EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 1995

.1529

[English]

The Chairman: I will call the meeting to order. I want to welcome the minister, Mr. Tobin, to the fisheries and oceans committee. We haven't seen you in quite a while. We've seen a lot of you, but we haven't seen you in here in quite a while, although we do see your officials pretty often.

I want to welcome you here, and perhaps you could tell us who else you have with you today.

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): First of all, Mr. Chairman, before I say anything else, I'm going to introduce the deputy, Bill Rowat, and ask Bill to introduce the team we have with us here at the table and those we may call upon who are also in the room. Bill.

Mr. William A. Rowat (Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, we have John Thomas, new senior assistant deputy minister of the department and also the commissioner for the Canadian Coast Guard; Pat Chamut, assistant deputy minister for fisheries management; Scott Parsons, assistant deputy minister of science; John Emberly, acting assistant deputy minister for industry services; Don Dickson, director general of finance and administration; Michel Scott, director of the planning and reporting branch; and Karl Laubstein, director general of industry renewal. So we have a full team for you today.

.1530

The Chairman: Who's going to lead off? Are you going to lead off, Mr. Tobin?

Mr. Tobin: If I may, Mr. Chairman, as is traditional for ministers coming before the standing committee, I have a statement that reflects some of the priorities and plans of the department in the next period of time.

I won't read it all verbatim, but I'd like to go through it somewhat to reflect on some of the more important components of DFO's plan for 1995-96, and frankly the years beyond, in terms of reshaping, redefining, and reprioritizing the work of this department.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here before you, and before this committee, to outline the overall direction and initiatives that will guide the department.

Perhaps I could begin by describing the operating context we are facing in DFO. I would say that as a department, and in particular as a new and merged department, we are facing some very substantial challenges that require us as a department to change our management approach in very fundamental ways.

First of all, we face tremendous challenges on the resource side, as no doubt you and the standing committee can verify from your travels in western Canada in the last month or so, and no doubt as you will find again in your travels in the Atlantic when you go there in the next few weeks.

Among those challenges are a continued depressed state of the Atlantic coast groundfish stocks - and not withstanding some recent news of a find of cod in Trinity Bay, northern cod, in my view, is unlikely to be able to support any kind of substantial commercial fishery for at least another decade.

The difficulties in regulating the 1994 Pacific salmon fishery were highlighted by the findings of the Fraser report, and other pressures, such as marine contamination and the need for a greater understanding of the marine environment and ocean processes that affect our fisheries, of course, are a challenge as well.

Meeting all of these challenges will involve both regulating, Mr. Chairman, the activities of foreign fleets, both on our east coast - and we are now within days of meeting at a special NAFO to talk about ``NAFO-izing,'' for want of a better word, the Canada-EU agreement; that meeting will occur next week in Toronto. But in our relationship with the United States on the Pacific coast, the question of equity remains unresolved in the context of the ongoing discussions regarding the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

So we face challenges on both coasts - resources challenges - and these are but two.

Internally, we face other pressures, including working to ensure the smooth merger between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, although it has received little attention or little note, the fact of the matter is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, together with its coast guard component, which as of April 1 resides here, is a department that has doubled in size. It has a total budget this year of a little less than $1.4 billion and total personnel in the area of some 11,000 full-time equivalent positions.

Both departments have proposed under the program review a very substantial reduction of resources and expenditures over the next three years, both in capital terms and in people terms. Merging these two large operations and at the same time finding the efficiencies - multi-tasking, doing things better than we've done in the past - and still meeting our obligations is a very substantial internal challenge for the department.

Of course, we're open to whatever advice you and members of the committee can provide to us. In the next three years, we have to essentially shrink from a total budget of $1.4 billion to something less than $1 billion - $987 million. That's a very substantial hit to take in a period of three years, difficult but necessary given the priorities with respect to the fiscal state of the country that has been outlined in Mr. Martin's last budget.

.1535

In short, in that regard the department's draw on the consolidated revenue fund will be cut by 35% in the period contained in the outlook document we've provided to the members of the committee - a very substantial hit.

How are we going to accomplish this redefined, reshaped, refocused department? It's going to require a change to the way we do business, every sector of our business, principally and firstly by adopting a business approach to the operations of the department. That means, among other things, in the next period of time, the consolidation of field offices and labs, and rationalization or divestiture of harbours in particular.

I think I've made clear to this committee before that I believe DFO should be out of the business of recreational harbours entirely. There are about 804 recreational harbours in Canada, and it is my view that we should no more be in the business of providing harbour facilities for weekend boaters or recreational boaters than we are in the business of providing the paying of golf fees for weekend golfers.

It's a recreation activity, and insofar as the 804 recreational harbours are concerned, given the constraints we have, we're going to be looking very aggressively and vigorously to repatriate the harbours either to municipalities, to private boat clubs, or back to the provinces.

We're looking at rationalization of our fleet and our support infrastructure. There are examples of where we have both DFO and coast guard bases...and John Thomas, our new senior assistant deputy minister and commissioner of the coast guard has the greatest area of expertise with respect to fleet management among those of us at the table. But there are locations where we have two bases, a coast guard base and a DFO base, literally within, as we'd say in Newfoundland, spitting distance of each other.

Perhaps there are locations where we ought to rationalize that support infrastructure, which means still getting the job done; it means still having the presence in a particular part of the coastline, but having an ability to do the job more efficiently.

Additionally, we're looking at multi-tasking of vessels. The best example of vessel multi-tasking was the tremendous way in which the DFO fleet and coast guard fleet worked together as a team in the pursuit of enforcement activities with Spanish vessels during the spring. I think they've demonstrated - and it's been tested in the field - that they can work together extremely effectively and develop a solid camaraderie and a good solid command structure. We intend to build upon that very positive experience.

The application of advanced information technology is also vital to being more efficient managers with fewer resources, and that is a field we're pursuing as well.

In addition to focusing on our core operations and adopting a business approach over the next number of years, there are three broad policy themes that will change the way in which DFO does business.

The first is sustainability. I won't say a lot about that except to make it very clear that DFO, first and foremost, in future will put its emphasis not on the management of a particular fishery, the management of a particular fleet sector, the management of a particular region, or the management of expectations, whether they be commercial, aboriginal or recreational expectations, but we shall put our emphasis upon management of the resource, and all else flows from that.

That will be our watchword: conservation. I think we've seen in sustainability some examples of where this new priority that has been demanded by everybody in the industry, and has been asked for by members of this committee, is beginning to produce some results. On the west coast, the coast of British Columbia, this year we were able to put in place aboriginal fisheries agreements fully two months earlier than agreements were achieved last year.

Last year, as the fish were literally running and the season was under way, we were still negotiating agreements. That had been a pattern that had been followed, I suppose, since the inception of the aboriginal fisheries program.

This year, all agreements were signed by May 15. All of the sales agreements were put in place. I think it gives us a much better handle on putting in place internally our capacity to manage these fisheries. Time will tell, and we've certainly made a good first step.

For the Pacific herring fishery this year, we've had the lowest overrun in a decade in that fishery - less than 10%. I think it's a reflection of the kind of level of tolerance, or I should say intolerance, for funny business on the part of the department, but also a reflection of the determination of the industry itself to do things better. So we've seen the best managed herring fishery in a decade this year.

.1540

We're seeing good conservation measures being adopted on the Atlantic coast this year as well.

We're seeing - even though the science hasn't changed overall - a slight reduction, for example, in crab quotas. We've seen a decision taken by me and by the department to close the unit 1 red fishery this year. It was a a decision that could have been controversial in that it certainly had an impact on some gulf fishermen, both in western Newfoundland and on the Magdalen Islands, given that there was a recommendation by the FRCC for a fishery this year of 7,000 metric tonnes.

Nevertheless, in taking the decision to close the fishery because of a clear pattern of decline, Mr. Chairman, there was - rather than conflict or contradiction or even opposition - acquiescence and acceptance of a very difficult conservation call on the part of the industry.

I think these signs, these indicators, indicate a change in mind-set in the industry that has been long in coming, but very important.

Viability is another principle that will guide the fishery of the future. Over the period covered by the outlook document, we'll work with stakeholders to put into place a new framework for an economically viable fishery.

To remain competitive in increasingly intense global trade, the fishing industry and other marine sectors need a sound, cooperative and stable regulatory environment. They also need a healthy resource base. So we'll work with industry to address the problem of overcapacity in many fleet sectors.

With respect to the Atlantic coast, we have a first round of offers in from fishermen; bids, if you want. About 50% of those bids we would deem to be viable or realistic, and they are now being assessed by the harvesting adjustment boards. Decisions will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, perhaps representing as much as $100 million worth of expenditures. The final determination will come when I receive the advice of the harvesting adjustment boards. That will contribute to some capacity reduction on Canada's east coast.

With respect to the west coast, British Columbia, there are what are essentially a series of round-table meetings on the coast of British Columbia this September. Indeed, one of the major items on the table, which has been asked for by both the union people like Dennis Brown and Mike Hunter representing the industry and others, is the question of overcapacity. The industry itself has undertaken to provide leadership in addressing the question of overcapacity and making recommendations to government as to how overcapacity can be dealt with through the licensing systems or by other means. We look forward to progress on the west coast as well on the problem of overcapacity.

Partnerships with various sectors, the private sector, unions, and so on, will certainly be important to the management of the fishery of the future.

Mr. Chairman, there are some key initiatives taking place in the coming time period. Last year, you will recall, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, the NABST, committee report, chaired by the Prime Minister and reporting to the Prime Minister, made a recommendation that Canada provide for a new oceans act. As you know, this initiative has arisen several times over the last decade. It is an initiative that has never reached the point of legislation, for one reason or another. Clearly, there is a need demonstrated in many ways in this country to have a whole approach to the management, the use and the utilization of the resources living and non-living of our oceans, and to the development of the marine environment, in particular the coastal environment.

