[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
.1532 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We don't have a great deal of time and we do have a quorum, so I think we should begin our session.
I want to welcome the minister for his first appearance in front of the fisheries committee. He's well used to committees, being on the defence committee and so on for many years. I want to welcome you, Mr. Mifflin, and your staff.
Maybe we should begin by introducing your departmental people, and then we'll hear your presentation and open for questions. We'll try to keep it as tight as possible because there are a lot of questions to be asked.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to be here before you.
With me is Deputy Minister Bill Rowat; John Emberley from industry services; Cheryl Fraser, ADM, Policy; Pat Chamut, ADM, Fisheries Management; John Thomas, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; Gerry Swanson, the acting ADM, Science; Linda Blackwell, ADM, Corporate Services; and Mike Turner, the last of the immediate staff, who is Commissioner of the Coast Guard. We also have our chief financial officer, Don Dickson, who is hiding away in the background. He doesn't always do this, but he's doing it today for no appropriate reason.
Mr. Chairman, as I said to you earlier, I have a meeting at 5:15 p.m. to address a situation that has arisen. At least one member at the table will be familiar with that.
With that introduction, I'd like to make a presentation. The opening remarks will be qualitative. I'll then ask the deputy minister to spend not more than three minutes explaining some of the figures.
I want to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, on your appointment as the relatively new chair of the standing committee. I'd also like to acknowledge the committee's two vice-chairs, the member for South Shore and the member for Gaspé. The member for South Shore isn't here, but you could pass on my compliments to him.
I look forward to working with the committee and receiving the benefits of your input and counsel. I know first-hand the importance of teamwork, and as you alluded to earlier, I am very much aware of the importance of committee work and the important discussion that goes on in the interest of good government.
I also know that leadership is as much an exercise in effective listening as it is one of doing. As I am prepared to listen and act, taking the views of others into account, it is my hope that partnering in this respect will be a cornerstone of my tenure in this portfolio. Indeed, it would be unreasonable and untenable for me or for the government to try to chart a course in isolation. For one thing we are not the sole custodian in the fishery resource. For another, the marine transportation sector is too important to the well-being of the whole country. It is self-evident that we must work in partnership and collaboration with those who depend on this department for their livelihood. I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I feel about the need for partnerships. It is absolutely crucial that fishermen, the shipping industry and other stakeholders work with me and my officials in designing ways to manage both for today and tomorrow on a regular basis, on an everyday basis.
.1535
I want all stakeholders to play a major role in shaping the decisions we make. In that regard I want to commend you for the time you have devoted in recent weeks to hearing from a cross-section of groups on a very important part of government policy, and we refer to the marine service fee proposal.
I also want to hear from you on the new Fisheries Act, which along with the Oceans Act, already considered and improved by the committee, constitute two complementary pieces of legislation whose passage will usher in a new era critical to Canada's prosperity. I will speak to these issues in more detail shortly.
Before doing so, I want to mention that DFO is one of six departments engaged in the pilot project to improve the presentation of information to Parliament on performance and finances. The central feature of our 1996-97 main estimates is that they provide a three-year perspective on planned expenditures and performance targets. The purpose is to provide parliamentarians with better information and to enhance their ability to effect the budgetary decision-making process.
I would welcome any recommendations that you have regarding the way information has been presented in this document. I would also appreciate any advice you may have on how we can do a better job in making as accessible as possible the information you require to do an effective review of these main estimates.
The expenditure plan before you outlines how my department plans to get things done with less. It illustrates just how significant the expenditure reductions to date have been and how successful we have been in coping with them. In doing so, it also underlines the many difficult choices ahead. This plan makes clear that conservation will remain a top priority.
Finally, it reports on the status of the merger between the old Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The challenges of integrating with its own unique culture and clientele with a strengthened DFO has proceeded in an orderly and smooth fashion. When you consider that we are in the midst of reducing our net spending by 32% over the four-year period ending in 1998-99, this is not an easy task.
The magnitude of the changes ahead for DFO should not be underestimated. By the time of the 1998 fiscal year, the DFO contingent of full-time equivalent employees will drop by 2,736 from 11,694 in fiscal year 1994-95 to 8,958. Over the same period DFO's net spending levels will be reduced by $450 million, from the previously planned $1.4 billion to just over $950 million. The department structure is decentralized with 88% of its workforce in the regions and 90% of its funding earmarked for regional use.
The budget reductions are being applied to a greater degree at headquarters, where there will be a 37% reduction in workforce and a 36% reduction in funding. DFO is primarily an operationally oriented department. In implementing the reductions we are focusing on maintaining operations and reducing overhead. This translates into a 40% reduction in workforce and a 32% reduction in funding for overhead.
The streamlining has provided us with an opportunity to ask hard questions, to identify priorities, and to consider new approaches, and it will continue to do so in the coming years.
I know you have many questions, thus I want to provide a very brief overview of the key legislative initiatives for DFO over the coming year. I will then highlight some of the major elements of the expenditure plan and finally I will conclude with a summary of the international context.
I want to begin by addressing the fishery of the future, articulated in large part by resource stakeholders themselves, large and small, through a broad and inclusive process of consultation.
.1540
We are all aware of the interrelationship between the key problems confronting the fishery: over-capacity, a requirement for more compelling incentives for rationalization, and over-regulation. We are equally aware that the foundation on which to build the fishery of the future is environmental sustainability and greater industry self-reliance.
The fishery of the future will be built on six guiding principles. These principles are that: conservation comes first; industry capacity must be balanced; the fishery must be conducted by professionals; access to the resource should be through a core of multi-licensed enterprises without diminishing the role of specialized fleets; government and industry must move forward towards operating in partnership with one another; and last, but certainly not least, aboriginal rights must be respected.
We are working hard on all fronts to give these principles concrete expression. Crucial to positioning ourselves to meet these objectives will be the passage of the Canada Oceans Act and the new Fisheries Act.
Let me talk a bit about the Canada Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act. As this committee is well aware, the Oceans Act, which was recently reinstated, has as its objective to consolidate legislation pertaining to oceans management. It provides a basis for the development of a comprehensive, integrated oceans strategy by setting out the principles and planning powers for renewable and non-renewable oceans resources. It is a key stepping stone to our country effectively asserting its sovereignty over coastal zones.
The bill has been reinstated and is now at report stage. Your committee's thoughtful deliberations and careful analysis over the past have helped to make the bill stronger. I look forward to its early passage. I can't tell you at this time when exactly the bill will come forward, but I'm hoping it will be very soon.
The new Fisheries Act will give expression to the vision implicit in the Oceans Act. It will provide a single legislative framework for all fishing on coastal and adjacent waters by integrating the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act into the Fisheries Act and by repealing four other statutes. It will strengthen enforcement and provide for a fairer, faster sanctions regime that would replace many of the criminal proceedings currently used to deal with infractions. Furthermore, it will mean substantial streamlining of the regulatory process and a reduction in the number of fishing regulations by as much as 50%.
As well, the new act will allow for providing services and sharing the management of the fishery with users through partnerships and with commercial fisheries, aboriginals, and other groups. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Speech from the Throne commits this government to seek new arrangements for the management of freshwater fish habitat with the provinces. I expect to move forward on this in the coming months.
Taken as a whole, these companion pieces of legislation will serve to reinforce our international commitment to fisheries. When the new bill is tabled, I encourage the committee to consult widely and broadly and to treat the new Fisheries Act with the same diligence with which you dealt with the Oceans Act. Both pieces of the legislation are key to achieving the fishery of the future.
Just a word on marine service fees. As you well know, the major initiative related to the coast guard has been the marine service fee. I trust you will agree with me that Canadian taxpayers want and expect that those who benefit from a public service should pay a portion of the cost of providing it. Up until now, taxpayers have been paying the whole cost of providing these services. Our marine industry has long enjoyed one of the safest marine transportation systems in the world. I think anybody would find it difficult to deny that.
But that system has come at a price. I announced implementation of the marine service fee after extensive consultation and thorough review by the standing committee. Again, I want to thank you for your recommendations. These provided the framework for the measures we are taking in implementing the fees.
The main point insofar as the fee is concerned is that this enhanced notion of paying for services used also applies to other user groups of all kinds. Canadians have made it clear that they want those who benefit from public services to have a greater responsibility for contributing to the maintenance of these services. They prefer a user pay, user say approach.
