FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 23, 1999

• 1320

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I call the meeting to order. We'll start with Mr. Wayne Spinney of the Lobster Fishing Area 34 Committee.

Wayne, I believe we have a letter of yours here somewhere too. It seems to me I was looking at it earlier today. Oh, no, that's from Minister Anderson to you.

Mr. Wayne Spinney (Member, Lobster Fishing Area 34 Committee): Yes. I believe somebody was so kind as to bring that in this morning.

A voice: We hope you won't be shy, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I'll try.

The Chair: Wayne, thank you for replacing the first witness who cancelled, moving you up the line a little. We have about half an hour, so if you can highlight your presentation, we'll—

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Gee, they told me I'd be able to take three spots.

The Chair: You never know. Before the day is over, you might. We're fairly flexible at this committee.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, you might eat those words.

The Chair: That's okay.

All right, Wayne, the floor is yours.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I guess we're supposed to say thanks for being able to appear here. I guess maybe I can say thanks to the members for coming. I'm not so sure I should say thanks for coming here, because each time I hear of something like this, it just means somebody is not listening, and I have problems with that.

We've had problems in the fishery with nobody listening to us. It bothers me that we travelled to Ottawa, I believe it was on November 5, and spent thousands of dollars for a delegation of seven. We came back, and what happened was the opposite of what we wanted. Now there's a standing committee we're supposed to make proposals to.

Mr. Baker was the chairman, and apparently he got moved on to better things, or worse things, perhaps because he was trying to do something for the fishermen. I have problems with that also. So I wouldn't call the process equal or fair, and sometimes I question the need for these types of presentations and meetings.

I'm wearing a couple of hats here today. The first hat I'm wearing is for the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition. I'm vice-president of that organization. We went to the Supreme Court as intervenors at the hearing of Mr. Donald Marshall. We were the only ones to reapply to the Supreme Court for a revisit.

I believe you all have the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition presentation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in front of you. Thank you for this opportunity to meet and present our concerns on some current issues facing the industry, especially in southwest Nova Scotia.

The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition represents more than 200 inshore multi-licensed fishermen—lobster, groundfish, and herring—in Yarmouth, Shelburne, and Digby Counties. The coalition was formed in 1993 as a result of DFO mismanagement of the groundfish and proposed reductions in efforts.

We were partly responsible for saving the handline licences. The plan was to cancel these licences as licence holders retired. It should be noted that the handline fishery lands the highest quality fish of any groundfish gear and is the least destructive.

More recently, the coalition was, and still is, involved in the Marshall case as the only non-government intervenor on behalf of the industry. We asked for a rehearing for clarification of some contentious issues, resulting in the November 17 response from the court.

The coalition is now one of many members of an Atlantic Canada industry-wide alliance called the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, AFIA, to ensure the industry has a strong voice in how the Marshall case is interpreted and implemented.

On our position on Marshall, DFO has clearly shown it was totally unprepared for the Marshall decision. Mr. Marshall was not the person to use in a treaty test case. No justification for regulations concerning the need for seasons and licensing was presented to the court.

• 1325

No plan was available in case the decision was as delivered September 17.

There is no coordination with other departments and the provinces. Nault says the Marshall decision applies to timber, oil, gas, and minerals. Goodale says Marshall applies to non-status. Dhaliwal says Marshall does not apply to non-status. Dhaliwal says DFO has authority to regulate the Marshall treaty rights but is not doing so. Chrétien says the natives were here first and should be given what they want. The provinces say Marshall does not apply to more than eels. Dhaliwal is offering natives access to all fisheries. Questions in the House to Mr. Dhaliwal are often answered by Stéphane Dion.

DFO is not involved in the industry in implementing the Marshall decision. A mediator and now an assistant mediator have been appointed, with absolutely no input from the industry. DFO is trying to establish a process with no industry input. The intent is to work out a settlement with natives and then tell industry about the settlement.