We hope to begin the process of achieving that with the introduction of an oceans act, frankly within a matter of weeks if that's possible, before even the House would rise for the summer session.

The act has a number of principles: first, to conserve and protect the oceans environment, the ecosystems and the resources they contain; second, to establish a framework and guidelines to manage the oceans resources, both renewable and non-renewable, on an economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable basis; third, to enhance, focus, coordinate and disseminate Canada's scientific, environmental and management information relating to oceans and their resources; fourth, to assert and enforce Canada's sovereign rights and responsibilities over its ocean resources and areas, in part by declaring for the first time - it's taken as a given in Canada but in reality it's not yet there - an exclusive economic zone and a contiguous zone; fifth, to establish a legal framework to support the implementation of this oceans management strategy through the development and tabling of the oceans act itself; and sixth, to establish a clearly identifiable lead federal agency accountable for oceans management.

.1545

Mr. Chairman, today there are approximately some 15 government departments or agencies that have a slice of oceans responsibility. We want to consolidate all of that through one lead agency, and that will be accomplished through the introduction of a new oceans act.

I would suggest to you that the department and myself could benefit greatly from the comment, from the opinion, from the research and from the advice of this committee on the oceans act. We've done our best in presenting a draft piece of legislation, which will go to cabinet but ultimately be referred to this committee. We look forward to your thorough study and your advice as to how it can be improved.

I'll take two or three minutes to talk about some of the other major initiatives taking place in the coming time period.

With regard to foreign overfishing, as I mentioned earlier, we meet next week in NAFO to attempt to NAFO-ize the existing agreement. I'll say no more about the foreign overfishing problem with respect to the east coast.

With respect to the west coast, we have a proposal now accepted by the U.S. side for mediation in the question of equity in the Pacific Salmon Treaty dispute. Indeed, both sides have compiled a list of potential mediators. Our negotiators will meet shortly to look at that list and to try to come to agreement on an eminent independent third person to assist us in resolving the issue of equity with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are other Pacific issues that have to be addressed, including the reduction of U.S. by-catches of immature Pacific halibut, which no doubt you may have heard something about during your travels to British Columbia, and also to secure U.S. ratification of the FAO flagging agreement.

We'll be seeking amendments and changes to the Fisheries Act in the next period of time. That will be another piece of legislation that will be referred ultimately, I believe, to this committee for your consideration, review and advice.

Finally, of course, a major effort now under way is to make adjustments to the operation of the Atlantic groundfish strategy. This is a matter that falls primarily under the responsibility of Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources Development, but it is an area on which, as Minister of Fisheries, and indeed as a regional minister from one of the Atlantic provinces, I'll be giving some advice to Mr. Axworthy.

With that - albeit not brief enough - overview, I'm available for questions.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for the overview. We could probably keep you here, Brian, for days, because the issues, as you well know, affecting the fisheries are very diverse and very broad, and some of them are very difficult.

We're going to give plenty of time for questions here. I have a couple just by way of comment or clarification.

The first, Mr. Minister, deals with the oceans act. I think members of the committee feel quite strongly that it's an initiative that's long overdue. As a first and major stab in that direction to establish an oceans policy for Canada, I was wondering if the minister would give some consideration to having the bill referred to the committee after introduction and first reading, rather than after second reading.

If it goes before the House before the break, I think there may be some work by way of consultations, public consultations, that the committee can do prior to that. The second reason is once it passes the House at second reading, it has approval in principle. I think that sometimes limits the sense of input, particularly by opposition members. This is a non-partisan approach to try to put some semblance of order into how we approach our ocean industry.

I put that out as a suggestion on behalf of the committee. I think it would allow us to feel that we're doing a little better work.

My second question deals with an area that you really didn't touch on but is very important. You've dealt with licensing, capacity reduction, overcapacity, capacity reduction on the east coast with respect to the ground fishery, but one of the things that I'm concerned about, particularly after coming back from British Columbia, is the habitat degradation that is happening in places like the Fraser, with the sewage going in from Vancouver, with the problem basically of clear-cutting on the banks of some of the estuaries that feed into where the salmon are going to spawn.

.1550

Could you tell me what your thoughts are as minister on what you and the government are prepared to do to try to clean up the habitat? Habitat degradation, as we've heard on the west coast, is a very serious problem when you're dealing with places such as the Fraser.

Mr. Tobin: On the first question, about reference of the oceans bill after first reading, that's something I hadn't thought about before today, but it's something I am certainly prepared to give consideration to. If it expedites the consideration of the bill and the work of the committee and gets us into it at an earlier date and takes advantage of the summer months, it's something I'd be glad to give very positive consideration to.

Let me consult on it and come back to the committee, through you, and give you another answer. But certainly we're looking at the timeframe we're into now, in the final weeks of the session, and unless we're staying here longer than had been anticipated, that route indeed may be the way to go. So I'll come back to you.

On the question of habitat, you're correct, I didn't mention habitat. It may well be it was in the notes, but the minister, doing his usual bad job of following the notes, didn't mention it. But indeed, habitat is absolutely vital and is important. One of the reasons to have an oceans act is to ensure you have one lead agency that sees the oceans environment and the rivers that flow into the ocean in total management terms.

Some examples of what we've done with habitat can be found - You talked about the Fraser River. We have just had a series of discussions with the GVRD, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the regional body responsible for municipal services, about the problem with Anacis and Lulu Island, which contribute mightily to the total discharge of solid suspended waste and other toxic waste, because it's untreated - no secondary treatment - into the Fraser River. I have given the GVRD until the end of June to produce a plan to clean up, up to complete secondary waste treatment at both Anacis and Lulu.

I am happy to report to you that I had originally written the GVRD, basically asking for their plan in thirty days. There was some comment that people thought we were being a little heavy handed. It certainly wasn't the intention. But when I met with the chairman, vice-chair, and other staff of GVRD, we had a good, constructive meeting.

What came out of the meeting was a commitment by the GVRD to go back, to meet with all the counsellors, the members of the GVRD - I think there were sixteen or eighteen in total - and they indicated with the additional time they asked for, and which I gave, they hoped to produce a game plan for how they would act to fulfil the requirements we insist upon to clean up this waste disposal problem.

There have been a series of pieces, as I think you know, on rivers and assessment of endangered rivers, which make it absolutely clear that the insistence we have on seeing this project done has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that this problem is fifteen years old. It's long overdue.

It's an expensive problem: $366 million. It's not easy for GVRD. But it's absolutely necessary.

I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, I've acted in good faith. I believe the GVRD's acting in good faith. But come the end of June, we'll have a plan where we'll use all the powers available to me as minister to ensure this clean-up proceeds on schedule.

The other things you talked about were streams and rivers. In the context of salmon, you are absolutely correct that this is absolutely vital. I think the Province of British Columbia has done a good job of bringing in a good forest practices code, and also in putting some money on the table to provide for some stream rehabilitation. That's primarily the responsibility of the province, and the provinces.

We certainly work hand in hand with them, with some green plan funds, in accomplishing some of that stream rehabilitation, and certainly in the context of British Columbia one has to acknowledge the province has done a good job in this regard and is now making good progress in stream rehabilitation and in providing for the kind of guidelines that ensure the forest industry understands the responsibilities in treatment of streams and leaving a cutting block or cutting strip of forest there to protect the streams.

The Chairman: I'll ask you one final question, and then I'll go to Mr. Bernier. It deals with the Law of the Sea conference.

.1555

As you're aware, last summer some members of the committee attended that particular session of the Law of the Sea, and it was clear at that point in time that Canada had scored some fairly major victories. The chairman had decided that it would not be just a conference, but it would be written as a convention. That gives it a lot more weight in international law.

There were two outstanding issues at that point in time. One was a binding dispute settling mechanism for these regional bodies, and the second was basically the pre-eminent role of the coastal state in setting conservation measures. Clearly, I don't think anybody, including you, had anticipated that last summer we would have had such an obvious example as to why that was necessary. We had it with the turbot dispute and with the Greenland halibut. As I saw it, at least, one of the major problems was that there was not any dispute settling mechanism and there was not the recognition in law of the role of the coastal state.

Could you fill us in on exactly what is the status of the convention? When is it liable to meet again? Has there been some progress on those two outstanding issues and indeed the actions that Canada took with respect to the Spanish problem with the EU? Has that strengthened or weakened our hand with some of the member states at the United Nations with respect to the Law of the Sea on straddling stocks?

Mr. Tobin: First of all, let me thank you and other members of the committee, who, over the last several sessions at the UN conference, have participated in conference meetings. I want to say to you that we'll ask you to do that again.

I think you will have seen, by your personal participation in the conference, that Canada indeed does play a leadership role at that conference. Our officials, led by Ambassador Paul Lapointe and others who work with him, both from External Affairs and from the international branch of Fisheries, have assumed the primary leadership role at that conference. Indeed, to be perfectly clear about it, that has really been the case going back to the days of the last government as well. It's not a new initiative and I think Canada has consistently played a strong role there.

I think the presence of members of Parliament is vital, as is the presence, frankly, of myself as minister on behalf of Canada and indeed the presence of a number of the premiers - the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have also attended. It sends a clear signal as to the importance Canada attaches to the outcome of this conference. This conference was primarily initiated, not exclusively at Canada's insistence but primarily at Canada's insistence, at the Rio summit over two years ago.

Mr. Chairman, the conference will meet again at the end of July and in August. I can tell you now we'd like the members to again strike a subcommittee of members to be present and to engage in the work of pressing the Canadian view. That would be useful.

