[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
As you can hear, the bell is ringing to summon us to a vote. It's the half-hour bell, which means it will be at about four o'clock.
We can't really postpone this hearing until next week, because Mr. Rideout is not going to be around, and it has to be dealt with as soon as possible. We could begin, have a break in ten or twelve minutes and come back after the vote. There's another vote at 5:30, so we will have approximately an hour after this vote. Hopefully that will be enough. I can't predict how long it will last.
What's the view of the committee members? Do you want to begin now or adjourn now until 4:30?
Mr. Wells (South Shore): I think we should begin now and get as much in as possible.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): I was under the impression that the first order of business would be the motion I moved at the end of our last meeting.
The Chairman: It could be. I was told by the clerk that you were going to bring it up after the session.
The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have a quorum yet, so we wouldn't be able to make any decision on it. We need a quorum to make a decision.
The Chairman: Yes, for a decision quorum we'd have to wait until more members showed up. We have a quorum to hear testimony but not to conduct business - not for motions.
.1535
Mr. Wells: I would suggest that time is of the essence. This is a very important issue, as big an issue out east as in the west. I think we should move on with this, and when we get a quorum, maybe after the vote, we can deal with it then. Is that acceptable?
Mr. Scott: As you probably are aware, Mr. Chairman, a number of people are here from British Columbia who have a very high interest in this.
The Chairman: I see.
Mr. Scott: Of course they will want to know what the outcome of this is. I don't know what their travel arrangements are or whether they can be here for that. I would ask them.
Are you going to be available to be here say in 45 minutes or so?
A voice: Some of us can be.
The Chairman: The thing is we cannot deal with it now, because we don't have the members. We can deal with Mr. Rideout now, but we cannot deal with the motion. So do we start with Mr. Rideout now? We can't do anything else. We either do nothing or hear Mr. Rideout.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question. When will we deal with this motion?
The Chairman: Any time you want to after we get going here and there are enough members here to deal with the motion.
Mr. Scott: When we come back after the vote, if there are enough members, can we deal with it immediately?
The Chairman: Yes, as soon as there's a quorum. We have to deal with it when there's a quorum. We have to do it then.
Mr. Scott: Okay.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Prince is also with Mr. Rideout. If we weren't able to finish today with Mr. Rideout, would Mr. Prince be available to proceed? Or could we not proceed without Mr. Rideout if we don't finish it up in the time allotted today?
Mr. David Rideout (Director General, Inspection Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I don't think there will be any problem in Mr. Prince following up. I'd like to be here to talk to the committee, if that would be possible, but if it isn't possible, of course...
The Chairman: Okay. Do you want to start your presentation now, then, Mr. Rideout? Please introduce the people you have with you. We'll begin hearing for the next ten minutes or so and we'll come back after the vote.
Mr. Rideout: Okay.
Let me start by introducing myself. I'm newly appointed to the position of director general of fish inspection. I've been here about two and a half weeks. I've brought with me today Mr. Cameron Prince, who's the chief of fish and fish products, and Ms Helen Spencer, who works with him as our standards officer.
Prior to the appointment as director general of fish inspection I was the executive director of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. Prior to that I worked in the international directorate, and prior to that I worked in fish inspection in the field, actually, as a field officer in Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia, and then in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, for about six years.
I'd like to give a brief opening comment on the fish inspection program and on cost recovery.
The Canadian fish inspection program is, in my view, an important aspect to the Canadian fish and seafood industry. It is internationally recognized as one of the best in the world. It is at least partially on this basis that Canadian fish products enjoy on international markets an excellent reputation for quality.
The inspection program has also been the basis for the establishment of international agreements that allow Canadian products preferred entry into many lucrative markets, such as the European Union. While some other countries' products may wait at border points, Canadian products move quickly through countries where we have agreements.
I will first give a summary of the Canadian fish inspection program and its integral role in the Canadian fish and seafood industry. The program has two areas of focus: the domestic fish processing and export sector and the fish and seafood importing sector.
On the import side, all importers must be licensed and must notify the department of all shipments entering the Canadian market. DFO currently inspects approximately 50% of lots of fish entering Canada, with the greatest inspection effort focused on products of high risk or those with previous records of rejection for non-compliance to Canadian requirements.
On the domestic side, efforts are directed towards the inspection of federally registered fish processing plants, of which there are approximately 1,100 across Canada.
.1540
The federal fish inspection program - that is, the domestic and import program - is based upon the Fish Inspection Act and regulations, which apply only to interprovincial and international trade. Plants that process fish for sale within a province do not fall under the federal program.
The core framework of this domestic inspection program is known as the quality management program, or QMP. This program has been in place for approximately four years and has generally been considered very successful. In fact, it continues to serve as a model for fish inspection programs throughout the world. I should also say that it's the only mandatory HACCP-based program - that is, based on hazard analysis and critical control point - in the world. The QMP is based on the concept of the industry taking greater responsibility for the systems to ensure the safety and quality of the products it produces.
I've brought out the point on the quality management program to highlight that we have endeavoured to find ways to maintain reasonable assurance of health safety and quality of fish products, while at the same time putting the onus on the plant for its quality control functions.
