they're constricted by the financial commitment Ottawa has given management of fisheries. And then ultimately the structure is, as you've said, so cumbersome now that it is just an incredible imposition on the ability to manage. Forty-one people needed to make a decision to open. It had to be a consensus thing. There wasn't a single individual, a manager or a knowledgeable person or anyone else, who could say yes, we're going to up that 15% and allow a 20% exploitation rate.

    So you're right on all counts. It's a serious problem, and that's the premise of the brief. That's what we're saying, that we would like that to be looked at, because the bleeding of the Department of Fisheries' capacity to manage in all three of those areas has to be examined. You can't just have a band-aid approach and say, oh, let's have a little bit more flexibility to fix that Fraser River sockeye thing. That's not going to work because the problems are so endemic.

    The structure, the policy, and the financial commitment are a fairly serious problem there, and it's going to take a while to fix that problem. Your question gets to exactly why we're here. Those things have to be dealt with, but they have to be dealt with comprehensively. Otherwise, we're just going to get into another band-aid approach that doesn't work, and we'll be back here in six months or a year from now saying there are a bunch more people in communities that have gone south because of the inability of the department to manage.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Our next questioner will be Monsieur Roy. He'll be asking you questions, ladies and gentlemen, in our other official language, français.

[Translation]

    Mr. Roy, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you.

    I left the room earlier because I had to answer an urgent telephone call, but I know that mention was made of the recommendations that appear on page 5. In fact, if I understood correctly, you would like us to help you ensure that the recommendations on page 5 are put into practise.

    Furthermore, you have expressed great dissatisfaction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stating that its management is deficient and that the Department has conducted virtually no consultation whatsoever with regard to the fishery in your area. As I believe you mentioned, this is something we often hear repeated before the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

    I am not defending the Department, because that is not at all my role, but how can you state that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has never consulted you? Are there people from the Department who met with you? That is my first question. When a decision regarding management has to be made, does the Department consult the industry, in other words you?

    If you answer yes, then that means that there is consultation. Is it true consultation? That is another matter. That is what I would like to know, because in the East we are constantly told that, yes, there is consultation, but that when people say things to department officials, these officials do not listen. In other words, we can tell them anything we want when they are sitting down with us, but then they leave, make their decision and its goodbye and thank you very much.

    Is that the feeling you have in the West?

  (1235)  

[English]

    Mr. John Radosevic: I think more than one person would like a kick at that cat.

    The Chair: Let's do it in order so they can identify you for the record. Do you want to start, Mr. Radosevic?

    Mr. John Radosevic: I have a very quick example. A group of people representing most industry groups from everywhere went to the Department of Fisheries and said, “Yes, we'll agree with your conservation concerns provided that if the run comes in larger or it is delayed in the gulf so that it makes survival more likely, you'll have the flexibility of changing that cap.” The Department of Fisheries agreed with that, but then refused afterward to do what they said. So it's worse than them just not listening; they actually broke agreements and understandings they had with fishing industry people on the management.

    Now other people have things to say.

    The Chair: Madam Scarfo, do you want to add anything?

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Yes, I'll add to that.

[Translation]

    As far as consultation is concerned, anyone can consult. What we want is true consultation. I could talk to you about several occasions when our fleet, my fishers... I was myself thrown out. I arrived at the meeting and stated that I represented 243 fishers. I was told that they had chosen someone else to represent my fishers. The person was someone who does not even fish in the region and who spends most of his time during the season outside the country. That is not consultation.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: When did that happen?

    Mme Kathy Scarfo: Over the last three years, and it is still going on. As an association, we are still not entitled to sit on the Fraser River Panel. It is a ministerial appointment. In the case of the sockeye review, we called upon groups from the Sierra Club, but the committees are not there. They were left outside of the room. There are a lot of consultations, but if we spent less time doing consultations that are worthless, we would perhaps be further ahead in resolving the problem. The situation we find ourselves in right now is not favourable because we are being told that we were consulted whereas in truth the information needed to make decisions, to discuss the issues intelligently, does not exist. Yes, we are consulted, but what we want is true consultation. That does not mean that we must be in agreement with the decisions. It is not enough...

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You are not narrow-minded.

    Le président: Mr. Roy, do you have another question?

[English]

    Mr. Cook.

    Chief Chris Cook: You talk about consultation. Take a look at us, part of the first nations, and our member group the Native Brotherhood of B.C. I believe there's not enough consultation. As I said earlier, we have so many different groups on the coast--the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the province--leaning more toward the aboriginal fisheries.