What has been the impact of the Canada-EU dispute? I think it's been helpful. The reason I say that is that the chairman of the conference, Satya Nandan, who you no doubt will have met when you were in New York, has publicly said that. As recently as yesterday, I believe, he made the comment that it was helpful, that it was an indicator, an example, of the need for dispute settlement.

In fact, he went further and said that the draft text of the binding convention has within it a provision under article 21, I think it is, for a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Now, it's still to be negotiated and talked about. There's another session we have to get through, but there's a provision for binding dispute settlement. There's provision for enforcement in the case where states are either unable or unwilling to enforce against their own vessels. That has yet to be determined.

With those two principles as background, Mr. Nandan said last week when he was in St. John's, Newfoundland, that indeed NAFO as an organization had to be cognizant of this problem. He said NAFO had to deal with the problem of the objection procedure, which allows any one state to object to a decision to set unilateral quotas, and NAFO, if it was to be effective in future, needed to have a dispute settlement mechanism. He pointed to the UN conference and said that is the way in which those things can be achieved and adopted subsequently by any regional organization, in this case NAFO.

So without trying to be too self-serving about it, my reading would be that I think the fact that a country like Canada could find it necessary, with absolute regret and only as an absolute last resort, to do what we did last spring, when a country whose reputation is as a peacemaker/peacekeeper finds it necessary to take that kind of action, then we obviously need a dispute settlement mechanism that's available for all countries.

.1600

One last comment. It shouldn't be the preserve of only those countries big enough or powerful enough to enforce conservation to have a conservation regime they can count on. Why should Russia, the United States, the European Union, Canada, or any other large western economic or military power have the ability to get enforcement when it needs enforcement, and why should all other small, third world countries lack that ability? Unless we have a set of rules defined by the UN and backed by the UN, the ability to have the conservation we need will be limited only to those who have the power to take it. Obviously, that shouldn't be the case.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): How much time to I have for this first round? Ten or 15 minutes?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: You have all day.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Thank you. I intend to be straightforward because I think Mr. Tobin likes straightforwardness. His attitude last spring...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But be gentle with me. Don't do a Benino on me.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I will only use words, Mr. Tobin. But when I think of your past attitude and link it with Mr. MacDonald's last question, I just think that if you had been the Minister of National Defense, our soldiers might not have been tied up in Bosnia. End of comment.

The issue I would like to discuss is the Atlantic fisheries strategy. According to newspapers and to the findings of the Price Waterhouse report, this strategy is not for fisheries but rather an income support program.

You have been Minister of Fisheries for a year and a half. Before that, you were a member of Parliament and you were aware of the problems in that industry. So, you were not a rookie and you probably had a few ideas on this issue. I would like to know what is your vision of the fisheries of the future. That is my question which clearly deals with opportunity for catches. Are we dealing with the possibility to catch different species or the versatility of equipment, or do you foresee the extension of the specialized fisheries we currently have.

I would prefer not to have to wait for another year and a half. When you were faced with the turbot issue, you reacted with energy. And we supported you. Last year, when you had to take strong measures to amend Canadian legislation to allow our country to defend contiguous and straddling zones off Newfoundland, the Bloc Québécois still supported you. We make quick decisions when we have to.

Where are we going? At the present time, there is no strategy. In your opinion, what will be the future of the Atlantic fisheries?

Also, just to give you a chance since you asked me to be gentle with you, when will we know how fishermen will fish, what they will fish and how many of them there will be, and when will you address the issue of professionalization? That is the core of fisheries. That is the main issue you share with Mr. Axworthy.

Mr. Axworthy's program is for $1.9 billion. But money is just running away. Only you have the key to that program's success. What sort of relations do you have with Mr. Axworthy? What is the current situation? What is your vision for fisheries, who is going to fish and how? That is short, simple and quite moving.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: I'm glad you're being nice to me.

The Chairman: Right to the core.

Mr. Tobin: I thank Mr. Bernier for his questions. I think they are valid and valuable questions that he has posed to the committee.

.1605

First of all, I can't give you a comprehensive overview of the TAGS program because it is primarily administered by the Department of Human Resources Development and my friend Lloyd Axworthy is the minister. I am sure at some point he would be glad to come and give you greater detail than I can on TAGS in a comprehensive fashion.

Let me make some general comments about the TAGS program.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: But you are the one who can identify what core fisheries will be. It is for you to decide how things are going to be from then on. That is why my question is addressed to you.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: I am going to comment on some of that. But let me say, generally, that the TAGS program has been up and running now for less than a year. I frankly think if people are looking for examples of problems in the TAGS programs, you will be able to find them this year, next year and the year after. The program is not going to be without its problems.

Any time you have tens of thousands of people on an income assistance program because you've closed down an entire industry; any time you have to try to process about 60,000 applications, and 40,000 people have qualified for the program; and any time you try to invent training programs to handle all of those people in literally hundreds of remote locations, there are going to be problems. We should do better. We must do better. But anybody who tells you the measure of success or failure is that it is going to be problem-free after the first 10 months is not setting out an appropriate measurement of the success or failure of the program. That's the first comment I would make.

The second comment I would make is this. I don't have the data in front of me, so I'm going from memory. Frankly, I wasn't prepared to talk in detail about TAGS. Some 40% to 50% of all the people who qualify for TAGS have less than a grade 8 or 9 education. So it is not real to suggest that in an eight-, nine- or ten-month period that large block of people, many of whom require upgrading of basic adult education and basic literacy skills, is going to successfully go through the transition of a training program and acquire new skills.

A lot of these people went into the fishery as a way of life - and this is something you understand as well as I - and had no expectation when they went into the fishery of doing anything else for the rest of their lives but be attached to a fishing community, a fishing society and a fishing economy. This absolute moratorium has torn them out of a way of life and forced them to retrain, find new skills, try to find a new way to put bread and butter on the table, and look after their families. Frankly, we're not going to accomplish that in nine months or a year. It's going to take two or three years. In coming to conclusions, I just ask you to recognize that.

On the specifics you asked two questions. One was about how the core fishery was going to be determined. You will know that I said on behalf of this department and on behalf of this government shortly after I was sworn in as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the determination of what is a core fisherman, a professional fisherman, or professionalization, or bona fide, as they say in certain parts of the Maritimes, must come from the fishermen themselves.

Indeed, the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, made up of the eight major fishermen's unions in Canada, in its meeting in November 1993 in Moncton, within a week or ten days of this government being sworn in, established through assistance provided by HRD a harvesters' council and a professionalism conference. The harvesters themselves have been meeting on a regular basis with the assistance and collaboration of government, where appropriate, to define what a professional fisherman is or is not.

That process is ongoing. You would have to ask members of the harvesters' council for a report on the progress they've made, because I know you wouldn't suggest that we in this committee or this minister should unilaterally impose upon fishermen the definition of what a professional fisherman is; we would want to hear from them as well.

.1610

So that process has been established. It's taking time because it's difficult and because there are eight or nine different unions representing fishermen right across Canada involved in the process.

At the departmental level, in addition to waiting for the results of the work of the fishermen themselves, we are doing a licensing review process. Indeed, we are out in the field starting today in St. John's, Newfoundland, and we'll certainly be going throughout the Atlantic region talking to all of the many dozens of consultative committees.

We are doing an overall licensing review, which in part will deal with the question of who has access to the fishery and of who can have access to licence transfers, which will go some way toward defining the notion of a core or professional fishery. In part, the SEP criteria used for purposes of the TAGS program is a yardstick that one can use in determining what represents a professional fisherman or a member of the core fishery.

I understand this committee in its travels will take a look at the whole question of licensing and give advice to me and to the department on the question of licensing, which in essence deals with the notion of professionalization.

I can answer your question by saying that this process is under way at the level of the harvesters themselves. They have their own ongoing process. At the level of the department we have an ongoing process. Public consultation started today and we'll give you a copy of the document so that you can comment on it. I understand your committee is going out in the next week or ten days.

The Chairman: Our committee will be out on Monday, and that is one of the issues we're dealing with. We're hoping we'll have at least an interim report dealing with that for you by the end of June.

Mr. Tobin: We'll be looking forward to your advice, Mr. Bernier. Perhaps you can give it to me now.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I am not a minister. If you ask me to do it, some issues might be moving a little faster.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Quite seriously, with your tremendous experience in the sector, I would be happy to have it, and of course that of Mr. Cummins as well. He's an active fisherman. The rest of us have been cutting bait all our lives.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like to come back to the serious side of the issue, Mr. Tobin. I know that you can flatter us once in a while but that is not the way I would like to discuss the issue this afternoon.

I asked you questions on issues under your jurisdiction. In your answer you said that harvesters have been trying to determine with HRD their core fisheries. But precisely the Price Waterhouse report says that harvesters are waiting for you. And the worst part is that we are told they are developing a scenario in case there would be no more core fisheries.

Some officials are also present today. The Chairman would agree with me that there is now a contradiction between your officials and those from HRD. Officials from HRD are waiting for those of DFO to make up their mind and to define the core fisheries. So, who is doing what? There is only two of you, Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Axworthy. It shouldn't be so difficult to give the other a phone call or to have lunch together. I understand that it would be difficult for the two of us to have lunch together. But there's only the two of you and 1.9 billion dollars have been committed to this issue.

I just cannot understand. You too have ideas and you are first to set the directions. Last year, lobbyists ran a campaign with hooks to say that supertrawlers should be prohibited. Some of your officials can tell you that traw lines are the most destructive devices. At some point, you will have to set an example and say where we're going, how things will be done and how diversified the catches will be. After that, it will be possible to define the situation with harvestors. If those harvestors have no idea what is the minister's vision, what will be the approach - People who were withMr. Bulmer, from the Canadian Fisheries Council, said that we needed flexibility. They went as far as to recommend integration.