Through the quality management program, the DFO inspection directorate has been a leader in finding new ways of doing business to make better use of diminishing resources. In conjunction with the quality management program inspections of processing plants, a significant amount of effort is also utilized in certifying fish products for export.
One of the most important areas of the domestic program is the monitoring of mollusc- and shellfish-growing areas for the presence of microbiological and biotoxin hazards. This work is critical given the extreme consequences that can arise as a result of contaminated shellfish reaching markets. We have only to look back to the mussel crisis of 1987 to recognize the importance of vigilance in this area. That importance is to the whole of the fish processing sector.
I would like to talk now about cost recovery and how we are proceeding to implement user fees for the fish and seafood industry. But before getting into the details of cost recovery, I'll go over the steps that have been taken to reduce the cost of delivery of the fish inspection program. I'd like to raise four points.
The first is that this is an overall government initiative following from the program review out of the 1995 budget.
The second is that within inspection, we've consulted broadly across the country. We held 31 sessions and met with approximately 314 importers and over 300 domestic producers. During those consultations several suggestions were made. We took on board some of those suggestions; others were not deemed feasible and were seen as being administratively difficult to implement.
That leads me to point three. We prepublished the regulations on April 13, with a 30-day comment period for the industry, so on May 13 we'll be assessing the industry comments that have come in. So far I'd say the bottom line is that industry is not liking the idea, but it recognizes that this is part of the overall government policy and that it's going to be a reality in one form or another.
Fourth, once the final regulations are out, we've committed to having a review after one year of the program. I should point out that as a first step, I'm in the process of developing a series of meetings with industry to begin that review in late May or early June.
In terms of inspection resources, I should also point out that from 1991-92 to fiscal year 1997-98 we've seen a reduction in our resources from 542 full-time equivalents - in other words, people - to 408, which is a reduction of 134 positions. We've gone from $33 million in that timeframe to $24 million as an overall budget, which represents a 25% reduction. With cost recovery brought into the picture, from the 1991 program cost of $33 million to the 1997-98 actual cost to taxpayers of $19 million, we've seen a 42% reduction in our inspection program costs.
On cost recovery, the target set for inspection is $4.8 million per year. This represents an additional $4 million to the $800,000 already collected under the import program. This target has been further divided into $2.4 million for the domestic sector and $2.4 million for the import sector.
.1545
This fifty-fifty split of the target between import and domestic is based primarily upon international trade considerations. A levy on imports could be seen as a trade barrier if not apportioned equally to the domestic industry. The targets are also based on the fact that Canadian markets are supplied equally by imported and domestic fish products. It should also be noted that importers have paid cost recovery fees since 1986, while the domestic industry has not been subject to any cost recovery to date.
The process of developing a proposal for cost recovery for fish inspection began early in 1995. The following guiding principles were established as key to the formulation of the proposals. The system had to reflect the effort required to deliver the service. It had to be equitable, simple to administer, and include incentives to encourage compliance.
A number of options were considered, as I stated earlier. The option that was the most constant within the guiding principles was presented to industry during consultations from May to September 1995.
Mr. Wells: Can you go over those principles again?
Mr. Rideout: Yes. The system had to reflect the effort required to deliver the service. It had to be equitable, simple to administer, and include incentives to encourage compliance.
The Chairman: Mr. Rideout, I believe we have only eight or nine minutes to get over and vote, so we'll adjourn until approximately 4:30 p.m. Thank you.
.1546
.1625
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume our hearings on inspection fees.
Mr. Rideout, you are well into your presentation and we should continue with that. Do your people have anything to add to your presentation? There are a lot of questions.
Mr. Rideout: I was thinking that maybe we should just go right to the questions rather than completing the presentation.
The Chairman: Right now?
Mr. Rideout: The rest was just to talk about exactly what is cost recovery and what we were proposing to charge and to give some examples. As the questions come I might be able to use that information in responding.
The Chairman: Okay. We only have an hour before the bells go again.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to get a copy of the part of the written presentation that he hasn't presented? We can set out all that information for background work.
Mr. Rideout: In fact, we've provided the clerk, not with the remarks, sir, but with the communiqué and the fees and so on. That was all I was going to be able to present.
Mr. Wells: We have that.
The Chairman: So you're ready for questions.
Mr. Bernier, do you want to lead off?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Chairman, I'd like some information concerning procedure. When we left yesterday, the Reform member - Mr. Scott - had a motion on the table and, speaking with the clerk, I found out that we couldn't deal with the motion because we didn't have a quorum. How is it possible that we don't have a quorum to vote, but we do to hear witnesses? I was asking the clerk for clarification concerning procedure. You can ask the clerk.
[English]
The Chairman: As you recall, at our organizational meeting, our first meeting, we passed a motion that we can hear witnesses without a full quorum but to hear motions we need a full quorum on the government side and the opposition side. That's why we didn't hear it previously today. IfMr. Scott wants to proceed with his motion now before we get into these questions, we don't have a quorum yet so we can sit here and wait for somebody else to come. Otherwise we can continue with questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: If you don't think we will get a quorum today, we may as well listen to them.