Industry is constantly, we assume, being referred to as “other interests” in the press releases from DFO. The DFO mandate for the mediator states it is only responsible for Marshall until April 2000, when the file will be handled by Mr. Nault.

The West Nova Fisherman's Coalition insists that the industry, through the AFIA, be involved in every instance where native participation under Marshall is discussed, including process, participation, etc.

The WNFC insists that DFO take a stand on behalf of the industry, especially in light of the recent November 17 clarification. Natives should have access to the industry, and always have had access, but not at the expense of the existing participants.

The WNFC insists that DFO reject claims to the fishery by non-status natives under either Marshall or Sparrow. The WNFC insists that DFO reject the aboriginal fishing strategy set up as a response to Sparrow, without industry input, as a vehicle for implementing Marshall.

I'm Wayne Spinney, vice-president of the West Nova Fisherman's Coalition.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spinney. I think I can say on behalf of all members, without prejudice to a certain extent, that we certainly welcome the November 17 clarification by the court. It clears up some issues. I certainly think your organization and others should be congratulated on seeing that clarification came about. I think I say that on behalf of all members, because it certainly makes our job easier.

We'll start the questioning with Mr. O'Brien,

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Spinney. As a member of Parliament from a riding like Labrador, I can certainly understand your frustrations and concerns. I think you put it very candidly and very well in terms of your position.

I want to thank you for the position you took leading up to November 17 and the extra points you are seeking clarification on. I think that's a very practical way to do things. We've heard many things in the House, as you know, back and forth and around, but it took you to bring this to some degree of understanding.

I know we've heard this in many different ways, many different times, but I would like your point of view, as a fisherman, and that of the fishermen you represent. We're looking for an interim solution to this issue by April, in terms of Marshall, and there's the long-term possibly it will take much longer than that. Can you be precise as to how you think it should go, between now and then, to try to accomplish whatever we have to, based on the laws as they are currently stated, including the Supreme Court decision?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: As you know, there is the concern about conservation in southwest Nova Scotia. With the 600 boats that were involved in Yarmouth, some people called it a blockade, others called it a demonstration, and others called it a sign of support for our industry. I'd rather opt for a sign of support for conservation.

• 1330

At that particular time, as you know, the clarification wasn't out. If that were to happen all over again today, there would be a question mark as to whether or not we really have to sit down and talk short term or long term and therefore what we would do. For LFA 34 and the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition, we'd do the exact same thing as we did last month. We would sit down with the native band, that being the Acadia Band in Yarmouth, along with Chief Frank Meuse of Bear River, and we would strive for a short term and then a long term. That's exactly what we did.

Problems arising from it are more complicated. It's something like dotting your i's and crossing your t's. These people have absolutely no votes. The way this has come out, you might say, is you've put it in a bag and you've shaken the bag and now here it is.

What we have are five licences being allowed to fish in LFA 34. That's fine. That's on top of the 968 licences we have already. Through the research we've done, we thought the industry could stand this. I'm not saying this is going to work for herring or any other species, but for that particular LFA, allowing for five more licences was not over the realm of conservation.

That being said, we then said that the federal government should buy these licences for the natives, but we felt that perhaps the natives themselves should buy the rigs. When we look back on our own family, responsibility arrives at the point where you yourself have to pay for something, and therefore you're going to take care of it. So why should these individuals end up with a $300,000 or more rig and not even know how to tie this rig up? Some of these people do have experience in fishing, but others do not, as we found out just the other day when a couple of them who were wanting to be captains and boat owners became seasick as soon as they got outside to the breakwater.

Now, it may take time. Maybe these people will become good fishermen.

The fallout is that I personally have donated gear to this band and fishermen. Others have donated ropes, traps, buoys, booms, and anchors. Others have drafted up a map of the coastline and explained on this map how the tide runs, when it's running one particular way on the flood and how it's running on the edge, and if you set gear, it's going to drift this way or that way, and everything else, to try to assist them so that they don't necessarily set on other people and create problems. That's fine too. We're having a problem getting boats.