    The Department of Fisheries and Oceans appoint the board and finance it, and they finance the aboriginal fisheries. They have their own biologists. We, the coastal people, don't have as much of an opportunity as the aboriginal fisheries. So when you talk about consultation, a lot of times it's second-hand. They meet almost daily, but we don't have that same opportunity. That's what we're saying we'd like to have. We'd like to have that same opportunity, that recognition from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I believe that would be a lot stronger.

    We have one member on there, but I don't think a lot of times we're being heard.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    Le président: Thank you very much.

[English]

    Mr. Efford is next for ten minutes, followed by Mr. Burton.

    Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to welcome all the people from the beautiful province of British Columbia to the dismal city of Ottawa today. I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador and I was just elected to the federal government six months ago. I was Minister of Fisheries for six years in Newfoundland prior to coming to Ottawa, so we understand your frustrations in Newfoundland and Labrador, even though they're about different species. We're talking about cod versus the salmon stocks, but the problems you are facing are very similar. We're still living with the frustrations day after day.

    Chris mentioned you make a lot of comments and have a lot of consultations, but you're not being listened to. I think what's being done a little differently in Newfoundland and the east coast--I don't know about the other provinces--is there's a continuous lobbying effort here in Ottawa. Individuals who represent industry people actually live in Ottawa and lobby Fisheries and Oceans on a day-to-day basis, 365 days a year.

    Our position in Newfoundland and Labrador has been very clear, and I'd like your comments on this. We don't believe anything will change. In your presentation, Chief Newman said you were here first with Roméo LeBlanc. You're still here today and many of the things are the same; the same things are happening. It's the same thing in Newfoundland. We've been at it for years on our different issues. We come to Ottawa and there's not a whole lot of difference.

    Our position--my position when I was a minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the position of industry people, and the position of many of my colleagues--and I'll use extreme language, is that until we remove the people from DFO here in Ottawa, until some construction company comes in and dismantles that building right down to the concrete and the people are moved out to the regions of eastern and western Canada, close to the people, and work with the people on a day-to-day basis, nothing is going to change. Our position is very clear that until that takes place in Ottawa and more people move out to the regions and live there on a day-to-day basis, as you do, things will remain the same.

    On my final comment and question, if this is not working to your satisfaction, what are the other alternatives? What can you do? I think Chief Newman said “Enough is enough. We have been the victims too long and we're not going to take it any more.” What should happen?

  (1240)  

    Mr. John Radosevic: You have the answer. You have the Stephen Owen report on consultation. Not everything has to be done according to the blueprint, but it's a good report. You've got some answers out of that. Our recommendation is that we start by agreeing that what's happening now is not working. There's a problem that needs to be fixed, so at least start there, have this public review and a proper commissioner, and start to develop a plan.

    You have some answers in the standing committee reports of bygone years and we support those. We support the Senate standing committee reports. There are some answers in the Auditor General's reports and we support those. But somebody has to put them together, starting from the premise that there's a problem here. We're not just trying to fiddle with something that's working; there's a problem here, so let's start at the beginning.

    I don't think anybody here has all the answers. It's a very complex problem, as you are aware, but we want to see a process started where we can be a part of the solution.

    The Chair: Mr. Cook wants to add something else.

    Chief Chris Cook: Thank you for your words here. I saw you reading the same paper.

    As the head of my group and as a fisherman from a reserve, I believe all we're asking for is a level playing field in accessing the salmon. This is not happening. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans consults with us. They sit us in a room and we, as the commercial first nation fishermen and other fishermen, talk about the part of the allocation we're going to get. In another room the minister is talking to first nation people. When I sit in that other room, he's talking about a share of the same fish. We don't even know what kind of a pie he's talking about. I don't think there's a real level playing field. They come into a meeting and they tell us “We would like to listen to you. We'd like feedback from you stakeholders. We're going to bring this information to the minister.”

    All we ask is that prior to their bringing that message to the minister or to this standing committee...we want them to tell us what they're saying to you. A lot of the time when you get our message it's not what we said; it's what they say. When we talk about a level playing field...if we were all on the same page I think we'd come to some success, including all of us working together for the salmon on the sockeye review.

    When the sockeye review came out for us first nations.... I don't know if I identified the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, which covers the majority of the river. They were the ones talking about the sockeye and appointing people for the sockeye review. We are the commercial fishermen on the coast.