I for one invite you to read again the three political proposals the Bloc has submitted to you. Because of you I am forced to discuss politics. What you miss is an interface with harvestors and processors. There is also the issue of landed fish, because everyone must have access to what is landed.

Why not make the best of the present situation, with fisheries iddling, and test that type of pilot project? Why shouldn't we integrate all of the resources? Harvestors and processors work with a specialized species. You are responsible for conservation. Why don't you use -

.1615

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, if you want to have a debate, you know that I'm shy about debating. You're intimidating me here. You're giving me a tough time, and I asked you to be gentle with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: It is not intended, but we have been waiting for a year and a half.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, the fact of the matter is we are in the process of defining professional fishermen; we are in the process of defining a core fishery. That process is under way, and no matter how much you browbeat me, I refuse to go out there and to declare unilaterally from the ivory tower of Ottawa to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada and Quebec what a professional fisherman is before the standing committee of the House of Commons goes out and hears from people directly in their own communities their views as to how this is to be achieved. No matter how much you browbeat me and intimidate me, I refuse to turn off the consultation process, which is now ongoing with my department, as I just told you, to hear, from dozens of consultative committees across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, their views on licensing before I make a decision.

Simply saying that you want to have clear direction, without being mindful of how the process is implemented to get that clear direction, to my mind is not an appropriate way to proceed.

Let me go further. We always must listen to fishermen. Indeed, the Government of Quebec, the Minister of Fisheries in Quebec, I believe with your support, acquiescence, assistance, and advice, put forward a plan, which was presented to me in Vancouver, calling for Quebec to totally repatriate, totally control, totally operate all of the fishery resources involving the province of Quebec and fishermen of Quebec. This proposal was put to me as a fait accompli in the province of British Columbia during a meeting of fisheries ministers, as being the policy of the people of Quebec, but when it was put before a conference of fishermen of Quebec - I think you were at the meeting - they refused to endorse it. They said that they wanted the continued involvement and collaboration of the national government, they wanted to have their say, and they weren't prepared to give an endorsement to the policy that you and Mr. Landry put together.

So it's important, Mr. Bernier, always to take the time, even if it's more difficult, and sometimes more frustrating, to listen and to hear what fishermen say before we start taking policy decisions in this place. I know that you will agree with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: The Minister has raised another sensitive issue. In the policy proposals shared management is mentioned. You have been presented one of the elements of that issue in Victoria. To my knowledge, the last time we talked about it, you told me: ``It is terrible that I had only 18 days to respond to this proposal''. Today, six months later, you still have given no aknowledgment. When will this issue be solved? When will you provide a response and when are you going to discuss it?

You say you are going to tour Canada to discuss new policies and the licencing issue. But here you have a province which tells you you are stuck in a fine mess and that we need some streamlining. They are holding out their hand to you because they too have problems; they are the ones who provide funds for the vessels. What Quebec is telling you is that if you want to rationalize that is the way to go.

Of course, you can point your finger at some groups of fishermen who will not agree but the group who said that is currently dithering between two options. If you upset them on one side they will go for the other. If you want to solve the problem, let us sit together and look at the situation. Why do you refuse to discuss with Quebec? What they are asking you,...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But let me be clear -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: ...is to address the licencing issue, the management of licencing. In response to that, what have you done this year?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But Mr. Bernier -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Let me finish, Mr. Tobin. Today, I'm asking the questions and you are giving the answers.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But Mr. Bernier.... No, no, this is important.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You're here as a witness.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: You're running roughshod over the fishermen.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Excuse me, but you are the witness here.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: I have to come to their defence.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Here is my last question on this issue. You are trying to rationalize and you are trying to focus the different groups and bring them to cooperate with you. This year, you took a step in terms of crab quotas. It was a mistake for you to go against the historic jurisdiction of provinces. It might have been acceptable if it had at least brought some progress in the streamlining; but I have to say that unfortunately it was not a step forward for streamlining or for professionalization. It does not reward anything at all.

What will happen? What makes you think that those who will receive those quotas will still be considered as professional fishermen once the definition is established by the fishermen themselves in one or two years? I understood that the sharing would be done with members of the core fisheries.

.1620

The fact that we are getting delayed and that you are not willing to take drastic measures to solve this issue from the inside is giving us some problems.

Mr. Tobin: Are you asking me a question? What an extraordinary speech.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Tobin, I'm just trying to listen. I'm not sure which question was asked, but maybe I can tell by your answers.

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Chairman, there were so many questions in Mr. Bernier's presentation that I'm not sure which one to answer at this stage in the game.

Let me say I disagree profoundly with Mr. Bernier, who in responding to my comment said, the record will show, words to the effect that if you make a presentation to fishermen they'll probably turn around and do the opposite.

The committee should know, because it's an important part of the fishery in Atlantic Canada, that a conference was called by the Minister of Fisheries of the Province of Quebec - a conference of fishermen and processors and people involved in the industry. At that conference the Minister of Fisheries of the Province of Quebec put the vision document, the proposal he'd put before me in Victoria, which was to transfer all the fishery totally to the Province of Quebec, before the fishermen and processors in the industry in Quebec. He ought to know the fishermen and the industry in Quebec refused to endorse it. They refused to endorse this separatist agenda. They said no.

Mr. Chairman, far be it for me, when Mr. Bernier and Mr. Landry are unable to get the fishermen and the processors of Quebec to agree with their plan for separating out the fishery of Quebec and for making the fishermen of Quebec prisoners of the gulf, prisoners of coastal Quebec, keeping them from operating off southwest Nova Scotia with their tuna licences, from operating off the coast of Labrador and participating in the turbot fishery, keeping them out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, out of the 4RST turbot quota, 82% of which is caught by Quebeckers, just because the Government of Quebec has an agenda to cut Quebeckers out of all of those opportunities they enjoy as Canadians and just because they presented a document....

If the fishermen of Quebec say no, don't expect me to endorse it. I won't. And I reject the view that we can dismiss what the fishermen say because ``fishermen will always do the opposite of what one suggests''.

Mr. Bernier, the reality is we have a steady process here. It involves consultation with a very large and diverse and complex industry. You know better than most, because you come from a region of the country that has a fishery. You come from a background where you did good work on behalf of fishermen's organizations. You know you can't run roughshod. You can't impose your will in this industry. You have to work constructively, cooperatively, and you have to build partnerships. I look forward to your advice - not to your questions only but to your advice - on how we can make progress in this important area.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: He digressed from what I was explaining to Mr. MacDonald. He also added something about the party... Mr. Landry was elected and was specifically given the mandate to discuss these issues. I'm sorry, Mr. Tobin...

[English]

The Chairman: Yvan, let's have some respect for the other members of the committee as well. Perhaps we could go over to Mr. Cummins and Yvan will hold his thought until the next round.

We only have so much time, Yvan. You've had twenty minutes. We have to go to Mr. Cummins for his twenty minutes.

Mr. Cummins (Delta): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the minister. He knows I'm a great fan of his. I follow his ministerial activities with great interest.

I must say I ask my questions with the idea that I want you to be successful.

Mr. Tobin: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins: If you were successful and I didn't have to get on that bird and come back this way on a Sunday night, I'd be most happy.

I ask my questions with that in mind. I'd like to point out a few oversights on your part.

First I'd like to skip about 30,000 miles to the west coast of the country. It's 30,000 miles that way and 3,000 miles this way, as you well know.

The first question has to do with enforcement. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, Port Alberni, my understanding is that there's one field supervisor there, and there are three fisheries officers. Two years ago we had seven fisheries officers and one seasonal guy.

On central Vancouver Island, in Campbell River...between Nanaimo and Campbell River there are no fisheries officers.

.1625

If we skip over to Sooke, the office has been closed there or is in the process of being closed and moved to Victoria. On the Sunshine Coast in Pender Harbour the two seasonal fisheries officers will be gone on May 31.

It's interesting that it comes up at this time that those fisheries officers will be gone, because they were seasonal. When the last permanent fisheries officer quit, his words weren't encouraging. They suggested that poaching was already out of control in that area. Spot checks have regularly revealed sports fishermen carrying fish over the legal catch limit. A recent check of commercial shrimp boats in Howe Sound showed similar non-compliance to regulations.

In fact, six people were charged under the Fisheries Act in April after they were caught off Gibsons Dock by Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers with illegally caught prawn and undersized crab and groundfish aboard commercial shrimp trollers.

That is an area that the two temporary officers I suggested were moving out of Pender Harbour would cover.

Norm Lemmen, area chief of conservation and protection for the Department of Fisheries of Oceans, has said that the department doesn't have staff or money left to assign to the office this season.

It seems to me that what we're doing here is taking enforcement away from less well known areas of the province to focus them on the Fraser River, the area of the greatest concern last year. In doing that, we're exposing those smaller streams to the types of activities I've mentioned. It seems to me as if we're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Could I have your comments, Minister?

Mr. Tobin: I hope you will appreciate it when I say that I don't personally know the specifics of each of the locations along the B.C. coast, any more than I would know the specifics of placement of personnel.

Mr. Cummins: Pender Harbour is near Vancouver, Burrard Inlet, Howe Sound, and then Sunshine Coast. It is the office closest to the largest metropolitan area, obviously, in British Columbia.

Mr. Tobin: Yes.

Mr. Cummins: It is a very busy area for sports fishing.

Mr. Tobin: What I would say to you is the following. I would undertake to take a look at the examples you've just given of the placement of enforcement personnel in the province of British Columbia and to examine the proposition you've put forth about whether or not, as part of redirecting enforcement staff to higher-priority areas, we've left some areas vulnerable.

What I would say to the member directly is I can't, as I sit here without notice on the specifics, give a better answer, except to say that if that is occurring, it would be a concern for me. I'll certainly take a look at it and see what we can do to ensure proper placement.