An executive of six people has been set up in the LFA 34, and I'm one of them. Ashton Spinney is the chairman of the LFA 34 committee. I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I bring regrets on behalf of him and Junior Theriault. They regret very much not being here.

The executive that was set up meets with executive people of the native band. These two groups filter out who is and who is not going to be aboard those boats. The native band in Yarmouth has already agreed that the helpers and captains will be status. They won't be non-status and they won't be non-natives. They have to be status natives.

We've agreed on the stipulation that because of their inexperience, retired captains, if we can find some, will train people. There is no deadline on this training, except that it doesn't run into seasons. It runs into weeks and months, and as soon as these people feel they are qualified to interpret GPSs, LORANs, and radar and are able to get themselves out of messes and steer a boat properly and dock it—just the beginnings of becoming a captain—then they'll be able to take the vessel on their own.

In our LFA things are looking very good on that aspect, except we can't find boats for the five licences that are available. At the present time we do have a couple or three, and they were in the process of buying one last night.

• 1335

The Chair: Very quickly, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Would you suggest, Mr. Spinney, that the procedure you used—and I commend you again for the cooperation and coming together—be carried throughout the system to try to bridge the gap and bring some resolution to this issue? This morning, yesterday, and many times in the past we've heard that both parties need to be at the table. You obviously had both parties at the table, and you got some resolution.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: You're not going to get a resolution unless you have both. We really mean what we're saying in this, that we're being referred to as “others”. We can't have one group meeting 500 or 1,000 miles from us and another group meeting with somebody different and expect to come up with a resolution. That's practically impossible.

We had never met Chief Robinson or Chief Frank Meuse, and right from the beginning things were a go, because the two communities, the two peoples, the two nations, have to work together. They have to live together in the same communities and they have to fish together. It doesn't matter who's fishing whatever it is. We have to do that.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Wayne, for coming. I know it's obvious by Junior and Ashton not being here that we're getting close to the start of the fishing season. I can really see why they're not here, and I thank you for coming today.

Wayne, I'm looking at a copy of a letter dated January 18, 1999, that the Minister of Fisheries sent to you, probably in response to a previous letter. This letter says:

I assure you that there is no intent to impose additional measures “regardless of the amount of v-notch lobsters caught during the June 1999 survey.”

It goes on to say:

If the analysis of the v-notching program in 1999 and beyond can actually demonstrate that fishers have met their commitments as submitted in your CHP [conservation harvest plan], no further measures would or should be required.

I think you know where I'm going with this. Can you please tell us what effect the increase in carapace size will have on the fishermen of west Nova?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Thank you, Mr. Muise.

Before getting into that, I'd like to present the document entitled “Lobster Fishing, LFA 34 Advisory Committee”. You should have it there. I'm presenting this on behalf of LFA 34. The subject is “Presentation to the Standing Committee”.

Thank you for this opportunity—there's no sense in reading that paragraph.

For the past several years lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada and in western Nova Scotia in particular have been extensively involved in developing improved conservation methods to ensure the resource stays biologically and economically healthy. Several workshops with scientists, fishermen, and fishery managers have been organized by the industry.

I'm going to stop there for just a second. We have even brought in American scientists to help us in these deliberations. This was at a workshop where there was a question-and-answer period to try to find out particular things about the lobster industry and in particular v-notching.

Number one, the industry, specifically LFA 34, continuously and strongly advised DFO that the stocks in western Nova Scotia are healthy, witness the steady and in some years dramatic increase in landings since the 1980s.

Number two, DFO has little or no science to support a measure increase. The 1995 FRCC report on lobster, which had strong input from DFO Science, shows little or no benefit from a one-sixteenth measure increase. Only recently has DFO and the industry begun to make stronger efforts to gather data re stock status.

Number three, the FRCC report has underestimated the health of the lobster stocks. DFO Science admits this as they acquire more data.