    I don't know if this helps you, Mr. Efford.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Chief Newman.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Many studies have been done on the predicament of Indian people in the fishery. Many of these are paid for by the government. You know, it's all central.

    The second time I participated in a study I asked him before he was done, “What happened to the first one?” He said, “Mr. Newman, it's sitting on a shelf in Ottawa somewhere gathering dust. Nobody ever reads it.”

    So until the government pays attention to the studies they pay for and starts dealing with the problems Indian people face, nothing is ever going to change for us.

    The Chair: Mr. Wasden, do you want to make a comment?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: Just a quick comment or clarification.

    I don't know if Chris is talking about what we're talking about. When he's talking about the fish on the river, there are the coastal communities or villages, which are our coastal communities, and then the upriver natives. We're talking about the natives here.

    All Fisheries has done is take fish from us and give it to them. That's what they've done. They've taken fish away from us as coastal commercial fishermen and handed it up the river. They're creating a lot of problems themselves, maybe by design, I don't know. I'm new in this business, but you learn very quickly.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I don't know if there's any time to respond to that.

    The Chair: Yes, there is.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I would like to say there is one other solution the department is actually pushing and implementing themselves. They are basically transferring the cost of fisheries management down to the fleets and telling us that you have to harvest a part of your TAC before you can actually go fishing to pay for your management costs. Well, eventually, he who pays says.

    I don't know too many people in the industry I work in who would hire anyone from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do that management. So eventually by default, maybe down the road, they may actually be signing their own death warrant.

    The Chair: Mr. Burton for five minutes, followed by Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Looking at the strength of this delegation coming all the way from the west coast of Canada, I think it certainly indicates how serious a problem or how big a concern this is. It's a very costly effort. At the very least, it's costly in terms of dollars and time. And it's sometimes very, very frustrating, as we all know.

    But an issue was brought up about weak stock management. Just to get it in the record, I am not sure if everybody clearly understands how the weak stock management policy, which DFO tends to use to a large degree, can affect the ability to fish the other stocks. Can somebody just elaborate on this a little bit for the committee's information?

    I think Kathy mentioned it.

    The Chair: Who would like to take that? Ms. Scarfo.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I'll take this one because, actually, I had occasion not too long ago to make a presentation to an international committee. When we talked about weak stock management, they had a vision in their mind of a bunch of healthy-looking salmon and then a few really kind of weak, fragile-looking ones in the mix. We had to correct them and say, no, the terminology used means that basically, in the mixed-stock fishery, certain systems are very healthy and very strong and certain systems, very small systems in certain cases, are comparatively weak in their production.

    Sakinaw Lake, a very small lake on the Sunshine Coast north of Vancouver, would be considered a weak stock because it's not producing up to its maximum or even close to its maximum ability. You basically manage to the lowest common denominator. It's like managing a needle in a haystack, and you forego a huge amount of opportunity then, yes.

    Mr. Andy Burton: What I'm getting at is the dollar cost to the commercial fishery in terms of this weak stock management. On the Skeena River it's an issue with some of their upper Skeena coho, which are, I think, about one-quarter of 1% of the stock in that river. I believe that two years ago, in 2001, they lost a huge fishing opportunity on sockeye or coho and it cost the industry about $20 million, so the impact on communities is very, very devastating.

    Maybe somebody could comment on what they would suggest DFO's approach should be to try to deal with this in a more realistic manner.

  (1250)  

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: That actually is one of the recommendations that was passed unanimously by all industry groups last week at the South Coast Advisory Board meeting, where we basically said, stop the meeting, this is ridiculous; this is a futile exercise asking us to plan fisheries unless we start discussing how we manage these weak stocks, particularly the three that are identified.

    What we need to know is what impact we will have on those stocks if we maximize the harvest of surpluses. If there are 15 million sockeye out there and we should be harvesting 11 million of them, what impact will that have on those particular runs? Does it mean we're going to harvest 3 fish, 10 fish, or 33 fish returning to those systems? Let's identify that. Identify that, and then let's talk about the difference between 3, 10, and 30 fish for the rebuilding strategy for that river.

    That's what we've asked you, and that's basically the baseline we need at this point, environmental impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. Do we forego $200 million worth of fish to put an extra five fish back into a system that needs $2 million worth of work, where without that $2 million worth of work that $200 million is not cost-effective?

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

    Did Chief Cook have a comment?