At the same time, it is imperative that we take steps to ensure our marine transportation system remains competitive. To do that we must reduce costs. The Canadian Coast Guard is working closely with industry to explore means of introducing cost reductions as quickly and as safely as will permit, and as quickly as industry can adopt the new technologies.
.1545
The coast guard is doing its part through budget reductions totalling about $200 million by the turn of the century. Industry will be doing its part by paying for a small part of the services to begin with, and secondly, because there will be a consequent limit on its demand for services, which I may add, Mr. Chairman, is a change from the past.
In total, through program reviews, strategic reductions and increased revenues, the coast guard will be reducing its government appropriations by about $270 million over the next four years. These are not trivial amounts. The coast guard is cutting its costs harder and faster than the demands being placed on industry for revenue generation.
I want to be clear on one point, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. While we firmly believe those who use services have a responsibility to pay, we are not processing in a way that inflicts grievous harm on a sector that has admittedly experienced more downturns than ups in the past years.
It is important to remember that the total cost being recovered this year reflects only 11% of the total cost of the public service provided to the shipping industry. Our approach, I believe, is balanced and realistic and takes account of local needs and circumstances and users' ability to pay. An independent report has confirmed that the initial financial impacts are manageable.
To ensure we are not posing undue hardship - and as you recommended - I am committed to an additional impact study during the initial phase-in period to allow us to make any necessary adjustments. I look forward to continuing to receive advice from the committee regarding the marine services fee, but I also urge you to continue to show the leadership that you've shown on this issue in the past.
Implementing cost-recovery is often very difficult. In fact, it is always difficult, but we must carry it out or we will put in jeopardy a marine transportation system that is world class.
Let me now briefly summarize where we are on various other key issues. Technical innovation will play an increasingly important role in DFO's future and will help the coast guard meet the ambitious streamlining objectives it has set.
By taking advantage of the new technologies and making adjustments to the marine aids system, the coast guard will be able to continue the provision of a service responding to users' needs at an affordable cost.
I want to underline that safety is our overriding concern. Such risks must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly, I look forward to your counsel and your advice with respect to the implementation challenges these tools may pose.
The recent Speech from the Throne indicated that we would act to strengthen partnership with provinces in the area of freshwater fish habitat protection. Provisions in the new Fisheries Act to protect freshwater fish habitat, which will be studied by your committee, will be a major step towards meeting this commitment.
DFO's science sector is responding to the major challenge of assessing commercial fish stocks. This includes working towards a better understanding of the harvesting, environmental and ecological factors behind the declines in groundfish stocks on the east coast and, for example, the coho and chinook returns on the west coast.
We are striving to understand the dynamics of healthy stocks, such as lobsters and crab, and to provide information and advice for sustainable use of these resources. DFO science is also working with partners and clients in the fishing industry and academic research sector to predict the recovery of depleted commercial stocks and to identify the appropriate strategies for reopening fisheries as stocks are rebuilt.
Regarding the Pacific salmon fishery, which is an item of topical concern, in late March of this year I announced a comprehensive plan to revitalize the west coast commercial salmon fishery. The plan emphasizes conservation of the resource and seeks to ensure the long-term economic viability of the fishery.
Over the long term, achieving the goal we have set will require a 50% reduction in the capacity of the commercial salmon fleet. Accordingly, to kick start the program, we have set aside $80 million for a voluntary licence retirement program, and in addition, a new commercial licensing system will be introduced.
On the advice of the Pacific policy round table and of my colleagues from British Columbia, the planned licence fee increase scheduled to come into effect this year will be phased in over 1996-97 due to a poor outlook for the salmon fishery. We are also considering a landing base licence fee for implementation when the Fisheries Act has been implemented.
As you know, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, in 1995 Canada reduced the chinook salmon harvest by half. At current forecast levels of abundance, there will be no commercial fisheries for Fraser River sockeye in 1996 as it looks now. Unless the United States also agrees to a substantial reduction of the 1996 harvest, the survival of chinook stocks off the west coast of Vancouver Island is in bad shape and seriously threatened.
There are several serious Canada-U.S. Pacific salmon issues, and we are continuing negotiations on the 1996 fishing agreements with respect to conservation requirements for Fraser River sockeye, chinook and coho salmon. At the same time, Canada is continuing efforts to have the United States respect its treaty obligations concerning the equity principle. The objective here is to establish a framework agreement on fair and equitable catch allocations in order to provide a stable basis for management and conservation of the resource.
.1550
As I suggested to individual members earlier, it is therefore promising that Canada's Ambassador for the Environment and Sustainable Development, John Fraser, has agreed to assume special responsibilities to advance Canada's interest in resolving the Pacific salmon issue. He is meeting with Canadian and U.S. stakeholders and decision-makers and will advise ministers on possible avenues to resolve the impasse.
Briefly, in terms of the core fishery, we believe that professionalization will limit future growth in capacity and foster more responsible and sustaining fishing practices. Accordingly, our new licensing policy introduced last December promotes this concept. This approach is obviously a controversial one and we have done our best to be as accommodating as we can. We will work with our colleagues at Human Resources Development through TAGS to help those who find themselves outside the system to find alternatives.
Another initiative that holds promise for future conservation of the resources is sentinel fishery programs. This initiative involves fishermen working with DFO scientists in the collection of data on the status of groundfish stocks where sentinel fisheries collect information on local abundance, distribution and migration patterns of fish in areas not covered by the offshore research surveys. In 1995 these programs employed more than 500 fishermen at the total of 114 sites, and in 1996 there will be a similar effort.
Mr. Chairman, winding this up, I think it would be inappropriate for me to leave my presentation without some comment on the state of the moratoria. The success of the sentinel fishery program has a direct impact, I believe, on the status of various species under moratoria. For example, for most cod stocks, results from the sentinel survey projects confirm offshore survey results that indicate stocks remain at extremely low levels.
For other species under moratoria the outlook is somewhat more promising. I've asked the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council to develop a groundfish conservation strategy and criteria for the reopening of closed fisheries. But before moving ahead it would be vitally important to have a conservation framework in place.
I stress that the decision to reopen the fishery, which is near and dear to all our hearts, must be based on reliable information about the status of fish stocks and the ability to support sustainable fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the aboriginal fisheries strategy, because it's very important. It was introduced in 1992 and it provides a mechanism whereby aboriginal groups exercise increased authority and responsibility in the management of aboriginal food, social and ceremonial fisheries. The strategy has allowed a new co-management relationship amongst government and aboriginal people. Co-management initiatives result in improved management of fishery resources and promote the conservation and protection of our aquatic resources.
The government initially adopted the strategy as a seven-year program. In this, the fifth year of its implementation, we are conducting an assessment to address possible improvements and future funding. In doing so we will be including information about the relationship between the strategy and fisheries management issues and the land claim process, particularly in British Columbia. In view of this, DFO has taken a consultation process with interested stakeholders. We have undertaken that and it is ongoing.
The review of the aboriginal fisheries strategy is now nearing completion and I will be making application to our colleagues to discuss this in the very near future.
Finally, aquaculture. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, aquaculture development is the priority of the Government of Canada. Aquaculture was one of six sectors targeted in Minister Manley's publication, Building A More Innovative Economy, as sectors with the potential to have a positive impact on Canada's economic future. I can report that good progress has been made in this field.
Much has been accomplished since the announcement of my predecessor of the federal aquaculture development strategy early in 1995. Aquaculture implementation committees with representation from industry and federal and provincial governments have been established in the maritime provinces and British Columbia to identify regional issues of concern.
Mr. Chairman, now for a word on overfishing. It will be crucial to sustain the progress Canada made last year in combating foreign overfishing, especially off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The international agreements that have been signed over the past months, notably the UN high seas fish agreement, constitute important gains. They bode well for the new era of high seas fishing.
.1555
Canada is leading the coastal state campaign to obtain the 30 ratifications necessary to bring the agreement into force. For our own part, I will shortly introduce legislation to bring Canadian laws into line with the agreement, which will enable Canada to lead by example through its early ratification.
In conclusion, I want to underline that, overall, I'm pleased with the progress we are making on a number of fronts. The steps we are taking now to move forward to a user pay, user say system for managing the marine transportation system offer, I believe, the best long-term prospects for its continued viability.
Similarly, the tough stance we are taking now on conservation, capacity reduction, and licensing is a necessary first step toward rehabilitating the depleted stocks and rebuilding the future from the bottom up.
Adjustment will continue to be painful - I stress that - but with vigilance and discipline, the long-term prognosis is good.