Number four, the FRCC report gives little or no benefit to v-notching as a conservation tool, but the report from Science on the past year's efforts of fishermen to v-notch has shown that v-notching alone has the possibility of improved conservation.

Number five, two to three years should be considered a reasonable time to evaluate the effects of v-notching per a recent letter from Anderson, the former minister.

Number six, DFO must stop requiring LFA 34 and 33 to conserve more because stocks may be in trouble elsewhere.

Number seven, there are several lobster districts at minimum carapace size much smaller than in LFA 33 and 34.

• 1340

And number eight, we do not agree with models used by DFO Science to justify a measure increase.

The committee asks for your support in rejecting a carapace size increase at this time.

Getting back to your question, in 1988, when I was chairman of the workshop steering committee, we held two workshops. The workshops consisted of conservation, strictly. The first one was a two-day workshop and it dealt with many aspects of the industry—a shorter season, fewer traps. All these types of things entered into the realm of conservation.

I'm getting “conversation” and “conservation” mixed up here. I do a lot of both.

The first workshop agreed at that particular time to an increase of 1/32, and the following year 1/32 again, subject to further information on v-notch programs. That was in February. In July or August of that same year we held another workshop. We brought in a Dr. Bayer from the United States; he's a specialist in v-notch programs. He has done a lot of studies on v-notching, and they have been doing it in the state of Maine for approximately 70 years.

On normal days, in normal seasons, some of them v-notch more than 5,000 new lobsters. That's not re-v-notch. Whenever you pick up a lobster and you can identify a little notch in his tail, and presumably the following year it would be outgrown, they would v-notch it again. That's not counting those. This is just counting today's catch and this year's catch of over 5,000.

On their way in, some fishermen were telling me about it. This gentleman was 78 years old. His dad taught him to do it. He had only retired three years previous, and he said on normal days they'd look at their catch and see they had 200 or 300 pounds. They'd look at a lobster and see if it was fan-tailed. A fan-tail is a description of a lobster. When its eggs start growing on the inside of its body, its tail will puff out. Once it's puffed out, a certain time later, these eggs develop underneath the tail, and that lobster will carry those eggs underneath its tail for six to eight months. That being the case, once those eggs are underneath the tail, that's a protected lobster automatically. You cannot bring that lobster in anywhere in the States or in Canada.

After those eggs are released, that lobster can be caught by anybody and brought in and sold. This is just like keeping a proper cow on your farm, or the best brooding hens. You keep your best stock. Once you pick up a lobster full of these eggs, we say we want to protect that lobster, and we've developed that program of v-notching.

Many, many tests have been done to find out if v-notching harms that lobster. I've been to meetings where—I'm not going to name names—certain individuals have stood with biologists from southwest Nova Scotia and said publicly the v-notch on this lobster will create disease and bacteria. That's the biggest lie that's ever been told, to try to discourage increasing egg per recruit in the lobster industry.

All you have to do is look at all the mobile fleet that drag their gear over the bottom of the ocean and cross and maim lobster.

Where I live in St. Mary's Bay, some of our culls—a cull is a lobster missing a claw or both claws, or injured, and that lobster gets less money on the market. In St. Mary's Bay we have the highest cull weight in all of Scotia Fundy because of the mobile fleet activity there in the summertime, particularly the scallop fleet. I'm not here today advocating to get rid of the scallop fleet. They have to make a living too.

At the same time, those lobsters don't die. That's getting back to the v-notch that these people are saying creates bacteria and disease. It does not. If it did, long ago we would have lost all of our industry to anything that damaged our lobsters.

The Chair: Okay, Wayne, this—

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Getting back to the question—

The Chair: This is good information, but I want the committee—I understand the problem in terms of communication with DFO, and we'll look at that one. But can you get back to the specific answer to Mark's question?