There is no question - and the member will know, because indeed the member has raised effectively, on a number of occasions, questions about the situation on the lower Fraser River in particular - that that is a higher-priority area and no doubt there has been a greater emphasis on the area in question.

I say just for the record - it's been said before - that the only place in Canada where we have actually increased enforcement and increased enforcement expenditures by some 15 personnel is in the province of British Columbia, where we've put in place or are in the process of putting in place 15 new fisheries officers. This is a reflection of our acknowledgement of the problem in British Columbia.

With regard to the specifics, I'll have to look into it. I take what you've said in good faith, and I'll give it a thorough examination and I'll report back to you - and to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cummins: You might add to that that the Tasu office on the west coast of Vancouver Island has been closed and moved to Campbell River, and the Alert Bay office...there's no one in Alert Bay, and there was.

Mr. Tobin: Some of those locations may not have had somebody there for some time, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Cummins: In our view, the addition of 15 officers is not going to bring the staffing levels up to what is required or near to traditional highs.

On another issue, you mentioned the May 15 signing of the AFS agreements. Your department promised to provide me with copies of these sales agreements, but we've yet to receive them. If they're signed, we'd like to know why you're keeping them secret.

.1630

The Fraser report called for them to be signed early. We did not get an early agreement for the Sto:lo. The new agreement was signed on May 15, which allowed for the sale of fish to begin immediately. In our view, you lost the advantage of the early signing by allowing for the sale of spring or chinook salmon.

I realize there are supposedly no sales agreements in place on that, but you must understand that the Sto:lo agreement also requires the appointment of a financial administrator, who has yet to be put in place. We understand that she may have been selected and may be starting work next week, but the point is that the management regime for that fishery is, in our view, not in place.

We have also been told that fisheries officers are unable to lay charges in cases of illegal sales because the agreements and the management arrangements are not in place. That's exactly what happened last year. We have unconfirmed - I emphasize unconfirmed - reports of the sale of chinook salmon from that area. I tried to get some confirmation on that, but I haven't been able to do it.

But it seems to me that we have an agreement that allows salmon fishing for chinook as of May 15, but DFO has yet to issue a licence allowing for sales in this fishery because, basically, the necessary work hasn't been done. I think there's already a real problem brewing on the Fraser River.

Mr. Tobin: Let me enter a comment and ask you a question. First, all of the conditions that we said would be put in place, including independent financial administration and accountability, will be there. I can assure you of that. Second, no sales are permitted until the monitoring stations are established.

You said you have an unconfirmed report.

Mr. Cummins: I said ``reports''.

Mr. Tobin: That's fair enough for you to pass that on, but given that it's unconfirmed, until we can have it confirmed, I couldn't comment more. You wouldn't expect me to comment more.

Let me ask you a question for the record. Don't you agree that, notwithstanding the concerns you've raised - that's fair enough and we'll look at those concerns - that getting the sales agreements in place two months earlier than last year is - notwithstanding the concerns you raised, which I don't dismiss or diminish - a substantial improvement over the situation of last year and the year before?

Mr. Cummins: It's an improvement in every area except for the Fraser River, where the fishery started within days of the signing of the agreements. Our understanding - again, it's unsubstantiated - is that maybe those agreements weren't completely detailed.

Mr. Tobin: John, the food fishery on the Fraser River, not the sales - you've just acknowledged that you have unconfirmed reports of that - would have been ongoing anyway. Correct? It's totally not triggered by the signing or lack of signing of these agreements.

Mr. Cummins: That would be for fish under section 35, but the activity that's taking place is far in excess of anything I've ever seen in a food fishery on the Fraser River. Who's monitoring it?

Mr. Tobin: We are monitoring it. With great respect, you say there are unconfirmed reports. You stressed that, as you properly should.

The food fishery would have occurred in any case with or without fish under section 35 and the agreements. I just want the record to show that, because Mr. Cummins has experience in this area. Indeed, it is a tremendous improvement to have this signed earlier.

Mr. Cummins: But the implications are also there such that sales will be allowed on these chinook. Is that correct?

Mr. Tobin: I'd ask Pat Chamut to comment on that.

Mr. Pat Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The agreement was signed on May 15. It allows for the sale of specified amounts of fish as stipulated in the agreements. At the same time, it was recognized that, until the operating systems were up and running - and that constitutes the landing sites and making sure of the proper collection of data to regulate the fishery - and in place, there would be no sales of chinook salmon.

We're still waiting for landing sites to get up and running. Efforts are being made to do that. People are being hired. They are renovating and making sure that the landing sites that have been used in the previous years will be ready to begin monitoring fish.

The chinook that are being taken now do not represent any increase in effort as a result of past harvests. In fact, the agreement we signed in 1994 allowed for the harvest of -

Mr. Cummins: Are you going to allow the sale of early chinook?

Mr. Chamut: - in excess of 14,000 chinook. This year it's 13,001, which is less. There is no sale allowed until the fish are properly landed and counted.

Mr. Cummins: When will the sales be allowed?

Mr. Chamut: Once the landing sites are up and running, which will be done once the -

Mr. Cummins: Probably next weekend?

.1635

Mr. Chamut: It may be by next weekend, but I'm not sure.

Mr. Cummins: On the point of next weekend, if I could, there was an agreement in 1980, when that fishery was shut down to the commercial industry. It was an unwritten agreement, certainly, but there was an understanding in the commercial industry that when those chinook stocks rebuilt to a harvestable level, they would be the ones who would harvest them.

You've reallocated that resource. The Fraser report suggested that there should be no increase or reallocation of fish other than what had taken place in terms of the fish. The Fraser report is going to be violated by allowing the sale of that chinook. As well, the agreement that was made between the department and the fishing industry, in my view, is being violated as well.

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Cummins, I'm going to ask Mr. Chamut to comment further, but first, as I understand it, the total take is going to be down by 1,000 pieces of fish: from 14,000 to 13,000. The record should show that.

Mr. Cummins: Nobody has a clue of what was taken last year.

Mr. Tobin: Just a moment, John. Second, you talk about an understanding that you say was reached in 1980. You say yourself there wasn't a written agreement; it was an understanding. I wasn't around in 1980, but I'd ask Pat, who has more knowledge about this than do I, to comment.

Mr. Chamut: I was not around in 1980, but I do have a recollection of the events thatMr. Cummins is referring to. At the time when the fishery was shut down, there had been, until 1980, a spring fishery on chinook salmon. It was closed down because stocks were not at a level that could sustain the harvest.

Since the time the fishery has shut down, we've signed the treaty with the United States. One of the provisions of that is to rebuild stocks to levels that will allow harvesting to begin again. Stocks are rebuilding, and, to some extent, that program has been successful.

In the meantime, since 1980, we've had a very important event, which is the Sparrow decision. When it was rendered, it gave us the obligation -

Mr. Cummins: The Sparrow decision has nothing to do with the sale of fish, Mr. Chamut. You know that and I know that.

The Chairman: Let's let him finish.

Mr. Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I have 20 minutes. He's wasting my time.

The Chairman: He's not wasting your time. We'll give you the extra minute. You asked the question. We should at least allow him to answer the question.

Go ahead, Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Chamut: The Sparrow decision provided for aboriginal people to have a right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial needs. They have fished for chinook salmon for a very long period of time, even after the 1980 closure of the gill-net fishery for commercial purposes.

So with the Sparrow decision, they have a right to fish for chinook salmon. They have fished for chinook salmon for food purposes through the 1980s and post-Sparrow. They have fished for food purposes. They would be doing so whether we had signed an agreement with them or not.

The point is that we now have a system that allows us to regulate that fishery and in fact reduce the amount of fish they might otherwise have taken, which, in my view, makes for good resource management.

Mr. Cummins: The last word on this is that the issue concerns the term ``for sale''. This is an extension of the sales agreement to allow the sale of chinook salmon. The fishing activity on the river far exceeds anything that was ever done under section 35 on these chinooks.

Another point -

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Cummins, may I just ask a very brief question? Is there any circumstance under which you would support any sales agreements?

Mr. Cummins: Certainly I'm for sales. We've been selling fish for twenty years.

Mr. Tobin: No, I mean aboriginal sales.

Mr. Cummins: No. I don't think sales are required. That's certainly not required by Sparrow or by law. It's created an awful lot of difficulties, not only in the management of fish, but in human relations as well.

Mr. Tobin: This is just so the record would show it.

Mr. Cummins: I've made that point very clearly. You knew that.

Mr. Tobin: Of course I did. I just wanted the record to show that for the benefit of our colleagues.

Mr. Cummins: In your presentation here, you gave us an example under the partnerships program and suggested that, in fisheries management, licence holders will be working with us to develop collaborative arrangements as part of an integrated fishing plan encompassing allocations, licensing, enforcement and science.

There is a very serious concern that in fact you want to go further on that than what Fraser has suggested in his report and what you've agreed to in that report. That is that the whole idea of shared responsibility and co-management has done much to undermine and discredit the department and its actions.

.1640

Those words were written in a letter to you from Mike Hunter, who, as you know, is the chairman of the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, back on March 23. His comment is that it's not realistic to expect those who use resources for personal gain to act for the public good. In other words, what he's saying is that it is the department's constitutional responsibility to manage the resource - they must have the last say and they must be seen to have the last say - and that in fact the department is going too far in its co-management efforts. Would you care to comment, please?

Mr. Tobin: I'd be quite happy to.

Mr. Cummins: There is no reply as yet to Mr. Hunter's letter.

Mr. Tobin: I'm glad Mr. Hunter has the advantage of your secretarial skills to keep track of whether or not he gets a response to his correspondence.