    Chief Chris Cook: I believe there's a real need on the west coast to have an appointed adviser, an adviser for us so we can have a line straight to you. It doesn't seem as if we have a line to the people we should have a line to, and I believe there should be a commissioner from part of our people to that.

    You know, when you talk about coho or spring salmon, if you jump on a plane and you open a book, you see Come to Comox, Come to Parksville, Come to Prince Rupert, or Come to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and they show you pictures of spring salmon that are that big, and they show you a page of halibut laid up all through there. I don't know if anybody around the table knows this, but if we had the same picture of a man holding that same coho, a commercial fisherman holding that same coho or holding that same spring salmon, we could be charged. We talk about an even playing field, but just read there where you're allowed four coho a day, two coho a day, or four spring salmon a day, yet we can't catch that same fish.

    They have a 900,000-pound quota--I'm not trying to start an argument with sports fishermen--for halibut. If we wanted to catch, say, that million pounds of quota, if we had to go buy that licence at $30 a pound, for us as commercial fishermen it would be $30 million to catch that same equivalent quota. For that cod we have to buy a quota, for prawns we have to buy a quota, and for crabs we have to buy a quota. The sports fisherman buys a licence, a $20 licence, and he can fish all of them. I just thought I'd share that with you.

    Thank you.

    Mr. John Radosevic: Just on this weak stock management thing, I think it's important to note that for the most part fishermen have willingly gone down the road with DFO to protect stocks. In the situation of this summer, which is the reason we're here mainly, we had a situation where the late stocks were seen as a weak stock because of the in-river mortality. When it didn't turn out to be that way, when nature fooled the Department of Fisheries and the rest of us, the Department of Fisheries was incapable of recognizing the new reality that nature was presenting and making the change.

    It's both that weak stock management issue plus the incapacity to manage even when the weak stock is not an issue. So it's both. We don't fish when there are no fish and we don't fish when there are fish.

    The Chair: You may have one very short question, Mr. Burton.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Chief Cook, you mentioned your concern about the AFS and the Fraser River affecting the Johnstone Strait fishery. I'm just wondering, when you talk about a level playing field, what sorts of checks and balances would you want to see in terms of dealing with that inequity?

  (1255)  

    Chief Chris Cook: One of the things I'm worried about, sir, is that you're talking about treaties that are happening within our area. If you give 1% or 0.5% to every tribe or band that's going through a treaty, there won't even be enough for the first nations people. When we talk about a level playing field, we should all know what's on the table. We all know we have 100%. What percentage is really going to go down the tubes five years from now? The commercial fishermen have a big investment and we don't know what's happening, sir.

    When I talked about a level playing field, it was that when you give this first nation, that first nation, that first nation, and that first nation an allocation to catch fish, why don't you give it to all? Why is it that only a few get it and they say that nobody else can get it? It's like blackmail, and it's deteriorating the relationship among all of us as people. All the brothers who are sitting here--the first time we all got together, the white man and the Indian sitting here--we are being hurt all the same. Yet we're not even a part of that decision-making, sir, and it's really hurting us.

    For myself, as president of the Native Brotherhood, I'm here with my hands out saying help; please, help us.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: We all know that pain is an equal opportunity tormentor; it doesn't know any different.

    I want to get to some questioners. Mr. Stoffer, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you for your presentations today.

    A few months ago we did a video conference with a Mr. Paul Macgillivray of DFO, and I just asked him one simple question: how is the situation in terms of resources? Do you have enough money to do the job in terms of managing the west coast stock? He wouldn't answer the question. We understand this is a political question, but they refused to answer it.

    My basic understanding of what you're presenting today is that DFO is out of control. It doesn't have the resources or personnel to do the job effectively, and it works against the interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen in terms of the commercial sector. One of the questions I would like to ask is in regard to that. If the minister were here now and you could give him a couple of quick recommendations of how to fix the problem, what would they be?

    Also, for the parliamentary secretary, I think it's important, sir, if you can take the advice from what the aboriginal people are going through. When they have a problem with the fishery, they go to one department and that department says, it's not us, so they go to another, and they're like a ping-pong ball between the two. That's a situation that needs to be resolved right away.

    I just wanted to say the last point of the question. Terry Glavin of the Sierra Club designed a strategy for the conservation of Pacific salmon, and they had a press conference the other day. I'd like just briefly, Mr. Radosevic, Ms. Scarfo, or whoever, a brief analysis of this report in terms of how it relates to the commercial fishery on the west coast.

    Mr. John Radosevic: I'll just take one shot at that: it's not based on scientific evidence.