I look forward to answering your questions, and I thank you very much for your patience.
I'll ask the deputy for just three minutes maximum to run through some of the figures. I believe this could be a lead-in to some of your questions on the details.
Mr. W. A. Rowat (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Chairman, your clerk has distributed to members a copy of coloured graphs and charts we prepared so you'll have a quick summary of some of the key statistics in the department.
The first sheet is there to show you that, as many of you are aware, the final year of the four-year program review, which we call program review II, is 1998-99. That year, and the estimates for that year, have been finalized since the production of part III, so you'll find that most departments appearing before committees will show you a new, updated estimate for 1998-99.
Those numbers are reflected in the following sets of graphs and charts as well. These largely reflect some of the numbers that the minister has already gone over with you.
The first one showing the two pie charts essentially shows that the department, over four years, is reducing by 2,736 employees at a reduction of $450 million on a base of $1.4 billion.
The next chart shows the growth in those reductions over a four-year period. It shows the reductions, the sunsetted programs and the revenue in blue.
The next table shows you the reference the minister made to the decentralized nature of this department, which is one of the most decentralized in government. Roughly 11% of its employees are in Ottawa. The rest are in the regions.
Similarly, for budget, we reduced more at headquarters during the program review and we reduced our overhead to try to leave our field, front-line employees intact as much as possible.
This chart with the matrix shows you the department's programs: science, fish operations, inspection, Canadian Coast Guard, and so on. Those are on columns; the rows show you the regions. So you get a quick snapshot of how much is spent under each program per region and vice-versa. The total is $1.325 billion for 1996-97.
The next pie chart is main estimates by activity and total resources in dollars. It shows you basically how it's divided up among the program areas.
The next pie chart shows total employees, again by program area.
The next pie chart shows you total resources, which is the $1.3 billion, by region. It shows you roughly that our biggest expenditures are in the Pacific region. The next biggest would be in the Maritimes. The others are roughly equal with a centrally held reserve that is farmed out during the year to the various regions depending on contingencies and priorities.
The second-to-last one shows the people. Full-time equivalents are 10,273. It's down to that number this year. Again, that shows our employees by regions. Again, the biggest number is in maritime operations.
The final chart just shows by capital the O and M, personnel and operating costs, which is the traditional breakdown by input factor.
That's the quick summary of resources for this year, just to give you some assistance. Thank you.
.1600
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We'll go immediately to questions. Maybe to facilitate the number of questions we should keep our preambles short.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
M. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Minister, I'd like to go back right now to page 4, where Fishery of the Future is mentioned, as well as to the issue of crab fishing. A few minutes ago, I asked you a question in the House, but I am not sure we understood each other.
There are, at the moment, traditional crab fishermen. They had problems with your Department, but they settled them. I want, most of all, to discuss the traditional workers in the crab processing plants, and the deckhands from the traditional boats who find themselves out of work because of this year's fishing plan. As I told you previously, a quarter of these fishermen lose their jobs and three-quarters will work fewer hours.
When you think about the future, do you see in which way people will have access to multiple licences and the impact this will have on the workers?
First, I would like you to tell me what can be done in the short term, because the industry has told me that, if the problem is not settled by Friday, the people will refuse to go fishing. I don't want this year's fishery to be scrapped to benefit industries that would be granted multiple licences. I'd rather we come back next fall, with real decisions about multiple licences for all fishermen, including shore fishermen.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: I thank the hon. member for the question. Neither do I.
Let me just make sure we're dealing with the same base here. Every fishery is unique in the sense that every year no two management plans are the same. I say that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I say that as a member of Parliament, having received many, like all of us around the table.
This year in the gulf, for a number of reasons - the exploitation rate, the biomass - essentially there was a reduction of about 16% in the actual biomass. Because of that, and for other reasons I really don't have time to get into, the prosecution rate was reduced from last year. The end result was that we ended up with a total capacity, a total allowable catch if you like, of crab in the gulf of16,100 tonnes.
I'm prepared to get into some detail as to why the plan went this way, and I'm quite open to talk about it. Because of the total allowable catch of 16,100, it was decided that the mid-shore crabbers, or the full-time crabbers if you like, would get an allocation of 77.5%, which worked out to 12,500. Please don't hold me to the numbers, but I do know the rough numbers. That essentially left another 3,600 for allocation to inshore fisherman who have no ability to fish, no fish to catch. Because of the exploitation rate and because of the total allowable catch, they were given 22.5% of the quota.
Now, it isn't quite as simple as that because actually 162 tonnes were allocated to an exploratory fishery, and 200 tonnes to the aboriginal fishery, an increase over last year. So the end result was that around 3,250 tonnes were allocated to the inshore fisherman.
That was done. At the same time, the traditional shares in the provinces were maintained. The idea was that we would give the inshore fisherman an opportunity at a difficult time in Atlantic Canada to have access to those stocks of crab.
What has happened, for reasons I have difficulty with - and I'm not going to make any attribution - the mid-shore crab fishermen have decided that they don't particularly like the plan. They have gone to court over it and they've been overruled. It would appear that they are not prepared to or don't want to fish.
.1605
It really is their business. I can't force people to fish. But I believe that their refusal to fish has, as the hon. member suggested, impacted on other areas in the industry, particularly with plant workers who still have to qualify for UI - as it is known until we get the new bill - by weeks and not by number of hours. Their flexibility to get the required number of hours to qualify for unemployment insurance is being jeopardized, I believe, by the action of those...I think there are 130 full-time crab fishermen. It's a percentage of those who are basically holding the others hostage, for reasons I really can't understand.
I share the hon. member's concern. We have 16,100 tonnes of crab sitting on the ocean floor that the government has said should be caught this year, and it's very important that it be done for the economy of Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: But, Mr. Minister, the quarrel between the Department and the traditional crabber owners is settled.
Today, I mostly want to address the question of the people stuck in the middle of this whole affair: plant workers and deckhands. They are the ones who, because they wanted to be loyal to their co-workers who have lost their jobs, told us that they would not go out to sea if the problem was not settled. The few fishermen who did go out to sea were prevented from unloading by the plant workers. Consequently, my preoccupation is to settle this problem quickly, because I fear the biological impact on the soft-shelled crab if fishing does not resume by next week-end.
I must tell you right away that I am ready to square off with you whenever you want. From now on, I am totally in favour of multiple-licensing fishing. I am not against including shore fishermen, but you must admit that your decision was made rather late. One is allowed to recognize one's mistakes and, in this way, surprise everyone.
For the moment, whatever your opinion, plant workers have reacted in a certain way. Therefore, I'm asking you if you are ready to meet with them. I know you still have trump cards up your sleeve. I believe you have stated conditions concerning crab sharing among groundfish shore fishermen and you have said that they must agree between themselves. The agreement was to be concluded by Friday, May 17 at the latest. But nothing has happened so far. There has been an agreement in only one province: Nova Scotia.
If they can't come to an agreement, do you have some maneuvering space so that the fishing can start this year?
I would also like you to apply pressure on the concerned parties for them to negotiate so that such situations never occur again. Your best guarantee would certainly be to announce the next fishing plan as early as September. Are you prepared to meet with these people as soon as possible? I have offered you a way to settle the problem: going yourself to explain things to them would be a big step in the right direction. That is what they were asking for yesterday, and what they are still asking for today.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I don't see any advantage to meeting with people who decide not to fish. The plan is clear. It was put forward in lots of time, I understand from my officials. I don't have the date in my head right now, but it was somewhere before the middle of April that the plan was put forward. It's now the middle of May. For the hon. member to suggest that there wasn't enough time to get together and sort out who was going to fish where, I find a bit strange quite frankly.
So I appreciate his...whether that was an olive branch he was offering or not, I don't know. But the plan is on the street and everybody understands it. If people don't want to fish, I don't know of anything I can do to encourage them to fish. I just find it strange that fishermen, for reasons that only they know, not only do not want to fish, not only will not fish, but are preventing others in the industry from gaining their livelihood as well.
It's a very difficult situation and even if I were to talk with them, I don't see what advantage would be gained. They have decided not to fish.
.1610
One of the things I'm going to have to consider, as the hon. member himself has suggested, is that we really need to harvest that for the economy of Atlantic Canada. It's an option that we're going to have to look at, and in fact are looking at right now.
The Chairman: Also, the plan was out earlier this year than it was last year.
Mr. Mifflin: It was indeed.