Mr. Cummins: He outlines in gold every letter he sends to you.

Mr. Tobin: It's obvious that he's calling upon your good offices to ensure that he gets a reply to his mail.

Mr. Cummins: No, that's not quite true. I have my sources on this stuff and it just came my way.

Mr. Tobin: Let me say this to you. I think, Mr. Cummins, that you and your colleagues in the Reform Party will have to make up your minds. You cannot in the context of fisheries management sit at the table and say, with respect to cutting costs in the department, finding efficiencies, being in compliance with the financial targets of the Minister of Finance to meet the targets of deficit reduction.... You can't consolidate, merge, close, lay off, or in any way, shape, or form find efficiencies in the operation of the Department of British Columbia or elsewhere in the country on the one hand, and in the next breath join with the Reform Party in calling for even deeper cuts, substantially deeper cuts, than those we've already made to reduce the deficit.

You can't talk on the one hand - and repeatedly the theme is put in the House of Commons by members of your party, the Reform Party - about asking the private sector to do more, asking the government, where it's appropriate, to withdraw, asking people to pay their own way in the name of deficit reduction and then, when it comes to asking the fishing industry and those who benefit from the resource to pay a larger share from the rent of that resource, quote Mr. Hunter to say that co-management might be going too far. I don't think we're going too far at all. You asked me for my response, and I think we're taking a very measured approach.

Let me tell you something. Let me give you an example. I think -

Mr. Cummins: Can I just interject for a minute? What he's saying is that yes, people want to be heard, but it must be very clear who's responsible. Clearly, DFO is responsible, but there are others out there who are beginning to think that they in fact are.

Mr. Tobin: I will assure you, as somebody who I know has the interest of the fishery at heart, even though we don't always agree on every issue, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will retain, keep, and exercise, as it must - that's your proposition and I agree with it - the last say, absolutely, to ensure that the resource is looked after.

I will equally tell you that there are many in the industry, who have benefited mightily from the industry, who can and should pay a larger share of their own way. You could give me better than I could give you some examples of people who pay the same amount of money -

Mr. Cummins: I'm not arguing with you about that point.

Mr. Tobin: I'm looking for advice here, too. I'm here to get some advice.

Mr. Cummins: I'll give you some advice. I'll tell you this -

Mr. Tobin: Do you agree with me -

Mr. Cummins: Let me tell you this about budget cuts. You mentioned that. Can I just comment on your -

Mr. Tobin: I'm trying to get specific advice on how to be a better Minister of Fisheries. Don't you agree with me that those who personally benefit fantastically from the resource can and should pay more for access to that resource?

Mr. Cummins: I have no problem with that.

Mr. Tobin: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins: But I want to make the point as well that when you look at budget cuts.... I have said this from the beginning and I have never called for wholesale cuts to the Department of Fisheries. I've always said what you first have to do - because fisheries is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government - is determine what it takes to do the job. Then you have to find the money to do it because you can't short-cut on fisheries management and you can't short-cut on enforcement.

Mr. Tobin: But John, I would be -

.1645

Mr. Cummins: I don't care who would disagree with that assessment. That's the position I've held, and that in fact is the position of Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Tobin: I want to respond to this, because this is a matter of honour, and I want to tell Mr. Cummins that I believe what he's just said, but the difficulty is the DND critic in your party wants cuts but not in DND, and the industry critic wants cuts but not in industry, and the health critic wants cuts but not in health. If you add up them all up, there are no cuts. But separately.... Seriously.

Let me tell you something. I would like no cuts in DFO for the same reasons you'd like no cuts in DFO. But you know what? If we don't do our share....

Mr. Cummins: You start at the other end and say, here is what we need to do the job, then in general what it's going to cost.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins, I'm going to have to move over. I have the greatest of respect for the minister. We are going to move over. Mr. McGuire.

Mr. McGuire (Egmont): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to split my time with Harold.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to know where our policy stands today on harbour authorities. Where are we going with that concept? How does that tie in with the harbour repair, the harbour management itself, and licence fees? I'm getting a lot of questions from people who hear parts of information. I'd like to be able to tie those three things together.

Mr. Tobin: Let me make a general comment, because there's no specific information. I would ask John Emberly to come forward.

I said a moment ago, on the question of recreation harbours, we want to get out of the recreation harbour business. There are 804 recreation harbours on the -

Mr. McGuire: Is there a problem getting rid of those things?

Mr. Tobin: It's going to be difficult to do because there are revision clauses in many cases with provincial governments, and of course we've got to get into a negotiation to have those properly exercised. There's always the question, in the case of a recreational harbour that's in need of repair, of people saying they're interested in taking over the harbour, but first they'd like us to do some repairs.

There is not a lot of capital, Mr. McGuire, as you know, because you are one who makes frequent representations for Small Craft Harbours work, as I must admit do most of those around the table. There's not a lot of capital dollars available, but we're doing the best we can with a very tight budget.

But on the specific question of harbour authorities, we're going to have to look in time - and I don't have a number or a predesigned plan to give you - at rationalizing commercial fishing harbours as well.

The fact of the matter is the day is gone when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with the Small Craft Harbours branch, can afford to maintain an excellent, first class small craft harbour facility literally in every single port. You can take my own constituency, in which there are places where there are four and five communities all within a very short distance of each other. Each and every one has a small craft harbour and each and every one is asking for money to maintain the facility, if not to upgrade the facility.

I think the time is coming when, in consultation with fishermen's organizations themselves, we've got to start looking at developing better regional facilities - fully serviced, first class, top quality, regional facilities with proper haul-out facilities, proper equipment, small-engine repair sites, and so on - in a first class harbour rather than try to maintain a harbour at every turn on the coast.

So, as a general principle, those harbours that have harbour authorities and those harbours where fishermen have taken the responsibility and the community has taken the responsibility itself to manage the harbour, I think, are going to be among the harbours we would look at first for investment by Small Craft Harbours, because there's a sense of self-empowerment, self-responsibility, and self-initiative.

So my suggestion, Mr. McGuire, would be to encourage those who have harbour authorities to continue - they've shown great success - and for those who don't have them, for those communities that are sitting back saying they'll simply pick up the phone and call Small Craft Harbours and not make any contribution or effort themselves to manage this facility...my advice is to look at putting a harbour authority in place, because those are the facilities and those are the ports that we'll be looking at most favourably when the time comes to assess how many commercial fishing harbours we can continue to maintain.

.1650

Mr. McGuire: The problem is most of mine would form harbour authorities -

Mr. Tobin: Well, they should.

Mr. McGuire: - if they were guaranteed they were going to get some kind of support for their harbour.

Mr. Tobin: I can't guarantee that every single harbour will get support, but I can say that those who form harbour authorities, who take that initiative, obviously are going to be looked at a lot more positively. It's quite logical and natural to do this when it comes time to determine where you put the scarce resources, and, as you and all members know, there are fewer resources.

I just said a moment ago - and it's worth repeating now - that the combined budget of the DFO and coast guard merged department is going to go from $1.4 billion to $987 million over the next three years. That's a $400 million reduction. Well, you can't take a $400 million reduction in your activities and not have some impact on your programs, including Small Craft Harbours. Logically, we've got to do a better job with somewhat fewer facilities. The first cut is the recreation harbours.

We're also going to have to rationalize as much as possible our small craft harbours facilities as well - commercial fishing harbours.

Mr. McGuire: On our western visits - and you get the same comments, fishermen are the same anywhere - we found that fishermen knew licence fees were going to be increased. Generally speaking, there's support for that, but they all say they would like to see those licence increases stay in the harbour. They don't want to lose it in what they call the black void in Ottawa, and, from what I can gather, that's where it's going to go. It's going to come to Ottawa; it's not going to stay....

Mr. Tobin: Well, the harbour fees are collected by the harbour authority, and the fees and the dollars stay right in the harbour. So that's precisely how you get around seeing the funds go into a consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. McGuire: In licence fees?

Mr. Tobin: No, I'm talking about harbour fees. But with the harbour authority, anything that's collected by way of berthage fees or user fees stays in that local harbour, in that local community, and is entirely at the discretion of the harbour authority. So the principle flies there.

With respect to licence fees or general fee increases, those funds do have to go to the consolidated revenue fund. There's not a thing that I or any other minister of the Crown can do about it in the delivery of programs or services by our departments. What I can say to you and what I want to say to you - and indeed I've had the opportunity to say this before, before this committee - is that we are now out doing a series of consultations on the question of fees and licence fees.

Indeed, Mr. Cummins has expressed his support for the principle that those who take a benefit from the resource should pay a portion to the benefit they receive. But that's the general principle on which we're proceeding. There have been some stories that they're talking about a straight 5% across-the-board fee increase, and, for some reason, this has picked up some steam in some of the coastal communities of British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, and Quebec. Let me use this opportunity to say that is absolutely untrue. We're not going to take that kind of approach. We're going to be a bit more progressive than that and look at the value of the fishery that's being prosecuted and the return to the individual in question who's using the licence and try to construct something that's fair. Certainly, in the case of those who are subject to a moratorium and are not using a licence, you're not going to come along and impose a licence fee increase or a dramatic fee increase.

You're certainly not going to ask the same kind of fee structure of somebody who's grossing $600,000, $700,000, or $800,000 - and there are those who do gross that kind of money. Somebody else is making $15,000 or $20,000, so it will be a progressive system. We are consulting with fishermen themselves this summer, and, as I said to you one time before, we'll come back to this committee and ask your advice before we go public.

Mr. McGuire: On the 1995 tuna benefit plan, is that prepared yet? Is that ready to go, or do we have a date?

Mr. Tobin: Not yet. What's the date? In the next few weeks.

Mr. McGuire: In the next few weeks? No hints of what's in the plan at this time?