[English]
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point for the committee that we have some people here today who were in front of the standing committee yesterday. They have met with the minister and are vitally concerned about the fishery on the west coast. I think they would like to know how the committee is going to deal with this motion, whether it's going to be accepted or amended, and what the recommendation of the standing committee is going to be to the minister. I think it's a real insult to these people if the committee doesn't deal with the motion.
The Chairman: It would be illegal right now to deal with that. Why would they want us to deal with a motion when it won't stand up at all? We're just wasting their time. If we had another member, fine, we could go.
Mr. Scott: I would question, Mr. Chairman, why we don't have a quorum. We could have dealt with this last night and there was a motion to adjourn, which I'm told supersedes this motion.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Scott: These people were left hanging out to dry last night. Now they're back here again today in good faith, feeling the committee is going to deal with the motion, and it isn't.
The Chairman: That's an opinion, Mr. Scott. I don't know whether they have been hung out to dry or who is hanging who here.
Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: The discussion is going nowhere because the rules clearly say that without a quorum we can't vote on the motion.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Wells: Even if we do get the quorum there are other issues. The committee has said they're still going to hear other witnesses. We're asking for Mr. Cruickshank to come and appear before us. The minister announced today, and I'm sure it was planned before today in the House, that he's going to B.C. tonight and he's going to meet again with the industry to discuss this. Mr. Scott is saying we should make a recommendation to the minister before we hear all the evidence.
It's not an insult to the people who appear before us. All of us come from fishing communities. We know the state of the fishery on the east and the west coasts and we know there are major concerns that we're all concerned about. To suggest for a minute that in order to support the people who came to appear before us yesterday we would have to support your motion, Mr. Scott, is unfair and is an insult.
.1630
If I vote against that motion - and I will wait until the time comes to decide - it won't be out of any disrespect for the people who appeared before this committee and whom I listened to yesterday, or the people I met when I went to B.C.
I will hear the process. I will go through the process. I will listen to all the evidence. We all have concerns for the fishery. You have no monopoly on concern for the fishermen on the west coast, let me assure you.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would say right now that the people who are here appeared before the standing committee in the earnest hope the committee was going to do something for them. There's a very short time fuse on this. We debated that last night. We talked about why we wanted to make these recommendations before Mr. Cruickshank appears before the committee. The minister must have input from the committee very shortly in order to offset the time limits on his plan at present.
If Mr. Wells doesn't like my motion, then he's certainly free to amend it or to defeat this and propose another motion. But I think it's incumbent on the committee to make a recommendation to the minister. At this time we have this motion in front of the committee. It was agreed it would be the first order of business today. We have come back in good faith expecting it's going to be dealt with.
I see another member has walked in. Do we now have a quorum?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Scott: Well, why don't we deal with it?
The Chairman: Okay. The motion is in front of you. You've all read the motion. Further debate.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Perhaps Mike would like to debate the motion first, or would he rather that I start right away? You should know, Mr. Scott, that when whoever has the floor stops speaking to the motion, they will immediately ask for the vote and everything will then be over. So if you want to say something, you have to say it right away and take all the time you need.
According to the House's Standing Order, nobody can interrupt you when you're debating your motion. It is only by adjourning that you can be interrupted. So do you want to go first?
[English]
Mr. Scott: Yes, I would.
First of all, for the benefit of everybody, I would like to read the motion into the minutes. Then I'm going to amend it. Then I think we should begin debate on it.
The Chairman: Pardon me, Mr. Scott, but you can't amend your own motion. You have a motion here. If it's going to be amended, it must be amended by somebody else.
Mr. Scott: Okay. I will read the motion into the minutes. Then I will see whether anybody chooses to amend it or not.
I move that allocations must be established and the total annual catch must be divided among gear sectors, the sport fishery, and the aboriginal fishery prior to...
Pardon me. I can't read in the amendment.
Second, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should recognize their responsibility for disastrously low Fraser River returns and grant relief from licence fees for everyone who as a result chooses not to fish in 1996.
Third, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should recommit to salmon enhancement projects in British Columbia, abandoning the $3 million to $4 million funding reduction.
Fourth, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should undertake a thorough and independent socio-economic impact analysis of licensing changes as they relate to British Columbia's coastal communities before implementing any licensing policy changes.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this motion is to attempt to modify the plan as announced by the minister on March 29, a plan the minister himself said was subject to modification. When the minister announced the plan he said it's not carved in stone, it's not that it can't be changed, and it's vital to the successful implementation of the plan that there be flexibility.
What this motion addresses is the concerns of the people from British Columbia we have heard from, not just the present delegation but the delegation that was here last week and many other representatives from the B.C. fishing community. This is not an attempt to undermine the minister's plan, it's an attempt to modify it to take into account the concerns that have been expressed by these people and to allow for a longer time horizon to implement licensing changes after other conditions have been addressed.
.1635
If you look at the first recommendation, for example, it's clear that allocations need to be established before fishermen are forced to make decisions that are going to affect them and their families for the rest of their lives. It's clear the minister understands the need for allocation, because he has appointed Dr. Art May to set allocations. Unfortunately, Mr. May's report to the minister isn't going to come down until the fall. Yet these people are squeezed into a time line where they're asked to make a decision with regard to the buy-back program. They're being asked to make a decision by June 1.