• 1345

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes. The workshop concluded in its summary that we would like to do a survey of the v-notch program. We propose that there be 10 boats at 400 traps apiece. If you take a pencil and mark it all down, you'll end up with something like 80,000 trap hauls that would be done in the month of June to determine whether or not people were v-notching and what the percentage rate would be caught during that month. These traps would be hauled five times a week and they'd be done for 20 days, one month.

The Chair: That's not to be fishing. That's just to be pulled up, observed, put back in?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Also v-notched. Female bearing lobsters, those particular hauls, would be released, and it is also proposed that any female lobster caught during that experiment would be v-notched.

Mr. Mark Muise: What would the effect be of the increase in carapace size? What effect are the fishermen telling you and you as a fisherman are telling us the increase will have?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: It's interesting you ask that question, because we said no doubt 10% across the board, and no doubt it does work out to a 10% loss, but for some people, nothing. If they are fishing midshore it's less than if they are fishing offshore. Off 40 or 50 miles, it's hardly any. For people fishing inshore, in the St. Mary's Bay, it's upwards of 35%, and in the month of February it's as high as an 80% loss.

Mr. Mark Muise: Will it also have some effect on the market, because I've been told—and I don't know the relationship, but you might be able to explain that to us—that because the measure has been increased, it will change the market aspects of—

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Absolutely. Now, instead of a $5 lobster on the market, you're going to have a $10 lobster. The Europeans want that one-pound lobster. It's a big market and it's in dire need. Also, going from three and three-sixteenths to three and a quarter, you're jumping from a one-pound lobster, which is a three and three-sixteenths, with two claws, to three and a quarter, to almost a pound and a half.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Now all of a sudden you've got a $7.50 lobster versus the $5 lobster, if the price is $5 a pound.

Mr. Mark Muise: Right. One more question?

The Chair: One last question, Mark.

Mr. Mark Muise: The terms of reference for Mr. MacKenzie just came down a couple of weeks ago, about seven weeks after his appointment. Do you have any concerns, and do the fishermen in southwestern Nova Scotia have concerns, with the terms of reference of Mr. MacKenzie? If so, what are they?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I understand now there are two people involved, plus Indian Affairs and Northern Development, plus the Minister of Fisheries, plus, plus, plus. So how many people are really involved is the question, Mark.

I can't comment on the terms of reference. I really don't know what they are.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I don't want to lead you astray pretending I do know, because I don't. Our first encounter with Mr. MacKenzie was a disaster.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's why I asked that question, Wayne. One of the things we're noticing is this. The terms of reference say Mr. MacKenzie will negotiate with the natives, and then all the other fishermen are called “others”. I guess that's where I was going with my questioning.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: That we cannot accept, and we don't accept. Our first and only encounter with Mr. MacKenzie was during the highly explosive situation we had in Yarmouth.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes. You also mentioned, Wayne, that sometimes Stéphane Dion answers questions on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, and we've had the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development basically interpret his own reading of the September 17 decision. Now, after the clarification came down from the Supreme Court recently, we saw that he was incorrect in his interpretation. Do you think he should still be involved in these negotiations, or should it stay at DFO level?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: They should all resign.

Mr. Mark Muise: I think that was said last week.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes. How can we continue on? Every time I've seen Mr. Dhaliwal on TV and in fact face to face... On November 5 he reminded us that in Seattle and New Zealand, 50% of the fish were given away. Well, without the clarification, I'm sorry to tell you, but I think 50% of our fish were going away.

I don't feel any assurance coming from the federal department these days on our fishery. It doesn't matter if it's just natives, but it's a great matter on most other issues.

• 1350

The Chair: If I might, Mr. Spinney, that's one of the reasons why the standing committee, on its own initiative, decided to have the hearings. We have all parties present so that we can meet with people on the ground and make pretty concrete recommendations in the Parliament of Canada on this issue. And that's what we intend to do.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Spinney, I'm starting to realize that you're the Wayne Gretzky of the fishing world, with all your traps and everything else. I want to congratulate you—

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I don't believe I'm that far. I'll accept the congratulations from all of you, but it's not Wayne Spinney; it's the committee and the people of southwest Nova Scotia, and I'll take that back to them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

On your fourth point, anybody looking at this objectively would think how in hell, in God's green acre, can anyone make sense of the federal government when you say all these various people in positions of power are giving contradictory evidence to you, the fishermen, and your families and your communities? You have a right to be completely frustrated. For two and a half years, since being elected, I've been very frustrated with DFO and other aspects.