Mr. Tobin: Not even a sniff.

The Chairman: Not even a sniff. Who has sniffed that plan and would like to respond to Joe?

Mr. Tobin: It's a state secret. If I tell you, I'll have to shoot you.

The Chairman: Tell him, please.

Is that your last one, Joe?

Mr. McGuire: Yes, the last question, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to the area manager's position in Prince Edward Island. Is that to be replaced, and when?

.1655

Mr. Tobin: Because you've asked a question that is important to many fishermen in Atlantic Canada, maybe I can ask Pat Chamut to say a few words about the preparation of the tuna plan. As you know, the quota arises out of international agreements and arrangements, so I would ask if Pat can take a minute to explain.

Is that agreeable? Thank you.

Mr. Chamut: The tuna plan this year has been the subject of a lot of discussion and consultation within all the various sectors that have an interest in this fishery. In 1995 we have an increase in the overall harvest, which is a quota that's set by the international commission that's responsible for Atlantic tuna, or for the bluefin in this case. The total quota will be 658 tonnes for Canada, which is up considerably from a bit over 400 tonnes in 1994.

The key issue that we're trying to wrestle with in 1995 is to develop a plan that will be somewhat more simple and less complex and less expensive to manage than what we have traditionally had, because we've had a very complicated plan to try to allocate fish among the various sectors. Obviously there are still issues associated with the allocation among the various fleet sectors. There's been a lot of agreement in the working group that's been working since last November to try to put a plan together, one that will be simpler and less expensive, but some fundamental issues have not yet been addressed.

Our efforts are now directed at trying to finalize the plan within the next couple of weeks, within the general parameters that have been worked out by the group, but we are looking at a significant increase in harvest over the amounts that were available last year. So we're hopeful for a very successful season, provided we can deal with some of the outstanding issues that still divide -

Mr. McGuire: What would the outstanding issues be?

Mr. Chamut: They are largely associated with the allocation of the harvest among the various fleet sectors that are involved, and there are a total of seven of them. There are various views about how that quota overall should be divided among the various sectors and obviously -

Mr. McGuire: Only seven different views.

Mr. Chamut: Not entirely. There's been a fair degree of consensus, but we have not yet come all the way. So we're expecting to finalize this shortly.

Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): I need only a small amount of time to address the minister.

In regard to the recreational wharves, I concur with you, as you would know, from the onset. However, I've run into a couple of things in discussing that with some of my communities. I mentioned this to you a few days ago.

There is the insurance cost factor that they've run into, especially the liability component, and also the taxes. You might want to address something with regard to that.

As you would know, in my particular region of Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, the traditional fishery is still pretty strong. One of the reasons why it's been successful is because we depend on a multi-licence fishery rather than just groundfish - thank heavens. Although the groundfish fishery has been down somewhat, it has still been reasonably good because of that diversification.

The point I want to zero in on is your comment about negotiating to turn the freshwater fisheries over to the provinces and play a more in-depth part in all of the ocean activities, including aquaculture. You know what I'm coming at.

In my particular region of Atlantic Canada, aquaculture is worth over $100 million a year and is growing economically. We are researching other species, haddock and halibut and so on, to try to add that to the salmon part of it. We want to be very successful in that, so I'm looking for some comments from you regarding that trade-off, freshwater to the salt-water fishery, as it affects the aquaculture industry and that aquaculture development strategy. What's going to happen after it's done?

Mr. Tobin: I'll try to cover off the various points that have been made.

First, with respect to the question of insurance costs.... I think you're referring to the insurance cost for harbour authorities.

.1700

Mr. Culbert: The wharves.

Mr. Tobin: Yes, the wharves. I think if we see an increase - as we must - in the establishment of harbour authorities and that's a problem, it is a problem I think we can resolve. If there is an impediment to the development of harbour authorities, there's no reason why the Government of Canada cannot pull together a policy for the authorities right across the country if that's what's required.

I'm prepared to tell you here and now that we will look at doing it if that removes an impediment from the establishment of harbour authorities. I'm quite pleased to say that to you. The deputy minister, who just came back from holidays, thought this up when he was away. We agreed as soon as he got back. So that is something we can work on.

We are in discussions with both the provinces and the Department of Environment on the question of fresh water. The real issue is where the greatest efficiency would be achieved. Would it be achieved by having the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Environment or provincial governments look after the administrative duties in the area of fresh water?

Frankly, we have not come to a conclusion because - I hope the committee will appreciate - whenever you get into these kinds of discussions there's always a discussion of money, of costs, of who administers, of what dollars come attached or don't come attached, etc.

Frankly, the outcome of those discussions will be driven by two agendas, one of which can't be compromised, to go back to a comment that was made a little while ago by Mr. Cummins. At the end of the day we have to have the ultimate authority where we have the jurisdiction to do the job. Unless we can delegate authority in a manner that satisfies us our fundamental responsibility is being met, we won't be delegating.

We're in discussions. I can't tell you whether they are going to be successful or not and I don't want to tip my hat one way or the other. We're discussing with both the provincial governments and DOE whether or not fresh water would reside there. I can tell you that our fundamental responsibility for protection of the environment will be retained. That capacity is there and those who are interested in aquaculture development have no cause for worry.

The other question you raised was about aquaculture and what we see as the future of that industry. Indeed, as you point out, in Charlotte County the salmon industry alone is worth $80 million or $90 million and other species will total over $100 million. That part of Canada, together with work and development that occurred in British Columbia but which has slowed in recent years, really represents - and they're not the only places in the country - an example of the kind of tremendous growth that can and should occur in the aquaculture industry.

Indeed, if you think back to ten years ago, we had an industry that was quite small. It's had phenomenal growth in the double digits in the range of 60% to 70% a year over the last six or seven years on the farm salmon side.

Norway, which now has a billion-dollar export industry of farmed salmon alone, had a $100 million industry ten years ago. They've had tremendous success. The lesson is that aquaculture has been successfully taken up and managed by commercial fisherman in Norway. They are the people who have the small cage operations in the small farm sites in the coastal zones where the water conditions, water temperatures and ice-free conditions are appropriate and conducive to aquaculture.

We have released an aquaculture strategy. It's a no-cost strategy in the fiscal sense for the federal government. It arises out of consultation with the industry itself. As you well know, a good part of it is located in your part of the world. There has also been consultation with all of the provincial governments. We've all signed off on a strategy, a consistent set of targets, the means to achieve those targets, the elimination of duplication and overlap, and the simplification of rules and requirements, while preserving the safety margins that have to be there for the purpose of seeing the development of this industry.

One of the things I hope to see this year is in the Sentinel fisheries. In Newfoundland there will be 95 to 96 sites between the northeast coast and south coast of the island where we'll go out and conduct a test fishery. I think you have heard about the find of 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of large, spawning-age cod in Trinity Bay. So we are going to go out and do a lot of various bays and sites around the province. But some of the fish caught in those Sentinel fisheries projects will be available this year for grow-out by fishermen in traditional communities.

.1705

It's the first time, ever, that you've had an agreement by fishermen's unions and processors and harvesters to work together to begin the business of getting into the aquaculture industry; in this case grow-out of held cod.

I think that is a modest step, but an important first step, in introducing the concept of farming, if you want, fish; in this case wild fish stocks. I can tell you in my discussions with all the provinces and all the ministers of fisheries in all of the provinces, and indeed the premiers, that aquaculture remains a high priority for all of them. There is a somewhat different view in the province of British Columbia in recent years, I think, but certainly if aquaculture is going to make up an increasingly important contribution to the provision of protein in the world....

It makes up about one-fifth of our total protein provision today. That number is going to grow dramatically. It's going to happen around the world. The only issue is whether or not we're going to be there, whether we're going to be growing product or importing it. This government is determined, under this administration, with this department, to make provision for aquaculture and to give it its proper place within the full gamut of responsibilities of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): My riding in British Columbia includes half the B.C. coast; the best half, of course. There was some commentary earlier about the Alert Bay-Tahsis situation. It was about a year ago...it was actually in March that I covered off directly with you the Alert Bay-Tahsis-Pender Harbour situations. Those offices were never closed, but people were removed, one way or another. They either saw the writing on the wall and quit, or they were transferred and not replaced, in the case of Alert Bay and Tahsis. You did say to me at the time that if there was a decision to close, you would let me know.

As far as those communities are concerned, as far as I'm concerned, those are still operative offices, although two of the three have no people. There's a growing perception on the coast that the enforcement ability is being reduced, because where people can do the most good from an enforcement standpoint they're being removed.

I'd like you to address that. I can give you a copy of what I gave to you a year ago.

About the cost-cutting, we went through this exercise in B.C. with the light stations. British Columbians don't have a lot of federal services. If you look, for example, at the Sunshine Coast, with 30,000 people, on average 30,000 people in British Columbia support about 400 federal civil servants. We have 9 in that area; 6 work for the Canada Employment Centre, 1 for me, and 2 for fisheries. They're not asking for more government. What they're asking for is those valued services.

So I'd like you to take that into account in your thinking. We're talking about a department with 5,685 full-time equivalents, without the coast guard addition. We're talking about something in the magnitude of 120 enforcement people on the B.C. coast. We're talking about the resource. It's first and foremost. It's your watchword. That's what the public wants as well, and that's where they want their resources.

.1710

The RCMP recently made a presentation to the light station committee. When it faced the same kind of downsizing pressure in 1991, I believe, it removed 450 people from its Ottawa bureaucracy and nobody from the trenches. It's in the trenches where the morale is suffering and where the public is saying the resource is suffering because we don't have the enforcement ability. That's my commentary regarding the half of the B.C. coast I'm familiar with.

