[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 26, 1996
.0903 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, hon. members. I see a quorum. Our first order of business is the election of a chair. I am prepared to accept motions to that effect.
Mr. Wells (South Shore): I nominate Joe McGuire.
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I would invite Mr. McGuire to take the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you all very much.
We'll proceed to the election of the vice-chairs. The floor is open to a nomination from the government.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): I nominate John Cummins.
The Chairman: John Cummins is nominated.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): I propose that Mr. Yvan Bernier... Do I have to put my motion forward immediately?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer proposes John Cummins as vice-chair. Is it agreed?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, may I have a recorded vote, please.
The Chairman: Mr. Clerk, would you record the vote, please?
.0905
Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 2
The Chairman: We will now entertain the proposal from Mr. Canuel that Mr. Bernier be vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Now we'll elect the vice-chair from the government side. The floor is now open for nominations.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I would like to propose the name ofMr. Wells.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: There's no other business. If the members of the committee would like to discuss future business, we're open for any discussions along that line. As far as I know, there's been some discussion on the Fisheries Act coming in this fall. We're not sure when it's coming in, but if it does, I think the committee is expected, and it's our duty, to hold hearings on the proposed new Fisheries Act if it should be tabled after second reading.
Other than that, Mr. Cummins, you had some ideas on future business.
Mr. Cummins (Delta): Yes, I had a number of items I thought we might consider. The first was the Supreme Court decisions that came down this summer and last spring on native fishing rights. It might be helpful for the committee if we had somebody in from Justice to address those issues. I would also suggest we might consider bringing in a lawyer by the name of Keith Lowes from the west coast, to give a west coast industry perspective on those decisions as well as the Justice opinion.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): What is his name?
Mr. Cummins: Keith Lowes.
I think it would be most beneficial for the committee to have a briefing on that issue, because it's going to be of some significance in the next year.
I thought it might be worth the committee's time to consider the management of the fishery on the Skeena River this year. It's probably the third year in a row when there's been a huge return to the river, yet a huge wasting of fish. I'd say probably in excess of $30 million Canadian worth of fish just rotted in Babine Lake. They weren't harvested. A large proportion of those of course were the result of enhancement activities on Babine Lake. Something is askew here when we have enhancement activities and then we're not adequately harvesting the resource. That's an issue we might want to have a look at.
It also entails the organization referred to as the Skeena Watershed Committee, which is a way in which the department, I believe, is side-stepping its responsibility for managing the resource. There's every indication the department intends to continue with that sort of activity, and I'm not sure that's the way we would want them to go.
.0910
A related issue would be the management of the sport fishing industry this year. I'm concerned, and I think the problem is not necessarily one of blame on the department but that the department may or may not be as responsive to the needs of the sport fishing industry, if I could use that term, as it might be.
Certainly the sport fishing industry and their representative are very concerned that the way announcements were made this year had a really negative impact on their activities. I think it's something we as a committee could look at and make some really positive recommendations that would be helpful to the department and to the industry as well.
The last item I think we should look at has to do with the coast guard. We're experiencing the downsizing of the coast guard on the west coast and elsewhere. I had some concerns last summer about response time. I'm not convinced with the way the system operates now that response time is adequate. I think it would be worth while for us to look at response time and the ability to respond in light of the amalgamation of the coast guard fleet with the fisheries fleet and the general downsizing that's taking place. I think there's a real need for that issue to be addressed.
The Chairman: Thank you, John.
Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Concerning the committee's future business, I suggest that we take some time to think about it, as Mr. Bernier is being kept at home for very personal and very serious reasons.
If we had a little bit more time, we would be able to make some suggestions. It would be very difficult for me to do it this morning.
May I ask the committee to allow us to make our suggestions at the next meeting?
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: The Fisheries Act obviously is going to be the main issue we'll have to deal with if it gets introduced this session, which I assume it will. Depending on how we're going to handle that and how much time we have to do other things before Christmas, we have to set priorities.
One thing I feel we need to take a look at, because I don't see yet that the department has taken a serious look at it, is the cumulative impact of all the various fees on the fishing industry. I think if they're not prepared to take a look at it, we should, and we should come up with some strong recommendations.
The Chairman: Are there any other suggestions?
Mr. McWhinney.
Mr. McWhinney: I'd like to thank our colleagues for those very valuable suggestions for study. They're all valuable and necessary.
I'd signal again, as my colleague Mr. Wells has just mentioned, that we do have the Oceans Act to complete and the Fisheries Act is to be introduced, and I think it's absolutely vital because it's the first comprehensive look at this issue since the first bill was passed in 1868. It's almost inevitable that we'll have to hold intensive public hearings in various parts of the country.
We'll have to balance the priorities there, but I would think with the Fisheries Act the hearings will become almost the key issue.
That is not, as I say, to denigrate the importance of the matters Mr. Cummins and Mr. Canuel raised. I'm very impressed with those issues. They're very important and need study.