It's clear that with an area licensing policy fishermen are forced into make a decision right now with respect to either divesting themselves of licences they currently own or buying more should they choose to stay in the fishery. It's clear to me that fishermen can't stay in the fishery with just the licence they have now and be successful at it. They're going to have to make some change - either to get out of the industry or to increase their capitalization in it. I don't think it's fair to force fishermen to make that decision until they know what the ground rules are, what the allocations will be. They have to know what their guaranteed access to the resource will be.
I think it's clear the returns for 1996 will be exceedingly low due in part to problems experienced in the Fraser River in 1992, when a massive amount of fish went missing. A great deal of evidence suggests that was due to the lack of enforcement and control by DFO.
We are recommending that licence fees for 1996 be waived so that fishermen can stay in the fishery without having to pay their fee. They can opt out for one year and rejoin the fishery next year without paying a financial penalty. We think that would be good for fishermen and would decrease pressure on the resource in 1996.
We think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should recommit to salmon enhancement in British Columbia. There was an announcement last fall, after some $14 million in cuts had already been made, that the department was planning another $3 million to $4 million in funding cuts for B.C. salmon enhancement projects beginning in fiscal 1996-97. It's imperative that at a time when the resource is under stress and stock returns exceedingly low, salmon enhancement not be abandoned, particularly when many of these projects have been demonstrated to be effective.
It's important that the right message comes through to the fishing industry, that the government is not on the one hand telling them they have to downsize the fleet and many people will have to leave the fishery, and on the other hand reducing the commitment to salmon enhancement. This is particularly so when it has been demonstrated that salmon enhancement puts more fish in the water, which is of benefit to everyone, not just commercial fishermen. It's of benefit to the aboriginal food fishery and a major benefit to sport fishermen in British Columbia.
I can attest to that. Kitimat is my former hometown, and since the hatchery there commenced operations in the early 1980s the returns on chinook, chum and steelhead have been astronomical. It's increased both the sport fishing and commercial fishing opportunities in the area, and that is one hatchery that is possibly under the axe. We don't know because DFO has not announced where they're actually going to make the cuts, but we know this particular hatchery is on the short list, as is the one at Pallant Creek and several more on the lower mainland.
So we think that this recommendation is valid. It establishes a commitment to the resource at a time when the resource is exceedingly stressed.
.1640
Point number four is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertake a thorough and independent socio-economic impact analysis of proposed licensing changes as they relate to British Columbia's coastal communities.
We heard a great deal of testimony at this committee yesterday. We have seen many other exchanges from commercial fishermen on the west coast and representations from coastal communities that some of these communities stand to dry up and blow away. We have heard a great deal of testimony about the fact that it's not just the commercial fishery in these communities, but all the spin-off industries and all the jobs that result from the fishery. Therefore, I think the only responsible thing to do is to undertake a proper socio-economic impact analysis to determine what the impact of these proposed licensing changes will mean for British Columbia.
We saw on the CBC last night that smaller, less efficient boats can sell their licence to large efficient boats that are already capable of catching many times the fish that are out there to be caught. There will be no reduction in the amount of fish taken, or in the amount of fishing effort, but there will be a reduction in the number of fishermen in the industry and in the amount of employment. I think it's only responsible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to try to understand what will be the impact of these licensing changes on these coastal communities in British Columbia.
I have them in my riding. I can tell you about Masset, which is in my riding. Because of the closure of the Canadian Forces base there, it only has the commercial fishery to rely on. And I can tell you about many other coastal communities in British Columbia.
The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Scott: But when the military base and the commercial fishery are the only two things for that coastal community and you close them down, what do you do with the people? What happens to those people?
I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister have an obligation to try to understand the impact of the licensing changes on these communities, and to see if there is a better way of proposing licensing changes that will achieve the objectives of the ministry and the minister, and allow these coastal communities to survive.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's incumbent upon this committee to report to the minister and make recommendations based on the testimony we've heard. This is a serious situation in British Columbia. Once these licensing policies take hold, once they are in full force and effect, there is no turning back the clock. Two or three years down the road you can't say we made a mistake, we shouldn't have done it this way. There's no turning back the clock. Once you step over the precipice, that's it.
The time lines we were given are not mine or yours, they were given to us by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That's why I think it is so important that we immediately make recommendations to the minister so that he has an opportunity to review that and make changes to his licensing policy prior to May 24.
The Chairman: With all due respect, Mr. Scott, everything you've said we heard yesterday. One thing we also heard yesterday was that one thing Dennis Brown wanted us to do was to talk to Mr. Cruickshank and Mr. Pearse, and possibly Speaker Fraser. If this motion goes through, why would we want to do something like that? It's over. We're just closing the door on these moves.
Mr. Scott: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I totally disagree. This motion just stops the clock from ticking right now. It does not address -
The Chairman: It stops our clock.