But I have a couple of questions for you. You say that the WNFC insisted the DFO reject claims to the fishery by non-status natives under either Marshall or Sparrow. You're basically saying what many aboriginal chiefs are saying as well, that in their interpretation the decision applies to reserve aboriginals only. Is that correct?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: That's correct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know that the non-status aboriginal groups, like the Native Councils of Nova Scotia and P.E.I., reject that categorically.

When Marshall was first convicted in 1993, the DFO, instead of negotiating, said “We'll litigate instead of negotiating”. We now have a minister saying, after Marshall, “It's better to negotiate than to litigate”.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: That's right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm certainly not a lawyer—and this is just my own personal belief; it's certainly not a party stance—but I suspect the non-status aboriginals may be right. If they are, and if we set in plans and parameters that you're asking us to do, with your consultative process and with the aboriginals you're dealing with now, what's going to happen in five years if the non-status aboriginals come up through the Supreme Court and are correct in their assumption that any decision of that nature applies to them as well? Are we back at this table discussing it again?

Just as a clarification, do you not think it would be helpful to bring the non-status aboriginals to the table as well in the negotiation process and to avoid litigation? I know that's a loaded question, and it's difficult to answer, because some very expert lawyers have been before us and they can't answer it either.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I will perhaps not answer it, but what I'd like to do is tell you the living hell I've been through since 1992 on this non-status BS.

When the Sparrow decision came down, DFO met with us and with Kathi Matthew Stewart. She's the coordinator or a representative of the native aboriginals here in Halifax—it's some title like that. We had one meeting and no more. Whatever strategy was drawn up, was drawn up between DFO and the non-status.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's wrong.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: It was absolutely wrong. There was absolutely no input from us, the commercial fishermen. What followed from there was the biggest illegal black market of lobster ever to flow out of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's called the food fishery.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: It's called the food fishery. We cannot continue to allow that.

My position has always been that any time you allow one trap, if that's area 34, between all of us here...if you're allowed to put one trap in there, it's creating an illegal fishery for others to join in. And that's exactly what it did. The number of traps they finally ended up with was six traps per family. It was six traps per member.

A lot of our commercial fishermen will give up their commercial licences—and they gather anywhere between 20,000 and maybe 40,000 or 60,000 pounds per year with that commercial licence—for six traps in the summertime.

Where was the reasoning to give six traps to anybody in the summertime with the amount of lobster that's available and that will fill those traps? The last estimate DFO told us in 1988—and I took it upon myself in approximately 1993 to write a letter to every MP across Canada, every MLA in Nova Scotia, and every senator across Canada, complaining and insisting that something had to be done on this food fishery because it's raping the industry. I got beat up for that and I had $12,000 worth of gear stolen on this non-status issue. It was and still is the biggest and the largest illegal black market lobster fishery of anywhere in Canada, in southwest Nova Scotia.

• 1355

The DFO estimate of illegal removal alone in 1988 was 500 tonnes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But Wayne, isn't it correct that DFO has the right through their regulatory powers to stop that if they so desire?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes, but you're not going to be able to stop a food fishery with six traps. You may be able to regulate it with a possession limit. Or if you want to set six traps, you'll have to do it during the legal season.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If they're selling it, though, don't they have the power, in your belief, to stop them?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: That was the other problem. They weren't supposed to sell them, but the argument that then came across the table was, how am I supposed to pay for this outboard motor and the skip, or this boat or fuel?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question.