    The Chair: So say you all to Mr. Glavin's report? He came to see me as well.

    Mr. John Radosevic: There are suppositions in it that are not supported by the available science.

    The Chair: Is there any response to any of the other comments he made?

    Chief Williams.

    Chief Charlie Williams: This is in response to the comments on DFO's lack of sources of money. Why is it they are able to give $75 million to the salmon farming industry to do advertising instead of trying to restock or recreate areas where coho systems are? Why don't they try to enhance that habitat after the impacts of logging?

    Those other types of things are a waste of money. Those industries should have all the money they need because they're basically taking over the wild salmon industry. That's a poor way of using money that comes. It's beyond us why they'd give $75 million to an industry that's destroying the resources.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: Just on the Glavin 2002 review with industry, that's pretty irresponsible to be putting out. The industry report, which he participated in, isn't even out here. I believe the final report won't be out for another couple of weeks. I've read little bits and pieces of it. It's not based on any science; it's an environmentalist who....

    I wish he'd put us on that list as endangered. He should do a study on us. We're endangered. But he knows nothing.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, you have two more minutes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I believe the chief wants to say a few words.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Yes. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

    I want to respond to Mr. Burton's concerns about why we are concerned about the inland fishery.

    The allocation that went to the inland fishery came from the buyout of licences. They bought out those licences to give us more opportunity, and yet they transferred....

    The allocations of the river fishery came from the buyout of those licences. That's what hurts.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: One of the recommendations in your brief to us is the public inquiry into, obviously, west coast management.

    Ms. Wilson, one of the things I've suggested in a policy paper I brought to my own party was that quite possibly we should look at management similar to what Fogo Island in Newfoundland has done, and Sambro Fisheries has done in Nova Scotia: a cooperative, co-management, co-responsibility, community-based aspect of the fishery.

    A lot of people in the coastal communities of Nova Scotia are working towards that, sort of turning management of fishery stocks on its head. I'd like your brief summation. Would something of that nature work on the west coast, or is it something you're thinking about?

    Ms. Cheryl Wilson: We actually have a pilot project that's happening on the west coast, called the West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board. It is made up of first nations government, local government, industry, DFO, and the provincial government, and it's just in its initial stages.

    They have fought for it for 10 years plus, I think, and finally have had the go-ahead to do a pilot project. Communities do believe community-based management is one of those solutions, where everyone is involved in the decision-making process and it is able to respond in, as Kathy had mentioned, a real-time manner, not based on something that hasn't worked in the past.

    The Chair: Did you want to say something, Mr. Cook?

    Chief Chris Cook: We just had a council of Pacific fish harvesters, with the people from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We were asked to sit on the panel. We asked for some time to share with the panel.

    When we shared that, from all of us, each one of us sharing that stand, that we will all work together for the benefit of all and the reserves, your people came up to us and said, if you, the first nations and this group, said the same thing to the people in our province, the healing would start.

    I just want to share that, because we're working together, all of us. This shows it, all of us sitting together.

    That was a strong message from all the east coast people. They said, if you could come to our area and share what you shared, that we should all be working together for the best of the resource, the healing would start.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: We're at our time limit, but we do have two more questioners, plus I have a question. So if it's okay with you, if you could just stay until we give the members an opportunity to ask questions.... Thank you.

    We have Mr. Farrah, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, followed by Mr. Hearn.

    Monsieur Farrah, s'il vous plait.

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): With regard to consultations, you talked a lot, perhaps rightly so, about the fact that you did not feel a part of the consultations, that you did not feel that you were being listened to. First of all, I would like to know what you think of the Fraser River Panel. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are there not aboriginal representatives on the Fraser River Panel?

[English]

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: I will respond.

    The Fraser River panel makeup is appointed by the minister. The individuals at the table are told very clearly that they are not there to represent any constituency in particular; they are there as Canadians.

    If you look at the makeup of the panel, though, there is a representative from each of the gear types and areas. So for all that, when we've asked for a seat on the panel from our area, we're told no, it's not by area. But if you look at the makeup, the reality is, they do put someone from each of the areas and regions.

    With the first nations representation--and I'll let the first nations speak to this--there have been some concerns over how the representation is decided, where the representation comes from, inland and coastal, given the diversity in the bands. I think there has been some discussion that they would like to have more say in who that representative will be.

·  (1305)  

    Mr. Georges Farrah: Okay, go ahead.