The Chairman: A final question, Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: At any rate, I would like to remind you that, even if the Minister thinks he has won a few days, some things have changed nevertheless. I would like to understand his logic. I have said that I was ready to encourage entering the shore fishermen into the system. But reading the fishing plan deposited by the Minister last spring, I have come to the conclusion that shore fishermen who went fishing last year would not be allowed to go back this year. As far as I am concerned, I don't think that this will constitute a core for fishing in the future.
On that basis, I am asking the Minister if he thinks it wouldn't make sense to go and talk to the people in Northeastern New Brunswick and all of the Gaspé, where people want to see him, to explain things to them. They might use different words than mine to make themselves understood. All these people are used to working together. They are all brothers or brothers-in-law. We are in an emergency situation, and it is about time someone ended the stalemate. If you think it is absurd not to go out to fish, you must understand that their point of view is different and that, if they uphold this decision, we will be trapped and a lot of people will be out of work. So, it is up to you to try to end the stalemate. I won't go down on my knees to beg, but someone has to settle the situation. You should also know that people of the sea are proud and demand that someone answer them.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: There are three points, Mr. Chairman. The responsibility to fish belongs to the fishermen. That's point number one.
Point number two: if my memory serves me correctly - although I wasn't the minister of fisheries last year - the inshore crab fishermen fished last year as well, so there's nothing new in the introduction of the plan. It's a continuation of the flexibility that was introduced last year by my predecessor.
The third point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the plan is clear; it was explained by my officials. I don't think the misunderstanding of the plan is the cause of the reluctance of the large inshore crab fishermen - the boat owners - to fish.
In an area of recalcitrance - I don't really see any point, quite frankly. They've decided they understand the plan, I'm told. My officials have explained it in great detail and I think it's a certain lack of cooperation to include the inshore crab fishermen, who badly need access to the resource, that is at the root of the problem. I just hope this can be solved amicably in the next couple of days.
The Chairman: Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Cummins (Delta): Thank you, Mr. McGuire.
If I had more time I'd speak very highly of the minister and the cooperation he's certainly given us in the time he's been in office. We do appreciate that, as well as the effort he's made to explain just where he's going on some things.
However, that being said, there's an outstanding issue that we've been trying to present here in the last little while, and it has to do with the so-called ``Mifflin plan''. That's a plan, as I understand, that originally was designed to save fish, which it doesn't do, and it's not going to reduce capacity. I don't think it's going to cut the total harvest.
My question is, what's the real agenda on this thing? I ask that from a very particular point of view. In the first instance, the plan is largely being funded by industry - $65 million to $80 million for the buy-back is money that was put into place through licensing fees. The industry is also being asked to cannibalize itself in the area of the buy-back scheme.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, I have some numbers I'd like to give to the minister that I'd like him to have a look at. We can make copies available to the committee. Unfortunately I don't have this translated; it's something we put together for this afternoon. If Yvan doesn't object, I'd certainly appreciate if we could make that available.
In essence, if you look at the second page of that, the numbers have to do with the fish that will be caught under the Nisga'a agreement. My contention in this issue is that your plan is designed to reduce the capacity of the fleet by one-half, to reduce the number of fishing vessels by one-half.
.1615
At the same time that's happening, there's another branch of your government that in fact is going to reduce the commercial access to the fish by one-half. They're doing that through treaties. These numbers here very clearly state what's happening.
The second page of that little document I gave you deals with a run size of 300,000. Traditionally the escapement on the Nass River has been 200,000.
I'll just march you down the first section in detail. The run size in the first example is 300,000. The normal escapement on the Nass is 200,000. Section 10 of the Nisga'a agreement allows for a catch of 10.5% of 300,000 of the total run, which works out to about 31,500 fish.
That means, then, that the adjusted TAC would be 68,500. If you look at the section 17 fish of the Nisga'a agreement.... That's 13% of the 300,000 minus 200,000 minus this 31,000. The number of section 17 fish would come in at 8,900.
Under this arrangement - section 10 fish and section 17 fish - the total Nisga'a catch here would be 40,000 fish out of a total catch of 100,000. That means that the Nisga'a share on a run size of 300,000 would be about 40%.
In the second instance - a run size of 400,000 - its share would be 31,000. As the numbers get bigger, its share decreases. On the back page, we're looking at the 10-year average. This is actual numbers.
The actual numbers over the 10 years.... The run size is 514,000, with 200,000 escapement. Section 10 fish would be 52,000 and change, and section 17 fish would be almost 34,000.
The actual escapement over that 10 years has been 269,000. That exceeds the planned escapement of 200,000 by 69,000. That is the surplus fish that come in under sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Nisga'a agreement. If you factor those surplus fish in, you're now looking at a Nisga'a catch as 50% of the total.
The issue here is this. In discussing this in the House, I've used a figure of roughly 25%, which as you can see from this document is on the low side. I've said 25%. I say there are two other groups yet to settle on the Nass. Those other two groups, if we go to the low figure of 25%, are easily going to bring the total catch of treaty fish on the Nass to 50% of TAC.
There are 40 treaties left to go in B.C. By the time you run through the 40 treaties on every other river, it is not outrageous to suggest that 50% of the present commercial catch in B.C. will be reallocated on treaties.
You want to downsize a fleet by 50%. You and the Government of British Columbia want to reallocate 50% of the fish by treaty. That means that the ratio of fish to boats will not change. Yet the fishermen will have accrued additional debt to pay for this downsizing - to pay for a downsizing because you guys want to reallocate fish and you don't want to pay for it.
Mr. Mifflin: What would you like me to comment on?
.1620
Mr. Cummins: I'd like to know what the agenda is. You're downsizing by a half. You want the industry to pay for the downsizing and at the same time your government, in conjunction with the Province of British Columbia, is downsizing the commercial allowable catch by one half. Why would the fishing industry want to finance its own downsizing so that you can reallocate fish?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I'll let my officials comment on the figures, but I just want to comment on the revitalization plan. I won't spend too much time on this, but I'll cover the highlights.
Basically, I don't think anybody denies the state of the salmon -
Mr. Cummins: That's not the issue here.
Mr. Mifflin: I'm sorry, you spoke about the plan, and before we address the numbers I want to address the plan. You did introduce it.
The plan was devised, Mr. Chairman, essentially to reduce, over time, the commercial fleet by half. There are 4,400, in round figures, commercial fishing boats in British Columbia.
The Fraser report, which was invoked by this government, led to a report with recommendations that were studied by a group of people in the industry: commercial, aboriginal, recreational, gill-netters, trollers and seiners, coastal communities, and the British Columbia government. As a result of months and months of difficult work and negotiation, and stemming from that, DFO put together a plan that is now called the Pacific salmon revitalization plan.
There are a number of misconceptions about the plan. The first one is that - I think Allan will remember; I'm not going to put words in his mouth. I believe he said it wouldn't reduce the catch. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you have 50% fewer vessels catching salmon, I'm not sure how that would do anything but reduce the pressure on the catching of the salmon.
I don't want to get into a long discussion, but essentially -
Mr. Cummins: That's not the issue here or the question.
Mr. Mifflin: Sorry, you're interrupting me.
Mr. Cummins: I am fully capable of answering what I'm pointing to.... I realize that. You're not answering the question.
The Chairman: If you want to rephrase your question, maybe the minister can give a more direct answer. Is that what you want to do?
Mr. Cummins: Yes, it's quite simple.
The Chairman: We don't have all that much time.
Mr. Cummins: That's right.
Why is your government asking the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia to downsize by one-half at its own expense while at the same time your government, in conjunction with the Government of British Columbia, is reducing the allowable commercial catch by at least one-half through treaty negotiations?
Mr. Mifflin: I'll just finish on the Pacific salmon and then I'm going to ask my officials to comment on the details of that Nisga'a treaty, Mr. Chairman.
The plan is essentially based, as the hon. member said, on area licensing and licence stacking. It's also based on voluntary buy-back. I think the important thing for the committee to know,Mr. Chairman - and you've heard other witnesses here on this particular issue - is that this is a plan that involves choice, and the choice essentially is threefold.
The first is to exit the fishery for those fishermen who feel they want to leave, the second is to remain in the fishery and fish in one area without any increase in investment, and the third is to increase their investment by obtaining a licence from those who exit the fishery.
That's essentially the purpose of the plan. The overall purpose of the plan is to reduce the pressure on salmon by reducing the number of boats that are fishing at one time. For those who say we will not reduce the pressure, we will not reduce the catch and capacity, they make the faulty assumption that one vessel can be in two places at once.