The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky, the newest member.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
.0915
As a new member, I'm not sure just how far the mandate of this committee extends. Being from the middle of the country, on the Great Lakes seaway, I'm wondering about the relationship of the provincial governments with the federal, the whole question of user fees, and the role of the coast guard in those user fees. I'm hoping we can get that clarified, because we're getting a lot of mixed messages.
The Chairman: Is it particularly the marine service fees you're talking about now?
Mr. Dromisky: Yes, in particular.
The Chairman: An impact study is going on now with the department and the users. They should be reporting at the end of October. I think last spring we committed ourselves to an update and review of that impact study. I imagine we'll be held to that commitment.
Mr. Dromisky: Very good.
The Chairman: In a couple of months we'll have to reopen the marine service fees, the impact of the $20 million, $40 million, and $60 million fees.
Is it okay, Stan?
Mr. Dromisky: Yes, very good.
Mr. Wells: Can I add something? I believe we have David Rideout here on the inspection fee issue. You're talking about follow-up on marine services. I think we're already committed to a follow-up on the inspection fees. I thought you meant just new business. Of course there is some old business we have to tidy up. Those inspection fees would be part of the old business we have to follow up on.
The Chairman: Harold.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Mr. Chairman, obviously the consulting report that comes forth on the marine service fees is one that will be very important. I think this committee has already obligated itself to do some review and input before any decisions are made this fall.I understood that was going to be completed by October.
The Chairman: By the end of October.
Mr. Culbert: So a little later on this fall -
The other area I think is very important from the perspective of the Atlantic coast is the scientific evidence. I keep hearing from my fishermen, my fishing communities, and the fishing organizations about greater stocks of cod being spotted in many areas of the Atlantic coast. It's going to be very interesting to see the scientific evidence on exactly what that says before decisions are made for 1997, for quotas and so on, which are normally done in January or February, that type of thing, for the ground fishery. I think it would be very important if we could have access to the scientific information that does come forward this fall before those decisions are made.
The Chairman: So the results of the Sentinel fishery in the cod fishery...?
Mr. Culbert: Yes, the scientific reports that come forward this fall on the ground fishery for Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Cummins: Some NAFO reports that came out recently, and that we got, show almost a decline, it seems to me.
Did you see those, Joe?
The Chairman: No. In the cod fishery?
Mr. Culbert: It depends on the area you're looking at.
Mr. Cummins: Yes. This was not in coastal areas, but it was within the NAFO area. It wasn't too impressive.
Mr. Wells: Although if you look at George's and 4X you'll see a substantial increase in ground stocks. The FRCC, as you know, are going through their hearings right now, and I would think we'll have their recommendations -
Mr. Culbert: Exactly.
Mr. Wells: - before year end on stock assessment and recommendations for next year's quotas. We're hopeful, actually, that there's going to be an increase in quotas in some parts, certainly not in the northern cod stocks but in the 4X and George's stocks.
Mr. Cummins: It's certainly not all over.
Mr. Wells: No, no.
Mr. Cummins: I know what we saw was not very encouraging.
Mr. Wells: There are some good signs, but then there are some not-so-good signs. You're right, it's a mixed message.
Mr. Cummins: That's right.
Mr. Culbert: I think that's exactly the point, Mr. Chair. We keep getting these various mixed messages and we want the factual scientific evidence that has been gathered, so if there are any suggestions or recommendations we might want to make to the minister or the department we will do that on a very knowledgeable basis.
The Chairman: I think the fishermen are hoping for a limited fishery on cod next year. So maybe that would be -
Mr. Culbert: That's my understanding.
Mr. Wells: I don't see this committee, though, as being in any position to make recommendations on quotas. It's certainly not our job to make quotas.
The Chairman: No, but we'd like, as Harold suggested, to get an update on what the scientific evidence is.
Mr. Wells: Certainly. Then we can know it.
Mr. Culbert: Yes.
The Chairman: About the FRCC, has the government accepted the report on lobster, do you know, Mr. McWhinney?
Mr. McWhinney: Which report?
The Chairman: The FRCC report on lobster. Has that been accepted by the department?
.0920
Mr. Wells: I believe so.
The Chairman: Is it now public?
Mr. Wells: That was made public some time ago, Joe.
The Chairman: It was given to them last spring, but -
Mr. McWhinney: That was my impression some time ago.
The Chairman: So it's accepted and is now a public document.
Mr. McWhinney: We can check on that to see.
Mr. Wells: Every lobster fisherman in my riding knows what's in it.
The Chairman: Well, mine were asking if the recommendations that it contained were accepted by the government or not.
Are there any other suggestions?
Mr. Dromisky: I have one question, but I don't know whether it's within our mandate or not. It's with regard to the infrastructure that the government may have for the surveillance of vessels in deep water, especially such as those on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast. Do we have an opportunity to take a look at that, or is it in someone else's basket?