    Mr. Gord Wasden: There are seats on the Fraser River panel, but they're upriver. There are no coastal seats on the Fraser River panel.

    Well, I'm wrong.

    Mr. John Radosevic: Could I have a quick one?

    The Chair: Are you retracting your statement?

    Mr. Gord Wasden: I have to. I'm wrong.

    The Chair: We just want to have the correct answer on record.

    Mr. John Radosevic: Under protest, he retracted it.

    Mr. Gord Wasden: Under protest, yes. I'm thinking of the Fraser River panel, and then there's the salmon commission.

    Mr. Georges Farrah: I only want to know if it's efficient, how it works, and if the aboriginal people are well represented and on the panel.

    Mr. John Radosevic: There are some problems with the panel, but I don't want to make the panel or the representatives on the panel necessarily the problem. The problem is that DFO doesn't necessarily listen to them either.

    If you look at what the panel members from our industry wanted to do in terms of expanding the 15% that we talked about earlier that would have allowed us to have caught some fish this year, the department wouldn't move. They couldn't move because, at the same time, they had promised us some flexibility on the 15%. They had enshrined it in the Canada-U.S. agreement they had signed. On the one hand, they had given us the flexibility and with the other hand they'd taken it away. They couldn't listen to the Fraser River panel.

    Mr. Georges Farrah: Did the Fraser River panel recommend it?

    Mr. John Radosevic: The Fraser River panel made some recommendations that would have allowed more fish to be taken, but they weren't listened to either.

    It's a combination of things. When the Department of Fisheries gets advice that it doesn't like, it doesn't listen.

    As well, Kathy has made some points with regard to the makeup in terms of accountability and so forth. Those issues stand. We all stand behind the comments.

    There are some decent people. We don't want to make people from our industry the target.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: Christine Hunt is here. She has been an aboriginal representative on the Fraser River panel. Maybe if you have some questions later, you could approach her.

    The Chair: Chief Newman.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Thank you.

    Although we have aboriginal people on the advisory boards, it doesn't mean anyone listens to them. I used to sit on the federal fisheries minister's advisory board when people like John Fraser and Tom Siddon were still around. The first thing he used to tell us is that we were his advisory board, but he didn't have to listen to us. That's the way it is.

    Mr. Georges Farrah: I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

    Chief Newman, you talked about a communal licence policy. You said this policy doesn't work in your communities. Could you explain a little more on that?

    We talked about it in eastern Canada with the Marshall decision and all those things. I want to know how it works in your place and why it doesn't work.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Thank you.

    There is a lack of money for one thing. I think the government puts up $6 million a year for AFS or DFO to buy licences for the communal, what they call, aboriginal licences. Some of the licences on the west coast are worth over $1 million.

    What can you buy for $6 million? You can buy one sea urchin licence for a community. What's that one sea urchin licence going to do for a community? It just doesn't work.

    Recently, the Native Fishing Association has been hired by the Department of Fisheries to act as a committee to review all of the licences put up for sale. It has been offered, what they call, the ATP, allocation transfer program.

    In the last two meetings we had over $20 million worth of licences on the table offered to Indian people. We had $3 million to spend the last time. This time I think we have $300,000 to spend. The same licences will be on the table again.

    How can you buy a licence when you don't have the funding?

    Mr. Georges Farrah: In principle, is it a good idea to give licences to the community rather than to individuals?

    Chief Edwin Newman: No. I was a chief negotiator for my band for a number of years. I don't believe a community licence alone is going to work for a community. It's not going to create the kind of economic opportunities needed to make it work.

    The treaty table only offered 3% to 5% of the resources. What is 3% to 5% going to do for our people? You need to have a certain number of private entrepreneurs involved to make things work in our community.

·  (1310)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Chief Cook, you wanted to say something.

    Chief Chris Cook: On the communal licence you talked about, this is one of the plights we have in the coastal band, for instance, me and Charlie, who is the president of Territorial Fisheries. That's what we're talking about.

    You give us 20 gill net and seine licences. We have six hours worth of fishing. It doesn't make any sense when you ask if it's doing any good. When you give these licences out I believe there has to be some balance. You have some halibut quota, some herring quota, so that the same people can make payments on their boats, and it could be viable, rather than giving just one licence. If we give one driver's licence to everybody in here, who's going to be driving the car today? It's the same thing. We have to have some balance in the licences.