The plan, Mr. Chairman, is a good plan, and it's a plan that will work. It's a plan that has the support of many fishermen I met with both here and in British Columbia.
With respect to the hon. member's concern with the Nisga'a treaty, which is a treaty that was negotiated in a hundred years, and his relationship to the commercial fishery, I'm going to ask the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries Management to address that issue.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Chairman, what I've asked is a policy question and it's one that you, Minister, should answer. This is a government policy. You have a definite policy.
As you've stated again today and in the documentation you've given to fishermen, you want to reduce the fleet by one-half. Why, at the same time that you're reducing the fleet by one-half at government expense, are you also reducing the commercial allocation by at least a half? That's a policy question.
.1625
The Chairman: Mr. Chamut, can you back that statement up?
Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, if I can, I would like to make a number of observations.
In short, Mr. Cummins, there are two reasons for proceeding with the Pacific revitalization program. One is that there is a need to do this to reduce capacity in order to achieve effective conservation and sustainability of the resource. The second reason is to ensure the viability of that salmon fishery over the long term. I think everyone agrees that we need to reduce capacity for those two reasons.
Specifically with respect to the Nisga'a agreement, I'd like to make a number of observations. I haven't had a chance to study your paper. I'm assuming in the way you've presented this that this deals specifically with sockeye, and, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, there are a number of different components that need to be worked into it, given the five species and the various arrangements that are there.
Leaving that to one side, looking at the Nisga'a agreement, the first point I'd like to make is that given the nature of that agreement there's a much greater incentive for the Nisga'a to work with the rest of the industry to try to augment production because of the way in which the agreement is structured.
So your ten-year average, which is based on past arrangements and not necessarily any enhancement.... I think we can probably increase the size of that run. That's certainly the objective of the Nisga'a in trying to increase the size of the run so that everyone will benefit. So the number you have as first as a ten-year average is likely to increase.
A second point, I think, is that on surplus fish one of the provisions in the agreement is to allow Nisga'a to fish more selectively. I think we can avoid some of the problem of excess escapement that we've seen in the past.
The third point that I think is important is that you're making a very large assumption in assuming that your 50% figure here represents some sort of coast-wide model for resolving land claims. As I recall, when people looked at the Nisga'a model as a model for future land claim resolution in B.C., I think the estimate was, if you look on a coast-wide basis, that the actual amount of fish that would be assigned to aboriginal harvest under these claims would be around 16% or 18%.
Mr. Cummins: You know full well what happened last summer on -
Mr. Chamut: Mr. Cummins, can I make one final comment?
Mr. Cummins: You know full well what happened last summer in the Fraser River. The native fishery caught over 50% of the allocation. These numbers are not out of whack.
Mr. Chamut: Mr. Cummins, if I could just finish my point.... If we could look at a coast-wide basis, the estimate that was made was that if you extrapolated Nisga'a to the rest of the coast you'd be looking at around 16% to 18% of the harvest.
My final point is that in the event that there is fish allocated to aboriginal people as part of claims, the government has indicated that it will allow or provide for that reallocation on the basis of purchasing commercial licences from the fleet. So those people who are in the fleet will not have their harvest reduced by the 50% that you're suggesting.
Mr. Cummins: That is -
The Chairman: We'll have to come back to you, John.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I just have to comment on that before he goes on.
That is absolute nonsense. There are only a minimum of 3 groups vying for fish on the Nass; there are 99 in line on the Fraser River. The 50% figure is not unrealistic. In fact, it's probably on the soft side.
Mr. Chamut: We have a disagreement on this, Mr. Cummins, because -
Mr. Cummins: Well, I'm not surprised, Mr. Chamut.
The Chairman: We will go now to Mr. Simmons.
Mr. Simmons (Burin - St. George's): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Minister.
First of all, let me thank you for making available Bill Rowat and Pat Chamut for an important meeting with a few of my constituents in Newfoundland last week.
My questions are not nearly as convoluted as the other guy's.
Mr. Cummins: Hey, Roger, I'm not convoluted.
Mr. Simmons: Just agree with me on the answers and you'll have no problem at all.
The first one has to do with TAGS recipients. This is more a matter for the HRD minister, but given the individuals who are going to be involved, it's something that I hope you'll go to bat for too. As they come off the benefits and begin to be treated as EI claimants, some have espoused the notion that they might be treated as new entrants, and that would be most unfair. But we haven't had any response from the government on that issue.
I would make the case that their work activity was interrupted by a government fiat, through no fault of their own, as such, and therefore at the moment they come off the benefits they ought to be treated not as new entrants at all. They ought to be frozen in time at the point at which they went on TAGS, or alternatively be treated as people already in the workforce, not new entrants.
.1630
I can give you all five points or you can respond individually. Which would you like?
Mr. Mifflin: Let's do all five.
Mr. Simmons: The second point has to do with the lobster fishery on the east coast, the Port au Port Peninsula and Bay of Islands area, lapping into my riding and Gerry Byrne's, Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte.
This year, without a lot of consultation - there was some - a policy was implemented of throwing back the three-pound lobsters, those over 120 millimetres. Certainly you need conservation there, but the thinking is that it would have been much more palatable for all concerned if it had been phased in, maybe with a 125 size this year and down to 120 next year. The impact is going to seriously erode the incomes of a number of people who have been depending on that particular resource.
The third issue is early retirement. The former minister, Brian Tobin, made a commitment early on that people would be eligible for early retirement if they became of age during the course of the moratorium. That later got changed to an arbitrary date of May 15, 1995, leaving a number of people who thought they could qualify for early retirement out in the cold. Is there any opportunity of revisiting that issue, that file, with a view to having them become eligible if they reach the specified age anytime during the moratorium?
Fourth, you talked toward the end of your opening remarks about the reopening of certain fisheries. Certainly high on your list must be 3Ps. If you believe the people who are doing the sentinel fishery and others, there's a lot of fish in 3Ps. I understand you've given it to the FRCC. I won't ask you to guess what they're going to do, but a related question is this: would you consider having a recreational fishery there as a preliminary step to opening the fishery on a commercial basis? It would be a great opportunity to test the volume of fish that might be there.
The fifth and final point is that you talked about the UN high seas agreement and Canada's effort in getting the thirty signatories. Where are we on that? How many do we have at the moment?
Mr. Mifflin: Thank you very much. I'll address the five issues and I will call on the officials for the details.
The hon. member is right. The idea was that everybody was guaranteed two years in TAGS. The first exits from TAGS will occur, if my memory serves me correctly, on May 15. Again, I'm using round figures. The figures are in my book, but I don't want to waste time looking for them. It's 2,032 who will come off TAGS, and around 200 a month after that.
I think Mr. Simmons is asking if a policy decision has been made that would put them on the workforce attachment on the basis that essentially, theoretically, they are still working because their work was interrupted through no fault of their own. I have to tell him that I agree with his premise, but I have not yet been able to determine whether that has been accomplished. I have to tell the hon. member that this is an HRD file and that I am working with my colleague Mr. Young on this. No decision has yet been made, but I want to work on the premise that the hon. member has put forward. I think it's a reasonable premise and one that can stand the test of examination. I can't tell him what the decision is right now.
There is another impact that is not an extraneous aspect. There will be some relationship for future TAGS benefits, future TAGS-exiting fisher persons, related to the new EI when that is legislated and the regulations for fishers' UI come into place. I can't tell him when that will happen, but his point is well taken. I am working on that.
On the lobster, I'm going to defer to the officials. I wasn't involved. That particular plan is done at the ADM level.
.1635
On the early retirement issue, I know what the hon. member is talking about. I'm not sure how much room there is for flexibility, but I would like the officials to explain essentially why it happened. I think it's an excellent point, which we need to have a look at.
On the sports and recreational fishery matter, Mr. Simmons knows that this is going to be a very difficult decision. In the food and recreational fishery, a decision will have to be made, certainly within the next fortnight.
I want to differentiate. I know that he knows the difference, but for the benefit of the public and for the benefit of other members, the recreational fishery is essentially involved with pleasure craft and with tourism boat operators, who take groups of people to sea on a regular basis and allow them to hand line or jig groundfish, as opposed to the food fishery, which is an area where people actually go out, use their boats, and catch allocated numbers of fish per day or per trip, depending on what the principles are, to store for the winter, to eat, or to supplement their rations.