Mr. Scott: It stops the -
The Chairman: It stops the committee's clock, but it's not going to stop the minister's clock or anyone else's. That's my judgment. You or anybody else can disagree with that.
.1645
Mr. Scott: Well, I disagree. If the minister were to accept these recommendations from the committee, if the committee were to pass this and the minister were to accept it, it would stop the clock in terms of licensing changes right now in British Columbia and allow time -
The Chairman: I'm not saying... Your content is basically fine. Most members of the committee agree with the content. The only problem is that we think it's an inappropriate time, at least I think it's an inappropriate time, to be voting on this particular motion without hearing further evidence. We told the group from B.C. yesterday that we would continue to do that.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, the further evidence that the committee is contemplating hearing from Mr. Cruickshank and possibly others deals with alternative proposals to the current licensing plan. In this motion we are not addressing that. We are not suggesting alternative licensing proposals. What we're suggesting is putting this on hold until the committee and the minister have an opportunity to contemplate those alternatives. That's all this is doing.
It's not addressing the issue of what the licensing policy should be. It's just saying that right now it has caused a great deal of concern. There's no turning back the clock once the licensing policy goes into full force and effect. Let's take an opportunity to look at it. The measures proposed in here are geared towards that. They are not geared towards providing the minister with recommendations on what the licensing policy should be.
The Chairman: You don't think so.
Mr. Scott: No.
The Chairman: Is there any further debate? Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): As we had indicated as a committee at the outset, whether it be this or any proposal or legislation that we felt it prudent to deal with, we wanted to go through the consultative process to gather information. As was indicated by the two presenters on this issue to date... One was the director, late last week, and the other was the presentation of yesterday. So we've basically had two presentations on this current concern and issue.
As you indicated, it was certainly a recommendation from the group from British Columbia that made the presentation, with a great deal of input and expertise from the area, which we're grateful for. I took it that they were suggesting we have Mr. Cruickshank in, if at all possible, as soon as possible. I don't mean next month or six months from now; I mean the first of the week, as soon as we possibly can.
My personal view is from the reading I've done on this issue. If at all possible I would also like to see Mr. Fraser in.
As was indicated in the House today, I believe the minister is leaving tonight and will be in British Columbia tomorrow to meet with the fishers and with associations and their representatives over the next few days. It may well be that we want to have presenters from DFO or others come in over the next few days or the next week or so to properly address the situation and to properly provide us with information and consultation so that we will have the facts in making any subsequent recommendations.
I concur with your concerns. Maybe it would have been prudent to go to B.C. and have some hearings. I suspect that the call of the provincial election yesterday may have circumvented our opportunity to do that. I don't know if we would want to be in B.C. doing it when a provincial election is in progress. I don't know if that would be the proper thing to do, but it's something that could be discussed.
In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, the concern when this was circulated yesterday was that it would make the committee's work redundant. You don't make a decision and then go on to gather information and consultation. You try to get all of that information so that whatever the decision or recommendation... Everyone in this room should be well aware that we can't make a decision. We can only make a recommendation. We're not embodied to make a decision. We're only embodied to make a recommendation to the minister and to the department.
.1650
While I appreciate Mr. Scott's concern and thought in putting the motion forward, whether it be amended or unamended at this present time - I don't think I'll get into that discussion - I believe we would be remiss if we didn't go on and make every attempt to have Mr. Cruickshank, Mr. Fraser, possibly DFO staff if we need them following the minister's visit out there, and others in the next few days. That way, we can make a recommendation based on the best knowledge and information we can get through presenters and the consultation process.
The Chairman: Is there any further debate?
Mr. Scott: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the member, and what he says makes sense in terms of proposing alternative licensing policy. What we have right now is a licensing policy that has been announced which does not enjoy widespread support. As a matter of fact, it is quite the contrary - it enjoys widespread opposition. There is a great deal of concern not just amongst the people involved in the commercial fishery but in the coastal communities in British Columbia that rely on that fishery for their livelihood.
Going back to my earlier remarks, when Mr. Mifflin announced the plan on March 29, he said there were going to be opportunities for that plan to change as the situation warranted. I appreciated that the minister said that. I appreciated that he said we're going to have some flexibility, that this is not cast in stone, that it's not perfect, and that we know it is going to cause a lot of pain in British Columbia, which it is. No matter what happens, there is going to be a great deal of pain in British Columbia. What we need to do is to make sure that the least amount of pain is caused while still achieving the objectives of the minister and of the people involved in the fishery in British Columbia - all the people involved in the fishery.
My concern is that the plan as devised has the heavy hand of DFO in it. I understand the minister's predicament. He has a huge portfolio. As members of the standing committee, we understand just how big a responsibility the minister has with the complexity of the issues he has to deal with, the number of different fisheries in Canada, the fact that he has been handed the responsibility for coast guard and other duties and responsibilities. I think this plan has been drafted largely in the back rooms of DFO offices.
The beauty of the standing committee is that it provides a conduit for individuals and representatives of organizations to appear and deal directly with government without that barrier of the DFO filter in between. That's what we achieved here yesterday. We heard that testimony directly from witnesses in British Columbia who said that this is a real problem and they can't continue down this road; something has to give.