Mr. Wells: That's Fisheries. That's a legitimate question.
The Chairman: It's ours. If you'd like to have a report on what the actions are, what the department actually does there, it shouldn't be very hard to get. This is search and rescue and observing the -
Mr. Dromisky: I think there are quite a number of aspects in this whole area that have to be looked at.
The Chairman: You can ask the department for that information.
Mr. Dromisky: Okay.
Mr. Wells: There are a lot of things happening there that we should be aware of. There's a lot of new stuff.
Mr. McWhinney: Yes.
Mr. Cummins: When do you expect that new Fisheries Act to come to us?
The Chairman: I think the department is hoping for early October for first reading, with second reading shortly after that. There will then be a report and it will be sent to committee.
Mr. McWhinney: It will clearly govern our agenda, though. It's early October. I think any hearings would have to be held, or at least start, before the Christmas period. You can therefore certainly see late October and November becoming pre-empted. We'll have to hold hearings on the Atlantic coast, the west coast, and in the interior region.
The Chairman: If that happens, if it is introduced, we'll be on the road almost constantly for two months.
Mr. McWhinney: Not for two months, but -
The Chairman: If we're committed to doing a job on it on the east coast, on the west coast and in the interior - and we have other work to do, too - I think we'll be on the road for two months.
Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: We could forward our suggestions to you over the next few days. Would you be able to take them into account then? I see that today everyone has many suggestions to make. They are certainly very valid, but we will have some to make also.
As I said earlier, Mr. Bernier is kept at home and we would like to have the opportunity to make some suggestions on the committee's future business. What would be the deadline for us to give you our suggestions?
[English]
The Chairman: We'll more than likely meet next Tuesday. I think we should go withMr. Cummins' suggestion of having the justice officials give us some update on the impact of the Supreme Court decisions on the aboriginal issue. I think we should do that as soon as possible, probably next Tuesday.
Mr. McWhinney: And an analysis of the decision.
The Chairman: Yvan would be back at that time and he can give us his suggestions after the witnesses appear.
Is it agreed that we do call the Justice officials for next Tuesday? We'll try to make some arrangements for the other suggestions here to come in after that.
Mr. Wells: Yes, we can do that too.
I like Stan's suggestion about the surveillance thing. That wouldn't be a big thing, but I think we should put them on notice that we're going to want it. Those are things we can do before the Fisheries Act study starts. I think that would be -
The Chairman: Yes, we could do surveillance and probably the cod. We could get the time to see -
Mr. Wells: We could do all of that in one session.
The Chairman: We could have it maybe a week from today.
Mr. Wells: Yes, that would be good.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you give a fairly specific request to Justice to give an analysis and synthesis of what are in fact three different decisions, and not merely interpretations. We want the actual facts of what's decided. We could give it ourselves, but we want it authoritatively. If they do that, at least there's a focus to their testimony.
The Chairman: Okay.
Is there any other business?
Mr. Cummins: Can that meeting be on Thursday as opposed to Tuesday?
The Chairman: Why, John?
.0925
Mr. Cummins: Actually, I wanted to attend a transport committee meeting in Vancouver on Tuesday. It's quite relevant to my constituency. That's the simple reason.
Mr. McWhinney: We could be lost. The Fisheries Act comes on when we start travelling.
Maybe they could present the analysis and synthesis in writing. Why not? Maybe they could table a report on the actual synthesis side and leave the explanations for when you return.
The Chairman: Diane.
Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering when this committee would be dealing with the TAGS review. Is that on the agenda for this fall?
The Chairman: We haven't discussed that this morning. We could, because it's a valid suggestion. We could entertain an update on TAGS. I know the minister has made a decision on it. If we wanted to know what the impact of that decision was going to be, it could be a topic.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Just in case we have spare time, eh?
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we have Justice on Tuesday or Thursday? Mr. Cummins would like it delayed until Thursday.
Mr. McWhinney: There might be two sessions with them. It might be facilitated if we had the report, the analysis, presented preferably in writing on Tuesday. We could then wait until Thursday for the interpretations and questions.
Mr. Wells: It also may be subject to the availability of certain people, so I hate to tie it down to Thursday.
The Chairman: Why don't you leave it with us and we'll see what we can arrange with the officials.
Mr. Wells: Yes.
The Chairman: The scientists may need some more time, too, before they can give us an update on the cod results. Maybe they're not prepared. Maybe they don't have the results in yet on the Sentinel fisheries in the various regions.
Mr. Wells: They do have the results that they presented, I think, to the FRCC, so I think at least there will be some information available to us.
The Chairman: Why don't you leave it with the clerk and me. We'll see what we can arrange and we'll try to accommodate your request, John.
Mr. Cummins: I appreciate that.
The Chairman: Is there any other business?
The meeting is adjourned.