There is a difference between the two. Again I know that Mr. Simmons knows the difference. Last year, the recreational fishery remained open in the gulf and in certain parts of the Atlantic region, but there was no food fishery in Newfoundland.
Right now, the indications we have from sentinel fisheries are that the northern cod area is very bleak. I'm looking at the north and northeast coast of Newfoundland. He is right that the outlook is more prosperous on the south coast of Newfoundland, 3Pn and 3Ps.
With respect to the recreational fishery in the gulf, it is a different issue, so I'm going to address the issue that he wants me to address, which essentially is the food fishery on the south coast of Newfoundland.
I have been in discussion with the new chairman, Fred Woodman, of the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. I haven't made a decision yet, but certainly the prospects of the south coast look better than the prospects of the northeast coast.
I wish, for reasons that Mr. Simmons is aware of, that I could wave a magic wand and open everything. Life is not that simple. I have also to tell him that the recommendation of the FRCC is that where there is a moratorium, we should have neither a food fishery nor a recreational fishery. So anything that I do other than follow that recommendation has to be done with very close judgment.
The final point, with respect to the bill on the UN straddling stock, I'll ask my officials to address. I know we are leading the pack on that. What I'd like them to address is how many we need to have ratification of the bill and where we are in the process.
Perhaps I could ask Pat Chamut to comment on the lobster policy.
Mr. Chamut: Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Simmons, on lobster you may recall that in November 1995 the department received a report from the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council, which addressed the need for ensuring conservation of lobster stocks.
I don't think it would be useful here to go into all the details of what that report recommended, but it did highlight that there are significant conservation concerns for lobsters and that the department needed to explore a number of different measures to try to leave more lobsters in the water to ensure that the well-being of the resource is sustained into the long term.
A number of initiatives have been taken at the regional level. For example, there have been new measures in the gulf to try to ensure the release of small lobsters. That was one of the measures that was identified as being beneficial to conservation.
In other areas, we are looking at trying to increase the size to make sure that there's a reasonable amount, a much higher amount than has been left in the water in the last number of years, to ensure that the stocks are sustained.
The program you've mentioned in your area is in fact a consequence of the need to try to ensure that the conservation objectives for this stock are being met. As I recall, we set a target. We need to get a 5% increase in the number of corresponding females.
.1640
Mr. Simmons: I wasn't questioning the wisdom of the conservation measure. My question was very specific. Did the department consider or would it now consider phasing it in? Instead of having 120 this year, could you have 125 this year and 120 next year, to give the fisherman a bit of a break so his income is not depleted too much? That's the issue.
Mr. Chamut: I think, Mr. Simmons, the issue was discussed with the fishermen in the area. I was not personally party to the discussions. I'm assuming that this was the outcome of a round of consultation with the fishermen.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier is going to share.
Mr. Mifflin: I'm sorry, but there is one other issue, Mr. Simmons, which is the UN high seas. That's a very important one.
Mr. Rowat: Very quickly, you recall that the agreement was adopted by consensus on August 4. Mr. Tobin signed on behalf of Canada our intention to proceed with legislation to bring it into force for this country and to ratify the agreement as soon as we can.
At this point roughly 32 states have signed the initial agreement, giving their intention to ultimately ratify the final document. Canada is actually leading the international lobbying campaign to have other countries sign on, and to bring it into force we ultimately need 30 states to sign on. So we are taking the lead in doing that. We have officials farmed out all over the world, dealing with a number of the members of the UN to try to bring the agreement into force.
Mr. Simmons: Out of those 32, how many have actually signed on?
The Chairman: Mr. Simmons, if you want a written answer to all these questions, fine, but -
Mr. Simmons: Is it two, six, or ten? You must know that.
Mr. Rowat: Do you mean who have ratified at this point? None. Only 32 have signed the initial agreement.
The Chairman: We're going now to Mr. Bernier.
Mr. O'Brien (Labrador): You told Mr. Bernier earlier that he had had his final question. I asked to speak, and now you're going back to him. Why aren't you coming to me?
The Chairman: We're going to the Bloc. The way we operate, Mr. O'Brien, is that we have ten minutes for each party and we go back for five minutes for each party. You're third on the list for your party, so you'll be after Mr. Culbert.
Mr. O'Brien: I don't appear on the list. I was trying to make motions to you from the beginning to show I wanted to speak.
The Chairman: Well, you are the third one who got my attention.
Mr. O'Brien: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I can see that there is some opposition on the other side. I'd like to make a comment to revert to my discussion with the Minister.
Unless I misunderstood what the Minister said, he does not intend to do anything to settle the conflict currently affecting plant workers in Northeastern New Brunswick and the Gaspé. I find this message totally incomprehensible. At home, when I speak to my children, I sometimes tell them that they suffer from magical thoughts, the Peter Pan syndrome. It's not because you think you will never get bumps and bruises that you won't. It's not because you say you won't try to settle the problem that it will settle itself. Mr. Minister, you will have to live with the consequences of your decision.
Anyway, since we won't talk about crab fishing, let's turn to page 7 of your speech.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: I'm sorry, I want to respond to this. The problem is not mine. The problem is those people who don't want to fish. I want to make sure the hon. member realizes that the resolution of this lies with those people who want more than their allocated share of 77.5%, not with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Chairman: What was your question, Mr. Bernier?
[Translation]
M. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I have said what I have to say on this issue, but I would still ask you to go there for a brief visit.
On page 7 of the French speech read by the Minister, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, there is mention of an independent report concerning the Coast Guard navigation aids. It's that famous file we studied in the spring. This is what it says:
- An independent report has confirmed that the financial impact of these actions can't be
absorbed.
[English]
- I cannot agree with the assertion by Coast Guard Commissioner John Thomas that the impact
assessment concluded that the marine industry could absorb the costs.
[Translation]
As the author of the study, he himself can't conclude that the industry can absorb those costs. So, I ask the Minister to which report he refers, on page 7 of his speech, when he says that a report has confirmed that there will not be any impacts. How can he say that there is no problem? Personally, I would like to point out that the main problem is that his decision-making is not based on documents. I would like an answer.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: I'm going to ask Mr. Thomas to comment on the IBI study and address this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I prefer that you do it, Mr. Minister, since you read your own speech and you said that you have an independent report. You must have known what you were talking about when you read your speech.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Look, Mr. Chairman, I brought officials here to assist in answering questions. If the hon. member doesn't want to hear the answer, that's his problem. What does he want?
The Chairman: Mr. Thomas.
Mr. John Thomas (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The study being referred to is the study by the consultants of IBI. IBI, in examining the implementation of the $60 million, identified that the $60-million fee could have been absorbed by industry with some impact in certain areas. That was at the $60-million level. They identified where those impacts were primarily due to ice-breaking, and the commodities that would have been impacted. When we looked at implementing $20 million, that was where the determination was that there wasn't any problem at all and that it could be absorbed.
So the consultant's report was IBI, and that's what's being referred to.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cummins.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I'm not finished, Mr. Chairman. I asked a question. If the Minister needsMr. Thomas' help, it's up to him, but I'm not finished asking my questions.
What did Mr. Thomas just say?
[English]
The Chairman: You've almost finished up your time.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: No, not by the watch I have here, Mr. Chairman. Do you allow me to go on?
[English]
The Chairman: But it's my watch we're going by, not yours. Okay, a short sentence.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Minister, I have, in front of me, a copy that says exactly the opposite of what the Commissioner just said. What is the basis for the Minister's decision to proceed? What? I have the feeling that someone is not telling the truth. If it is not possible to know the truth, I would like,Mr. Chairman, to call the author of the report. If they say it cost so many millions of dollars, so much this or that, Canadians and Quebecers have the right to know what the Minister`s decision to proceed with his new rate schedule is based upon. It's important.
I have also specified, in my minority report, that it was important that the industry continue to trust the Minister. He could, at least, tell us who is telling the truth. Is it the person who wrote the report on their behalf who is saying the opposite? You will understand that we have reasons to worry. So, I would appreciate if we could specify it again. I would also like it if the industry could still trust us. But he could admit that he has failed, that he recognizes that the author says the opposite of what he is now saying and that he intends to do something to restore this trust! Admit something somewhere!
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: I find it very difficult when the hon. member talks from a document I don't have, but I'll just repeat basically what in another forum the commissioner of the coast guard said.