With respect, I understand your concern that it should be a recommendation. Indeed, that may be an amendment one of my colleagues will move. But all we are doing with this recommendation is putting the plan on hold. We're not saying abandon it. We're not saying the licensing policy should be X, Y and Z. We don't know what it should be as a committee. We haven't studied that. We can't make recommendations on that. So we've said we should do the very minimum and hold off until such time as we as a committee can review and make recommendations based on the testimony that the committee may hear from Mr. Cruikshank and others. Fair enough. I have no problem with that.
This does not speak to licensing policy change. This says to hold off, extend the time lines and give the committee an opportunity to do its job. How can we do our job? This is May 1. These people have to make a decision by May 24. It's going to be too late. We don't have the luxury of time. We must deal with this now. I submit that we must deal with this now.
In the absence of making recommendations about licensing policy change, which I agree we shouldn't be doing until we hear testimony and acquaint ourselves as much as we can with the intricacies of the issues, let's at least put the plan on hold or recommend that the plan be put on hold. What the minister does is the minister's decision, but as a committee I think we have a responsibility to do that. That's what these people are asking.
.1655
We don't know when Mr. Cruickshank might be available to testify before the committee. We don't know when this all can be done.
What we do know is that there are 24 short days between now and when people have to make decisions. There are already people making decisions now about buying further licences in this area-licensing program. There is already that investment being made. There's already change happening as a result of the plan. Let's stop it before it goes too far. That's what this motion is addressed at, with respect.
Mr. Culbert: I don't see that's what the motion says. I think the motion puts in place an action. I'm concerned that if we're going to have Mr. Cruickshank and/or others in, which I hope we will... We've made the decision. We're saying we want you to come in and give us your best, expert recommendation. We're saying that we already made the decisions on a number of these areas, but that they should come in because they're very important. That is my concern, Mr. Chair.
With that, I will leave it and turn it over to Mr. Verran, who wanted to say something.
Mr. Verran (South West Nova): I have a question, please. Has anybody from the committee made contact or tried to make contact with the gentleman we were expecting to come in to testify?
The Chairman: We expect he'll be here next Thursday.
Mr. Verran: You expect him to be here Thursday. So has contact been made with him or his office?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Verran: Okay, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I'm not going to go on like Mike or some of my cohorts; I'm going to try to be brief. But I just want to relay to Mike that when I told him to join the club about base closures, it was not a flippant remark. I've had the same thing with HMCS Cornwallis down in my area.
Derek Wells and I had the largest commercial fishery, not only in Canada, but in North America. So we're well acquainted with what goes on and what has gone on. As a matter of fact, I'm not pleased that it happened to us in Atlantic Canada, but I want to say that because of what happened, we have learned. I certainly have learned about some of the things that go on behind the scenes with DFO and with the coastal communities.
Guess what? I agree wholeheartedly with some of the things that have been proposed by my cohort, Mike. But having said that, if we want to hold the process up... Personally, I do want this. I think they're moving too darned fast. DFO has a habit of doing that. They announced Monday morning that as of last Sunday at midnight, things have changed. And the fishermen find out about it that way.
I want to hold it up, but I don't think we need this to hold it up. I've already spoken to a couple of people in the department today about how this thing is moving too fast. I've let my views be known on this.
I think we can collectively just go and tell the department and the minister - he's in B.C, but there are his officials - that we think they're moving too fast and that we want them to hold it up without going through all this process here, which may indeed limit our ability to hear these other witnesses we have heard about.
The gentlemen who were here... I'm sorry, but I'm like all the other members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, in that I couldn't have been more impressed by their representations and sacrifices. Many of the witnesses have travelled all the way from B.C. to be here to visit us and to give us their feelings. They have 35 years of knowledge in some cases.
There was one young man there who impressed me. He has only been in the fishery a few years, but already he seemed to know and understand the feelings, and just what takes place in coastal communities when there are large decisions made by DFO. A lot of people refer to it as the bureaucracy of the DFO. That impacts on their lives and on the coastal communities in which they live and have to support.
I'm an east coaster. I'm from Nova Scotia. But I, as one of your committee, understand that. We'll be bringing that home quite forcefully, hopefully collectively and individually, to the minister and to DFO.
I guess my bottom line is that we don't need all this preamble or the recommendations by Mike. We can go and ask if we agree that this is moving too fast.
I certainly believe DFO is moving too fast on this. They moved too fast on us in the east coast, and they're moving too fast on this. They have to have time. The people in B.C. have to have time. I would just like to emphasize that, and I'll be working toward that angle very strongly.
.1700
Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: I have just a few comments. I hope we don't use up all our time and not get to hear these witnesses.
I think, Mr. Bernier, you would recognize that the issue we're dealing with today is also very important down on the east coast. That's not to say this isn't an important issue - I'd like to get on with the vote - but we have some very important issues we have to deal with, with these witnesses, that have major impacts on the east coast fishery.