    As Chief Ed Newman was saying, the native fishing association at one time bought all those licences. If you have x number of dollars and if a licence is on sale today.... One of the best licences to have is a gill net licence. They took two weeks before they came to a decision to buy it, and all the licences were sold. We have to have the money, and if we're going to buy that licence, we have to buy it today, because we're losing a lot of opportunities.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn, five minutes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In recognition of the fact that we have very little time, there are two topics I'd like to throw out, and we can have some comments.

    Basically, I'll address remarks made by Mr. Wasden and Chief Newman. One deals with the licences.

    I come from Newfoundland. I live in the fishing community. My family fished all their lives; most of my friends still do. I also live within casting distance of a salmon river that once was relatively prolific and now basically has none. If you see a couple of salmon now in the summer, that's as much as you'll see. The harbour used to be filled with salmon. I remember standing on the side of the road in the evening counting salmon as they jumped going up the river. You don't see it any more. We have a change in our fishery.

    Regarding the licensing, we have the same problem in Newfoundland. As people get out of the fishery, licences become available. The average fisherman or the young person who wants to get into the fishery cannot afford to buy these licences. They are being bought by people who don't own boats, who have never set foot on a wharf, who have never had salt water go over them. They're old-time merchants. It's quite often the processors or businessmen. We have one person who operates the funeral home who owns seven licences.

    My belief is if you have a fishing licence--which you should be able to get for the regular price you paid years ago, $50 or whatever, because it's only a permit to fish from year to year and you renew it--it should be given to the individual who has an operation, who has a boat and is going to get in that boat and fish for whatever the person is fishing for. If we reintroduced that, we wouldn't have half the problems we're having.

    The second comment I think Chief Newman made was about the wasted money from HRDC and other departments to compensate for your loss of fishing activity. I believe with proper organization, planning, and consultation a lot of the money invested in the fishery to rebuild and regenerate would do a lot more good than the short-term program, which gives you stamps to draw EI for a year and then you're back again with your hand out.

    In relation to money just being thrown out, government seems to have the idea that we gave them a lot of money, and of course it's gone at the end of one year. There is no long-term planning. With proper planning and proper investment, where we have a renewable resource, we can turn this country around.

    I'd like your comments on this.

·  (1315)  

    The Chair: Who would like to answer that three-minute question?

    Mr. John Radosevic: I agree.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Those were quite interesting statements you made, and we agree with your statements. Indian people have been victims of decisions made by the Department of Fisheries many times. We lost our participation in the halibut fishery. I have a list of the licences owned by Indian people on the coast. There's a total of 1,052 in all categories. In halibut we have 25, from the thousands we used to have at one time.

    When Chamut was regional director of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., we lost 88 Indian category herring licences with one stroke of a pen. They were upgraded so the companies could own them. And the salmon licences were lost through the buyback. There have been millions of dollars worth of licences lost by Indian people because of the way Fisheries manages the fishery, and we've never been compensated for it.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: For a lot of us the intergenerational transfer of licences is very critical, particularly when you look at the age of our fleets and the high costs, which basically will mean that the next generation of fishermen will be bankrupt before they even hit the water. That's an extreme concern. I congratulate the Quebec government for its recent capital gains tax exemption, $500,000, which it just passed in order to ease that. It's a very hot topic. In a lot of ways it's a big driver for the ITQ system. Artificially drive up the value of your licence, because it's your pension plan. The long-term cost of that to us as Canadians is going to be severe. It was never meant as a management tool. It is a funding tool. Basically, it should be viewed as the new stock market, and like any stock market it will collapse and it will rise. But the people making the money catching the fish are not the ones who are going to be the drivers.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: With regard to the licence issue, we're not just throwing this out today. This is something the committee is aware of. Actually, we've agreed to look at licensing in our review. We are well aware of that, and I'm sure it's an issue we'll be dealing with.

    Mr. John Radosevic: We want to appeal to this committee to come again to British Columbia. It has been a few years since you were there. The last time you were there it was around the Mifflin plan and the Anderson plan, with all of the chaos that existed at that time.

    Certain promises were made to you and to us, and it's time to find out the difference between what was promised and what you find today. Has the economic viability that was promised been realized on the coast? Is there a better consultation process, the one that has been promised for the last three or four years?

    Perhaps that's the only thing this committee can do. You're not the ministers of fisheries, but if there's a way for you to draw attention to what the issues are and to call for a process that actually starts to wrestle with problems, I think that would be an invaluable service that you could actually do.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I have many questions, but in the interest of time I have one particular question. It pertains to comments made more than once by Chief Williams. I'll preface it by saying this. Our committee is doing a study on aquaculture. I would like to know if your group has an official position on whether or not fin fish aquaculture has a place in British Columbia provided it is properly managed.