I don't know what he's taking...whether it's out of context, but the conclusion of the IBI study was that at $20 million, the marine service fees could be impacted. Now, if the hon. member has a piece of paper or a statement that denies that, I'd like to see it.
It's very difficult for me to comment on a statement or a sentence. I'm referring to the conclusion of the report, and I've restated the conclusion. If the hon. member has something that changes that, or if he has something that contradicts it, I think it's only fair that he show it to me.
The Chairman: Maybe Mr. Bernier can show that to you.
While that's being done, we'll go to Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, you referred in your report to an ongoing problem this year with the return of chinook. Currently, on a weekly basis, there's a chinook fishery in the Fraser River. That fishery is ongoing without, to my knowledge, any stated total allowable catch, without any real knowledge of the chinook run size being fished.
.1650
In fact, in the Albion test fishery the test results are low. We're talking risk aversion management - that's the buzzword - yet with all of these shortcomings, this fishery is going on. I'd like to know why.
Mr. Chamut: Mr. Chairman, the fishery Mr. Cummins is referring to is a fishery carried out traditionally at this time of the year by the aboriginal people in the Fraser River. As a department, we have not normally set a TAC, but we have provided aboriginal people with restricted access, usually one to two days a week. They operate under the terms of a communal licence that sets an upper limit in terms of the amount of fish they can harvest.
I believe this fishery has been carried on for a very long period of time. It is regulated with upper limits set by the terms of the licences issued by the department.
Mr. Cummins: That particular fishery, to my recollection, was reintroduced last year after a long hiatus because of low stocks.
But the issue here is not the issue of the traditional fishery. The issue here is that the Sparrow decision said that after conservation comes the food fishery. What we have here is an instance where escapement targets, in my view, may not be being met, yet we have an ongoing food fishery.
A letter has come out from the vice-chair of the Fraser panel, Mr. Lil, sent to Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Fraser panel, Swinomish tribal council. Gill is talking about this summer, early summer, late summer stocks, and he notes: ``Escapement objectives noted above are Canada's spawning escapement objectives''. Then they comment that because the size of the forecasted run does not permit attainment of escapement objectives for these stocks, some very limited food fishing will take place.
If escapement levels are not being met, why are we allowing limited food fishing? That's contrary to what the Supreme Court has suggested. It's contrary to reason to allow any fishery when escapement levels are not being met. It's happening now in the chinook fishery in the Fraser River and it's by letter, by DFO document, saying here that's going to happen again this summer.
Why, Minister?
Mr. Chamut: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just offer one comment. First of all, in terms of the initial observation Mr. Cummins made about reintroducing the fishery on chinook last year, in my experience the Indian fishery on chinook has been carried out for as long as I can recall at this time of the year. A chinook fishery has been conducted. So I do not believe it's something that's been reintroduced. It's been an ongoing feature of the fishery.
Mr. Cummins: I think there was a hiatus there, but we'll deal with that later.
Mr. Chamut: I don't believe that's the case.
But with respect to escapement objectives, the point you have touched on, Mr. Cummins, really has to do with the definition of conservation. I think it would be a topic we could probably discuss for a long period of time.
Essentially, I believe Mr. Lil is saying in that letter that we set our optimal escapement objectives based on what is called a ``rebuilding schedule''. In other words, we're trying to get fish back on the spawning grounds to try to rebuild populations, to try to increase the total amount of production. We also recognize that those rebuilding escapement objectives may in some cases be higher than is needed for absolute conservation.
So what we have is a stepped series of escapement goals, depending on the returns. At the very lowest level of return, there would be no fishing at all. That effectively would be the conservation objective.
That letter essentially is saying that at some levels of escapement, below what is termed a ``rebuilding objective'', there is an opportunity for limited food fisheries. There is a point at which the escapement objective does represent an absolute conservation objective, below which there would be no fishing allowed. You're talking here about a level of escapement that is somewhat between the absolute level of escapement required for conservation and this somewhat larger rebuilding target, which can be moved. It can be increased, in fact, if the run size comes back higher than expected. I think that probably explains what Mr. Lil is talking about.
.1655
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have to go.
Mr. Bernier, do you have some papers you want to table?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a document concerning the last question I have asked the Minister. As he has expressed a wish to get the document, I have given him a copy, as well as to the clerk. So, I table it. This will allow the Minister to read the document and, when the Liberals have finished their questioning, I would like to come back with him to discuss that issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien and then Mr. Culbert.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for your assistance in the past and for coming to Labrador in March with me.
There are a couple of points I would like to address on the question of adjacency of stocks vis-à-vis the people who utilize and harvest those stocks.
I hear the member from Gaspé talking about the crab fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is certainly of concern to me as well, as the member from Labrador. But the more important question to me is that people in Labrador, and people traditionally in Newfoundland and many other places in this country, have settled into places for various reasons. They have settled to make a living.
Since the evolution of government policies in the past few years and the licensing and so on, they have been severely curtailed in a lot of things they have normally done. As a result, to some degree, for environmental and technological reasons and many others, we have seen a curtailment of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and certainly on the coast of Labrador, the Hamilton banks of Labrador and so on. But we do have other stocks that are thriving because the cod fishery is down. One of them happens to be crab, another happens to be shrimp, and then we have the turbot in northern Labrador and so on.
We see great pressures from our friends elsewhere in Canada. We want to share. Nobody in Labrador does not want to share. We share, but we are facing a very severe time in our lives. With TAGS, I just got a call today that 60 people in one section of my riding have gone down, and many others, as your ADM pointed out a few minutes ago and as you and I have discussed. EI, which is being voted on today, is going to severely curtail benefits to my riding. Probably 500 people will not qualify next year because of the changes today.
I'm asking the committee, I'm asking you as the minister, and I'm asking the government in general to consider what this all means and to give some credence to the question of adjacency. We're not talking about very many people, but we share with all our counterparts in Atlantic Canada. Give some consideration to people like those in Black Tickle, who have given so much and so many years to so many people, including the Gaspé people and the people all along the shores of Quebec. Now they are going on welfare, and if not on welfare they will be on provincial welfare programs, and the rest of the coast of Labrador.
I think I have a problem. I think we as the Government of Canada have a problem. I think we have to bring cognizance to this particular issue.
Those are my concerns, sir: one I wanted to express in public, one I've expressed to you many times privately, and one I will be expressing many more times in the future. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mifflin: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I will say in response to his question that I did spend some time with him in Labrador. Labrador is not unfamiliar to me. I am very much aware of and have sensitivity for the areas he talked about. We did the coast of Labrador in a day and a half. I was very impressed with the plant at L'Anse-au-Loup and the cooperative spirit behind it. I think it's in that spirit that you are asking us to look at the business of adjacency.
I'm very much aware of the TAGS situation, in particular the deplorable state of one community, Black Tickle. I have sensitivity for that as well. The hon. member and I have worked together in certain areas to reduce some of the pressure by going, I think, the extra mile to help out in some specific areas. I refer to the Torngat processing plant.
.1700
Mr. Chairman, there are other areas that I will be exploring with Mr. O'Brien. There are areas where some flexibility can be achieved. I can assure him that we will look at those areas of flexibility, and we'll be able to hopefully assist him in other areas in addition to the ones we have done.
With respect to adjacency itself, he's aware of the difficulties involved in the principle. I think we've seen examples here today such that when changes are made to a traditional way of doing things, it creates difficulty in other areas. I think I take great comfort from his statement that we're all in this together.
I think that at difficult times, particularly with the difficult experience that the people of Labrador are having, which really transcends the difficulties we are having generally in the east and in Atlantic Canada, there is room for some consideration. I'll be asking my officials to look at those areas.
Would somebody like to comment on that particular principle right now? Are there areas on which we could move? Perhaps Cheryl or Mr. Chamut could comment on that.
Mr. Chamut: One of the areas that I think does look more promising is shrimp. There has been some discussion over the course of the last six months with respect to opportunities to create more inshore harvesting opportunities for shrimp. We are working with our colleagues in the province to try to put together some experimental fishing opportunities in which people would be able to fish for shrimp with pots.
It has been a very promising fishery in Nova Scotia. We feel there's good opportunity for individuals to be able to pursue this in Labrador. It's one of the areas that I think does look to be promising. I expect that over the course of the next few months there will be things that will be done to try to advance that idea.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, as well as your staff. I have to go now to a meeting that you're going to be attending soon.
The Chairman: Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, for being here this afternoon and bringing some of your senior staff and officials with you. I think that's extremely important.