I'd like to say to Mr. Scott that at the end of the day, I would expect that the majority of this motion I could support. I would need some clarifications on some elements of it. It's not the motion itself I'm having difficulty with. Again, as Mr. Culbert and Mr. Byrne said, it's premature. I just want to make sure it's perfectly clear that I will vote against the motion not because I don't agree with parts of the motion, or most of the motion. I want to hear all of the witnesses. I want to get all the facts. But at the end of the day, I want to deal with this motion so that we can get on with the witnesses and then deal with the other important areas.
The Chairman: Are we ready for the motion?
Mr. Scott: Two quick points.
First of all, I'd like to say, Harry, I appreciate and know the kinds of problems you face in southwest Nova Scotia. I know what it means when DFO makes decisions and you as the representative are the last person to find out what the hell went on. I know what that's like. I have a lot of sympathy for you.
I would also like to say very briefly, Mr. Wells, if there are some things you can support in my motion and some things you can't, please amend it so that you can support the motion, with the things you can support in it.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: For the benefit of all the committee members here now, I would like, so as to show that we work in a non partisan way in committee, to table motions and amendments toMr. Scott's motion.
May I now read the amendment? I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that you'll have to listen carefully. Are you ready to hear the amendments that I intend to move to the Reform Party's motion?
[English]
The Chairman: We are ready.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Okay. You have the English text and I, the French text of Mr. Scott's motion. I move that we amend the motion by striking the word "that" and replacing it by the following:
- The committee recommends to the minister that:
- the sports fishery, and the aboriginal fishery prior to licensing changes;
- Are those the amendments you want?
Fourthly, I move that we strike the last line of the paragraph and that we add the following:
- licensing policy: and
- 5. The current plan as announced by the Minister on March 29th be put on hold until the
foregoing recommendations are dealt with.
- When I say motion, I mean the five paragraphs.
This allows us to send a message to the minister and to tell him: "Just a moment. There should be a socio-economic impact analysis. You must allow us to read the Cruickshank Report and to meet with Mr. Cruickshank".
.1705
Both objectives would then be met and, as Mr. Wells recommended, we could hear the other witnesses. With your consent, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to call for a vote on this matter.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: Again, I did try to follow you, but I need a point of clarification on the amendments. Was he making an amendment to number one? The translation seemed to indicate an amendment to number one, but I didn't hear it coming. I'd like a repeat. Do we have it in writing somewhere?
The Clerk: I just wrote it out there. He's just adding these words after number one.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I'd like to make sure that all the other members can update their notes so that we all have the same motion.
I'd like to say to the committee members that these amendments are compatible with our goal.
It isn't a trick; there are no tactics behind this. It will allow us to hear Mr. Cruickshank, but it would also allow us to tell the minister right away that we want sufficient time to consider these matters.
Given what happened last time, you'll understand, dear colleagues on the other side, the two opposition parties' eagerness to move this motion.
This time, we want to make sure that this is properly determined from the start. The way the motion is drafted gives you leeway.
If you vote in favour of this motion, the BC salmon industry will be very grateful to you.
Mr. Chairman, if you're ready, could you reread the motion as amended? I think that all the necessary copies have been provided. Not yet? I don't understand.
Normally, Mr. Clerk, it takes time to get the French text. I don't understand that today, it is the English text which is taking time.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that this can sometimes be compromising. You have to understand that the official opposition and the Reform Party don't want to distribute the motion before hand, because, at the last tabling, we noticed that the witnesses and the members opposite had already began to discuss then even before the Reform member had the time to table them.
Do you need more time to reread the motion?
I'm ready to give you more time, but tell me what you need. The industry needs that time. It needs this motion which recommends to the minister to wait until we've read the Cruickshank report and have the results of the impact analysis.
Mr. Chairman, if there are enough members, we are ready to vote.
Do you have something to add, Mr. Chairman? Your smile is broad, but we can't hear it. I don't hear you.
[English]
The Chairman: What I'd like to do is to apologize to Mr. Rideout and say that you're not going to be able to hear from us. We heard from you earlier today. Those who came at 3:30 heard your presentation. I don't see any point in you waiting. Maybe you're enjoying this spectacle, I don't know, but you could probably have more productive use of your time if we could contact you later to ask you back at a different time.
Apparently the inspection fees are not a big issue. As soon as we can make arrangements we'll ask you back again to answer questions on the inspection issue.
.1710
Mr. Rideout: Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to come back at any time. I just remind you that I'll be away next week, so if it would be possible to return this week, that would be better if there is some urgency.
The Chairman: It will be up to members to say whether they're going to be around to hear you tomorrow or Friday.
Mr. Rideout: What about tommorrow morning?
The Chairman: Possibly tomorrow morning if we can deal with this motion here.
Yes, Harry.
Mr. Verran: Mr. Chairman, I believe I heard you say the inspection fees are not a big deal or something to that effect. I don't know how much of our time will be taken up with this procedure this afternoon, but I want to make it clear to you and to the other members here that inspection fees are a big deal. They are a concern.
There seems to be a lot of room for debate about how they were put together and why, but I want to reiterate that they are very important. I don't want to wait two weeks to discuss and then have the opportunity to hear what's taken place in that regard.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make it clear to our witnesses today that I mean no disrespect to them, and that this is a serious issue as far as all committee members are concerned. Unfortunately, we moved a motion yesteray and before we had an opportunity to debate it, which we should have and could have done at the time, somebody in the committee moved to adjourn and it was voted down that we did not proceed then.