    Chief.

    Chief Chris Cook: Are you talking only about farm fish?

    The Chair: Yes. Ocean cages.

    Chief Chris Cook: The Native Brotherhood is looking into the ocean ranching of salmon, similar to what they have in Alaska.

    The Chair: Do you see a place for it if it's properly managed?

    Chief Chris Cook: We're just looking at it.

    The Chair: Does anybody take a contrary view?

    Mr. John Radosevic: Chris is talking about ocean ranching.

    The Chair: I'm talking about farm fish. I'm talking about fin fish aquaculture.

    Chief Chris Cook: I'm not talking about farm fish. I think that's found throughout the coast, when you say aquaculture fin fish. It's all fin fish.

    The Chair: I'm talking about farm fish.

    Ms. Kathy Scarfo: If I can respond, I think each of us as organizations takes a slightly different position. It would be unfair for us to try to give you a consensus, but I think the consensus is there is concern. Individually, many of the bands within particular regions and some of the communities within various regions may have a different feeling about this. Overall, though, I think there's a general consensus that there is concern with what is happening with fin fish aquaculture. I wouldn't say so much in the mericulture, but in the lifting of the moratorium on salmon and the expansion into black cod and halibut at this present time.

·  (1320)  

    The Chair: All right. Excellent.

    Chief Williams and then Chief Newman, and that's it.

    Chief Charlie Williams: I presented you with a map of the area I represent. There are 28 fish farms within that territory. We know the impact of fish farming because we see the day-to-day changes within the resources. Our position on fish farming is zero tolerance of the very existence of those farms within our territory. It's too bad that people aren't actually there to see the daily impact, such as the crash of the pinks, the contamination of the clam beds, which used to be prime, and the effect it has on halibut and flounder. We have pictures of the impact. It's too bad people don't really see what has happened. It's unfortunate that people have taken a certain position, because they don't have firsthand experience of what the impact is. We've been heavily impacted.

    This industry has been in our area for almost 20 years, but since the moratorium was put on, the amount of fish they put into net pens has become enormous. They've become super sites. If you put a lot of people together in a small room, we're going to start getting sick. If you put all that salmon in a net pen, you'd better believe there's going to be a disaster. They're going to be sick, and it's going to be throughout the coast.

    The Chair: Just so I'm clear, your position is that there's no room for that industry.

    Chief Charlie Williams: No.

    The Chair: Chief Newman.

    Chief Edwin Newman: Thank you. The Heiltsuk people also have a zero tolerance for fish farms in the central coast. We're trying to protect a way of life. We have aboriginal rights and title to the seas that are on our territory and we live off the land. We're concerned when you hear about all the dead fish, the fish that died off on the west coast, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans allowed them to dump them in the ocean. We don't want any garbage being dumped in what we call our food basket.

    There's already been an outbreak of disease in our territory. They had to clean all those fish out of all those farms. They packed it down to Campbell River and dumped it there somewhere. We don't want the central coast to become a garbage dump for the fish farm industry. We want to protect the way of life that's important to us. So we're totally opposed to any fish farms being transferred or relocated into the central coast.

    The Chair: Mr. Cook.

    Chief Chris Cook: In terms of the position of the Native Brotherhood, I've been asked the same question myself as the president. The majority of the members of the Native Brotherhood are against farm fish--zero tolerance. A couple of bands are into it.

    Maybe it might help you to know this. I was in a gathering a few years ago and I was sitting there talking and talking, and by the time I finished there was only one man there. I said “You must have liked my speech.” He said “No, I'm the next speaker.”

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, it was very informative.

    Mr. John Radosevic: I'd like to say something just for the record, Mr. Chairman, since people have put their positions out. My members in some cases actually work on farm fish, and they agree with what I'm going to say. There's no question that the safety of wild stocks is being compromised by the way the farm fish file is being managed. Our position is no open net cages, closed containment, and strict enforcement of the safety regulations, but we're coming closer and closer to believing, when we see what's happening on the Broughton Archipelago, that there just may not be any room for that kind of activity. But, as I say, we're opposed to any open net cages.

    The Chair: Thank you so much for that. It will be very helpful for us. I am going to call the meeting now. I want to thank everybody for their time and their presentations. We will do our best to try to reflect your concerns.

    Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.