I also want to take this opportunity to publicly thank you for calling a meeting back in early March in the Scotia-Fundy region in Dartmouth at which your Deputy Minister Rowat, Mr. Chamut and our director general for the maritime region, Mr. Bellefontaine, were in attendance.
As you know, there was a very difficult situation when we had a number of challenges come before the fishery and the fisherpersons were one on top of the other. There were licensing fees, the professionalization of the fishery, the core fishery, the Fisheries Act, and the Oceans Act. It just seemed to be bang, bang, bang.
Out of some frustration, fishermen in a number of regions, including mine in southwestern New Brunswick, felt that they had to take some action in order to be heard. I know those are difficult situations, but I want to tell you that I was very pleased you responded by calling those meetings.
I might just follow up on that to say I know there was much discussed in those two or three days. I think a great deal of accomplishment was made through those consultations that went forward.
I might just ask, since you had appointed a mediator as a follow-up to some of those areas where there wasn't an agreement reached: to where have we come at this point in time? In fact, we've reached some tentative agreements in some of those areas where there was some disparity at the time.
Also, I might just follow up. I know my last two predecessors, through their comments, indicated that they were very pleased with your visits to Labrador and areas of Newfoundland.
Maybe I'm a little bit sympathetic to the area, but I must tell you that southwestern New Brunswick and the Bay of Fundy have led the way, in my opinion, in the conservation of their diversified fishery. They don't have to be told when the season ends; they're out well before that and on to something else, which takes the pressure off a number of species.
.1705
So I think it is something that should be recognized. I would certainly publicly extend an invitation to you to visit southwestern New Brunswick and the Grand Manan area to see exactly what the fishermen are doing there. I think it's very important. They would be delighted to tell you their personal experiences with a diversified fishery in conservation.
I have a couple of other questions, so perhaps you might want to touch on that before.
Mr. Mifflin: Thank you very much. I appreciate the comment on the difficult situation that fishermen face in that area. Indeed, all fishermen are facing difficulties.
There are, as Mr. Culbert mentioned, not just in Atlantic Canada, but all over Canada really, cutbacks in the federal government to allow for deficit reduction. There are a number of fees that have been put in place in keeping with the policy that those who have access to a public facility should share the cost. There's a scarcity of resources, both on the Atlantic coast and indeed in the province of Ontario. In the Great Lakes there is concern about the funding for sea lamprey.
So there is that setting. On top of that, of course, there is uncertainty with respect to certain fundamental changes that are being made.
In Atlantic Canada there's concern about the core fishery and those who remain in the fishery when, hopefully - please, God - the fish come back.
There's concern about the difference between core fishermen and the professionalization of those people who enter the fishery.
It's an uncertain time for those involved in the fishing industry. I include plant workers as well. I know in Atlantic Canada there's a harvesting adjustment board - and now an industry one - that will look at the difficulty of actually matching the processing ability to the harvesting ability. These are all areas of change and uncertainty that cause difficulty for fishermen.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very much aware of that. There's one item I raised with the officials with respect to future work in the department. I commend this to all members. I believe the public interface of DFO is unique in that it's very people oriented. Every decision, whether it's on the crab industry - we talked about that here today - the core fishery, or chinook salmon, involves people and their economy. It essentially goes to the heart of their pocketbook.
I want to, on a longer term, try to develop some systems, not just partnerships, with some methodology whereby this sensitivity can be built in to the other six objectives that I'll be discussing with my colleagues at Treasury Board tomorrow.
Specifically on the mediation process, Deborah Baker - I think that was her name - was invited to involve herself in that. As in all mediation processes, I think she did an incredible job. Again, like all mediations, it was impossible to achieve 100%, but she did achieve remarkable results.
While there are still some areas in which fishermen have difficulties with the quotas and the results of that mediation, I think that is still being addressed by our officials and by the regional director general in the Halifax area and your area. I hope resolutions can be achieved.
I think the important thing here is that there was a recognition of the problems. There was some flexibility shown. Also, the mediation itself, I think, resulted in good results.
Mr. Culbert: I think, Mr. Minister, the point I want to make - I know you are aware of it - is about the importance of consultation. When a DFO official - I'm not specifically saying whether it's an official from Ottawa, my region or the maritime region - comes in to speak to a fishing association to give them a briefing of what's intended, they don't see that as consultation, which is when you sit down before your decision is made, or before you have your mind made up, and you have a bit of give and take both ways.
.1710
I guess that's the direction in which fisherpersons in my region want to see DFO go. They're prepared to work with them. They're prepared to spend the time and energy to do it through a consultative fashion. I just want to bring that point home to you.
Since my time is probably winding down, I have just a couple of other quick things. With respect to small craft harbours - probably most of mine were built 50 or 60 years ago and probably all at approximately the same time - as you know, in the fishing region we're developing harbour authorities to take over the operation of them, which is great. At the same time, many of them, or a number of them, need capital expenditure done to them whereby the harbour authorities are capable of looking after the day-to-day or ordinary maintenance, but when they need the capital expenditure, that's where the difficulties come in. Perhaps you could just address the question of where we can go with limited dollars.
The other thing I wanted you to touch on was the inspection fees for processing plants and that whole scenario.
Mr. Mifflin: I will address the inspection fees. As you know, I have to leave at 5:10 p.m., as I announced. I'll also address Mr. Bernier's question.
Concerning the inspection fees, as you know, Mr. Culbert, we've gone out for pre-publication gazetting. The proposed plan was done as a result of consultation with I think 44 different organizations, and a large percentage of the processors.... What size I can't really tell you.
There is a concern, as I understand it, by the smaller plants that the fees would be very difficult for them to absorb. The reason we have the pre-gazetting, of course, is to make sure we look at the difficulties that are encountered.
How many letters did we receive, John?
Mr. Thomas: About 40.
Mr. Mifflin: We have received about 40 letters.
We're in the process of staffing those now to see what changes we need to make.
I'll ask John, when I leave, to talk about the small crafts and harbours.
Concerning Mr. Bernier's point, I looked at the comments in this particular article,Mr. Chairman, that came out yesterday in a magazine dated May 13. The article says...it's a general statement that may make reference to the $60 million. I don't know the detail of what is in here. I haven't had a chance to read it, because I've been focusing my attention on answering questions.
I will take this away and we will have a look at it. Mr. Chairman, we'll get back to you and the hon. member. I don't think it's fair to ask me to study this while I'm answering questions and come up with an answer.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think our time is up.
Do you have a quick...?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, I will not get an answer on this from the Minister today. So, it will be a written answer. Based on the article, I can, at any rate, conclude that the author of the study used by the Coast Guard to implement their new rate schedule tells us that he disagrees with the Coast Guard Commissioner, Mr. Thomas. I conclude that the Minister has made a decision which is not based on any study. To use an idiomatic expression, he threw a quarter in the air, and, if he got heads, he would implement his rate schedule, if it fell on tails, he would wait.
I'm sorry, Mr, Chairman, but, as long as we don't know what the Minister really thinks, and on what his decision is based, I will not change my mind regarding this issue. I hope that the people and the reporters who are here will repeat that this article should be reread. We'll distribute it later on.
I don't know if I should go on with my questions. Is the Minister coming back after the vote? Is he gone for the evening?
The Chairman: No, he's not coming back.
Mr. Bernier: I think I have said enough. We have the right to meet with the Minister once a year, and I did not even have three rounds of 10 minutes, not even 30 minutes with the Minister. It's poppycock! I will ask my questions when the Minister is there, and I will ask them in the House. Goodbye!
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Cummins: I would just like to make a comment on that too, Mr. Chairman. The minister is proposing a dramatic restructure to the B.C. commercial fishery, and I'm disappointed that when I asked him questions, he simply referred them to one of his bureaucrats to answer.
I think this meeting has been no different from the meeting we had two weeks ago whenMr. Chamut was here, because Mr. Chamut answered the questions again today.
.1715
I think it's just appalling that he could propose such a dramatic restructuring of the B.C. fishery and not answer the questions himself.
The Chairman: Mr. Rowat, did you want to respond?
We'd like to invite the minister back again before the end of the estimates period.
Mr. Rowat: Obviously, I think the minister would be open to an invitation.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rowat: In response to Mr. Cummins' last remark, I think the minister did deal with the policy aspects of that but referred the mathematical calculations to Mr. Chamut.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions to be asked of the officials? If not, we'll adjourn the meeting until May 28.