I have no control over that. I did not choose to do that. I apologize to the witnesses that they've taken their time to come here today. Unfortunately, because of this other circumstance that they had no knowledge of, they may feel they've wasted their time appearing before the committee today.
Mr. Chairman, I do have respect for you as chairman, but it is unfortunate that you referred to this as - I can't remember your exact word - a sideshow or spectacle or whatever, because it isn't. It's a very serious matter for the west coast fishery. It's extremely important that the west coast fishery is dealt with in an even-handed manner by the minister.
Right now there's a great deal of concern out there. It's on the national news every night. We all see the level of concern that's out there, and I think it's incumbent upon this committee to deal with that concern. We've heard from the witnesses and I think it's time we vote on this motion. If there are members opposite who think they can support parts of it but not all of it, by all means propose amendments, but let's get on with it.
The Chairman: Is there any further debate on the amendment? Has anybody heard the...?
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Before the adjournment motion was moved last night, I was about to raise the point of order that this was unacceptable in parliamentary terms. It blends judicial or quasi-judicial functions with legislative ones. There is a judgment of responsibility in certain cases that I don't feel this committee is competent to put into a parliamentary resolution.
So I was about to suggest to you last night that you should -
Mr. Bernier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McWhinney: Please listen. A point of order has been taken. My point of order has priority. Wait until I finish, please.
Mr. Bernier: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. McWhinney: S'il vous plait.
The Chairman: Come to order, please.
I think you had an intervention, not a point of order. I did not hear you say it was a point of order. The point of order was made by Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment before us and I haven't heard anyone debate it. I don't think that the parliamentary secretary is discussing the motion and the amendment before us.
I would like some clarifications. I would like you to ask the members whether they want to debate the amendment and, if nobody wants to, I would like to put the motion.
At some point, we're going to have to vote. You were the one asking for it earlier.
[English]
The Chairman: We were in debate here. Mr. McWhinney has the floor.
Mr. McWhinney: I would take the point of order that in parliamentary terms this is a tendentious motion and is unacceptable, and should be sent back for a correct version in French and English that conforms to parliamentary rules.
.1715
The Chairman: I will have to rule that Mr. McWhinney is incorrect. I think the motion is fine the way it is. Most motions are contentious in one way or another.
Mr. McWhinney: Tendentious was the word I used, not contentious.
The Chairman: You'll have to explain the meaning of that word.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. McWhinney: I think we'd certainly need a motion deleting the first part of paragraph two, "should recognize their responsibility". That's a judgment, a litigial responsibility. A parliamentary committee cannot make that of the executive branch of government. It's quite improper and therefore should be deleted. I would be happy to move a motion to that effect, and then we could go seriatim between these items.
The Chairman: There's an amendment on the floor now, and we'll deal with that amendment first.
Mr. Culbert, do you want to add debate?
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the amendment.
I think I understand what Mr. Bernier was putting forward. If I understand him correctly, he was looking for a way to put the present process on hold until such time as the committee had finished its work. Then we could make recommendations to the department and/or the minister.
As Mr. Bernier was speaking on the amendment, I wondered whether a letter or request to the minister would do the same thing. If we want to carry on with Mr. Cruickshank, Mr. Fraser or whoever else to bring forward presentations, a simple request or letter from this committee, or instructing the chair to write a letter -
The Chairman: Excuse me, but there's a 15-minute bell, so we'll have to leave. If the committee agrees, we could come back after the vote. Is there agreement to return?
Mr. Scott: Just call the question.
The Chairman: We have to call the question on the amendment.
Is there any further debate on it or any objection to having the vote right now?
Mr. Wells: I have a lot more comments and I'd like to be able to find the common ground. I know we're pressed for time, but -
The Chairman: If there's still more debate we'll come back after the vote.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, as far as voting on the amendment, I understand we're just going to vote on whether we agree. We're not going to carry the amendment, we're just going to... Is the vote on the amendment simply to amend the motion and then we would vote on it?
Mr. Bernier: Yes.
Mr. Wells: So the vote on the amendment is simply to add two things to the motion, sinceMr. Scott cannot do it because it's his motion, and then we would have a motion to deal with -
The Chairman: Division bells take precedence. I will adjourn the meeting until after the vote.
.1718
.1820
The Chairman: We will call the meeting to order once again.
We have an amendment by Mr. Bernier. I think the debate on the amendment is over, so we'll call the vote.
Mr. Scott: Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?
Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3
The Chairman: Now we will vote on the main motion that you have before you. Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Scott: Yes, please.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3
The Chairman: We meet here tomorrow at 9 a.m. to resume our hearings.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Could you add a few words following the vote?
[English]
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): There is a vote at 10 a.m. Do we want to bring people in for half an hour?
The Chairman: An hour or fifty minutes should do it. We have to do it tomorrow because he's not going to be around next week. That means it will be ten days before we get them.
We'll meet here tomorrow at 9 a.m. The meeting is adjourned.