The Chair: While you're on that point of the food fishery in your area—and I'll give you the time, Peter—I want to see if things are happening the same in other areas. The food fishery in Malpeque Bay, Prince Edward Island, was shut down when the limit of 80,000 pounds was reached. Is there a limit on poundage in your area?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: There's absolutely no reporting.

The Chair: If it can be shut down in one area, why not in another? Once the 80,000 pounds was reached in terms of the food fishery, the food fishery was shut down in Malpeque Bay.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Is that right? It's the first I've heard of this. But ours was shut down when the blockade started.

The Chair: We're going to check into those, because if the food fishery can be regulated in one area in that way, why can't it be in another?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: The problem is, and maybe it didn't work out that way in your area because perhaps your season wasn't ready to open, but in our area, where people were fishing...and use this as 34 and use this corner here as Digby Neck in St. Mary's Bay. All the females come up into that bay in the spring. They come up there to release their eggs and do the thing that female lobsters do. Afterwards they shed their shell and hide under rocks.

The Chair: We have the same situation in Malpeque Bay.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: The concentration of that 500 tonnes taken out of that area...it was that area. It wasn't spread out over 21,000 square kilometres of ocean bottom, as LFA 34 is. It was taken out of less than 10 square miles, and that's the problem.

Last year, fishermen who normally caught between 2,000 pounds and 4,000 pounds on their first day caught only between 200 and 800 pounds. That's what they caught. And that's the problem.

The Chair: We'll go back to Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is my last question for you, Mr. Spinney. I know we could discuss with you the concerns all day long.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I'd talk all day on this.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've asked many other organizations this question, and I get different responses depending on their interpretation of it. Do you believe that an ITQ system should apply to lobsters?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why is that?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Absolutely not. If you look around this province and right across Canada, any ITQ system got rid of the fishery of the community. It got rid of the independent fishermen. It ended up being controlled by companies. We will not stand by and accept it, entertain it, or anything else.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I asked that is we had a presentation from a snow crab organization—

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes, it's working good there.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —up in Cape Breton, and it works well for them, they say.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: There are 19 boats.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes, it works good for them. Exactly. But if you want to get rid of a fishery and get rid of a community, bring in quotas. It will do it, and it will do it quick.

The Chair: We'll take one more question, and then we'll close on this point. I know Sarkis wants to make a point, not to the witness but to the committee.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: This is the topic, and this is where Wayne and I first met on this food fishery and the problem that was created in St. Mary's Bay.

I was really surprised to hear you, Wayne, when you said something to the effect that in Malpeque Bay the food fishery had been shut down. I was very happy to see that happening, but time and time and time again I've been up in the House on that specific issue.

Wayne, you've been talking about it, and we were always told it can't be. I'd like to see if someone can clarify that for us, because I think that's terribly important. As Wayne was saying, you could catch those lobster with buckets, basically.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Yes.

• 1400

Mr. Mark Muise: They're so vulnerable. They all congregate there, and if you catch them, it's the seed for the future...and those who are fishing normally in that area are losing as well. So not only are those fishing in that little area losing, but the others will end up losing in the long run, those who fish elsewhere.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: The blockade in Yarmouth, or the demonstration in Yarmouth with the 600 boats, had to do with that. It didn't have anything to do with the Marshall decision—very little to do with that. Although the Marshall decision said, now you're going to be able to fish any time of the year and catch any amount you want, that may perhaps have brought it to a head, but at the particular time the fishermen gathered there, there was a huge fishery going on in St. Mary's Bay that's been going on there since 1992. Now if they intend to have a food fishery next summer, there are going to be problems, because that was the last thing they said when they left: we'll be back.

The Chair: Just specifically in Malpeque Bay, I will find out how that was done and get back to the committee. It may have been by arrangement with the chief of the Lennox Island Band. It may have been under the authority of DFO. I'm not sure. I only know it was shut down somehow. I will check that out and get back to the committee on it by way of that information.

Wayne, if you need a copy of the terms of reference for the chief federal representative, I have it here.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Thank you, yes.