I'd like to ask a couple of east coast related questions. The first relates to TAGS and the fact that this publication you brought with you today shows $225 million for TAGS. I understand the five-year program calls for $278 million. So I'm just wondering how that fits into a five-year program.

In terms of the harvest adjustment boards on the east coast right now, there's a lot of speculation that the 50% reduction is not going to be achievable. I'd like you to comment quickly on harvest incapacity on the east coast.

Mr. Tobin: Just to deal with a couple of points you've made, first of all it's never easy to impose cut-backs on a department. It's not easy in DFO, coast guard or anywhere else. So I'm delighted to have your empathy for the difficult task I and the officials here at the table have, to try to achieve the savings we need to meet budget targets.

Looking at the lay of the land - I just want to say this for the record, and I know you'd want me to say this for the record - of the 5,685 employees you referred to a moment ago, 1,482 of them are serving and working on that great stretch of coast you just described as the coast of British Columbia. By comparison there are 758 in Newfoundland, 1,103 in Scotia/Fundy, 486 in the gulf, 476 in Quebec, 480 in central and Arctic, and 1,482 in the Pacific. In the national capital region we have a total of 896. That's on the fisheries side of the House, not on the coast guard side of the House.

When we put the cuts in place in the budget, the highest percentage of cuts were taken in the national capital region, in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to say that for the record.

Secondly, the only place that got extra enforcement personnel anywhere in the whole system was the coast of British Columbia. So while there have been cuts in British Columbia, as there have been everywhere else, there is certainly a presence on the coast of British Columbia that is - I've just given you the numbers by region - on a per capita basis, a dollar basis or an industry value basis, quite comparable and healthy, relative to anywhere else in the country.

With respect to the cuts, we were sensitive to problem areas and that's why we added extra enforcement personnel in British Columbia.

With respect to TAGS, the amount of money you see on the chart you referred to is the capacity reduction fund that is being carried. Those dollars, of course, are available for the harvesting adjustment boards to use to buy back licences.

That program will probably expire next year if there's a second round in the buy-back program. My expectation is that there will be a second round on the buy-back program, because of the offers that have so far been received. As you know, the process is a reverse auction. It appears as if about 50% are realistic and reasonable and 50% are people shooting for the lottery. We're not going to treat as serious offers, or expend public money on, buying licences at prices that we think are far too high. So we're looking at the probability of a second round.

.1715

On the question of capacity reduction, I've always said that it is my view that we need in the industry, by whatever means or whatever way it can be achieved, about a 50% reduction in capacity. Some people have translated that statement into a 50% reduction in total numbers of people, but people and capacity are two different things, as you well know. You may achieve a 50% capacity reduction and have more than a 50% reduction of people, or you could achieve a 50% capacity reduction and have substantially less than a 50% reduction of people. This is because it depends upon the gear types and the capacity of that gear being retired from the fishery. That is an objective. That is a statement on my part of the amount of overcapacity that I think is there. It's not a scientific equation, it's not a mathematical equation; it's a gut call by a minister.

Will we achieve a 50% reduction in capacity? I can't guarantee that, because the system is voluntary. It always has been voluntary, because I'm not going to play - and none of us would want to try to play - God and say , ``This fellow stays in and this person goes out. This lady stays in, but this person goes out.'' So we have a voluntary system.

I think that strategically, in important gear sectors, we can achieve some important capacity reduction. I can't give you a breakdown of how that looks, because I don't yet have the advice of the harvesting adjustment boards, but I do expect to have it very soon. You'll have an opportunity to reflect upon the work they've done.

The Chairman: We're time-restricted here because of the vote.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Chairman, the nice thing about being left till last is that most of the questions get answered. I had just one question, and the minister has partially answered that, if you want me to ask it now. I can wait until later, if we're coming back.

The Chairman: We're not coming back. So maybe if you have a question.... Then I'd like to go back for the rest of the time, starting with Mr. Bernier, because the opposition doesn't get as much time to question to the minister in depth as we do on the government side.

Mrs. Payne: I'm not sure of that.

You briefly mentioned the 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes of fish that were found recently, I think at Smith Sound and Trinity Bay. I want to bring that a bit further and ask you how you feel that might affect either the recreational fishery this coming year, or even in terms.... We're looking at perhaps 14 years before the fishery reopens. Do you feel that this may now have any effect on the opening of the fishery?

Mr. Tobin: I'm very glad you've raised this question. I think it is something that is on the minds of many people who have read reports about this find of fish in Smith Sound.

I think it was last winter when we had the latest survey results on northern cod. Those results were extremely bleak. They showed a continued and deep decline in the northern cod spawning biomass. When that report came out, a lot of people asked how long it would take for the fishery to recover. Somebody said that the fish need to be six or seven years old before they are sexually mature, so it's going to take at least two cycles, at least 14 years.

You get these numbers out there as if managing the fishery and managing the ocean and managing all of the impacts on the ocean, be they water impacts, predatory impacts, or changes of salinity, are something that mere man could control. The fact is that we can't.

The greatest surprise I had when I came into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was, one, realizing fully the absolutely astronomical intelligence and brilliance of our scientists - they are brilliant people, and I was in awe - but, on the other hand, recognizing that, despite all of that brilliance, they hadn't yet conquered the seas in great detail or in exact detail, any more than we've conquered - perhaps even less - some of the mysteries of outer space.

.1720

So the public has had, and I've been guilty of this myself, an unrealistic expectation or assessment of what scientists can tell us and how exact they should be and how definitive they must be in offering a prognosis for all the ills that affect the fishery. I want to put that out there because we really have asked too much, given the knowledge that is there and the ability to know what's happening in this opaque surface called the ocean.

So, Jean, let me say the following. It's good news that we've found some fish. It's great news. They're of spawning age, but it's 10,000 to 15,000 metric tonnes. I hope we find more. But I do not foresee at this time reason for anybody to come to the conclusion that the moratorium is over, that the commercial fishery is about to restart, that we can have a substantial food fishery. Some people call it recreational fishery. It's early. It's good news. We thank God for whatever good news we can find, but we must stay pragmatic and sober and serious and realistic and do more research.

That is why this year you're going to see up to 90 sites tested through the Sentinel fishing program, where fishermen and scientists, working shoulder to shoulder rather than standing opposed nose to nose, will be doing some fundamental research for us. We'll be collecting that data, finding out if there are other examples of fish that have held up in the bays, and once that information has been collected by the brilliant Dr. Parsons and his crew, once it has been analysed and once, within the realm of possibility, information is submitted to us, we'll certainly share whatever information we have with you and through you with all the people of Canada.

The Chairman: Now we're going to test Mr. Bernier to see how succinctly he can ask his question. This is going to be a real test.

Mr. Tobin: You mean Mr. Bernier has another question? If I had known that, I would have been shorter.

The Chairman: We have to be out of here by about 5:25 p.m. because the vote is at 5:30 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: First of all, in my region, we say that salted water boils faster. I probably have a lot of salted water in my system and that might account for my losing my cool earlier.

Briefly, Mr. Tobin, in terms of the request submitted by Quebec, after six months, do you intend to give some acknowledgement and to meet with representatives from the province on the issue of fishing licences?

That is a brief question.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But Mr. Bernier, I have met with Minister Landry. We had a good discussion. The officials have carried on the discussion. As you well know, because you're one of the great democrats of the official opposition - I can tell that; it sparkles in your eyes - Minister Landry met with us, presented the proposal, and said he wanted to go out and consult with the people who were going to be most directly affected by his proposal. I congratulated him for that.

He went out and he held a meeting, a conference, as you know, on February 21 in Gaspé. That's your riding. Isn't that your area?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Tobin: Just a moment, please. I'm not finished.

[English]

He tabled a proposal at the round table in Gaspé. His proposal, which he put to me and which he tabled at the meeting, did not receive support; it was not endorsed at the meeting by the participants. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Landry then used his veto power as the convenor of the round table to have the proposal, even though it had failed to receive the endorsement of the participants, kept on the table, kept on the agenda for work by a follow-up committee.

That was February 21. As I understand it, the follow-up committee has not yet worked, has not yet met, has not yet passed any further comment on the proposal. Far be it for me to tell Mr. Landry or the committee to speed up the process. I am awaiting with patience the result of the consultations on this proposal. Surely you would not tell me to ignore this process by Minister Landry or by the fishermen who are directly participating in this process.

The Chairman: I'm sure he wouldn't.

You can ask a very quick question, because then we have to -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Tobin, you are going to receive a written report on this. We could actually enjoy reading about what happened at the round table in Montreal, but you were busy with the turbot issue. You are forgiven.

.1725

To come back to the request from Quebec, on page 39 of your department's action plan, you indicate that you want to open new licensing offices. Anyway, you are getting ready to get rid of this. You are thinking about it. You are going to tour the country on this issue. Why wouldn't you hold consultations? Newfoundland submitted the same request but you never said that Mr. Clyde Wells was a separatist. I have seen documents showing that Mr. Wells has requested the same thing.

[English]

The Chairman: You have about 30 seconds to give us a final response, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, Mr. Wells' request for the kind of proposal he put on the table has not been implemented by the federal government either. So you're right; it has nothing to do with the fact that somebody is or is not a separatist. It has everything to do with the fact that there's a consultation process still going on in Quebec, and in Quebec the fishermen, your constituents and mine, our fellow Canadians, have not yet endorsed this proposal.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for your appearance here today. It's been a pleasure to see all of your officials with you. I want to thank you for answering questions even if they didn't exactly deal with the main estimates. As always, you're welcome here at any point in time.

I want to thank the committee for their questions. You've helped a great deal.

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for the work you've done. Public consultations in the past have been very useful, and I look forward to your reports and recommendations from your travels to the west coast and the east coast in the weeks ahead.

The Chairman: We stand adjourned.