The Chair: I only have one copy, but I'll give it to you and you can get it copied.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Just before you close, I'd like to bring your attention to the document you have there, “Preliminary Analysis of LFA 34 Lobster Catch Settlement”. That is not put out by LFA 34; that's put out by Peter Lawton and Mike Strong, who are from the biological station in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. This document pertains to the v-notching program, the only year we did it.

I'll take you to table 10, which is on the page before the last, on the v-notch activity. If you look in April and May...in December, only 30% of us took part in it, and that was because there was no tool available. We could only get it perhaps in January. You see how it gradually came up. In April and May, of 968 licensed lobster fishermen, 73% took part in that v-notch program

The document attached to it is the document we presented to the Minister of Fisheries, the highlights of the analysis. I believe you all have that. If you go to the last two pages, to the highlights, you'll see that 73% took part, whereas DFO thought 20% would take part in that program. We ended up with 60% to 70%. In highlight number two, 131,595 animals were v-notched.

If you go down to the next one, the total poundage was 27.5 million pounds, and if you average that out to a pound and a half, it meant we only removed 18,387,000 lobsters. In the program itself we put 26 million back in. We put eight million back into the industry more than we took out.

I'd like to go on about that program—

The Chair: We're out of time. I'm going to let Mr. Stoffer ask one specific question on an issue that we need answered and then we'll have to close, because we are starting to run behind, even though we're short of witnesses.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry to interrupt here, guys.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In the Gulf of Maine just recently there was a report of a large number of lobsters that were killed, and there are a lot of scientists and a lot of people working to ascertain why and what happened. Obviously you have concerns about that. Do you have any indications of what it was that killed all those lobsters, and could that actually happen in the Bay of Fundy?

Mr. Wayne Spinney: At the last LFA 34 meeting—and if you bear with me, it was perhaps October 29. I'm not sure. Yes, perhaps it was then. Mr. Pezzack, who is the biologist for LFA 34, was in attendance, and we brought that issue up. At that point in time they knew nothing. They knew what was occurring; they didn't know why it was occurring, whether it had to do with warm water or the salinity—that's the amount of salt in that water—and runoff, freshwater coming from the mainland, or whether it was pollution coming from the city. Those were three factors they were considering, and they were trying to find out what it was.

• 1405

We know what this does to scare the market. We're trying to keep a lid on it, but at the same time, you can't. But yes, there are a lot of lobsters being found.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spinney.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Thank you for having me. Can I take my nameplate?

The Chair: You can keep that.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: I may need it.

The Chair: Hopefully we'll make some recommendations that you agree with, and then you can frame it. Maybe they'll be implemented this time.

Mr. Wayne Spinney: Perhaps so.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Before I call the next witness, Mr. Assadourian has a statement.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as you noticed, the two members of the Reform Party are gone. They are not here in the committee. It is my understanding that both of them went back to Ottawa. At least one of them checked out of the hotel to go back for the vote tonight, since there is the Nisga'a vote today. I find it really sad that the two members of the Reform Party left the people here in Nova Scotia. They insult the committee members here, and they insult the witnesses here by just taking off, without even telling us they're going to Ottawa.

In these circumstances, I think we should make a note. I hope what I'm saying is not true. I hope they are here and will show up at any moment now, but I understand one of them already checked out of the hotel and the other one is giving him a ride to the airport. I may be wrong, but that's what I heard. I find it very insulting to me and to the committee members that they would do such a thing. It shows a lack of concern for the issues we're discussing today.

The Chair: If I could, committee, I have a note here from John—I don't know which John it is—marked 1.28 p.m. It says, “Gone to vote on the Nisga'a”, but I don't know if both members are gone or not. I do know that to keep balance in the House, this means you have to leave, Sarkis, so I thank you for coming. It's too bad, but we do have to keep balance in the House of Commons as well.

Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I say this with all due respect to the members of the Reform Party on our committee. Obviously they were ordered to go back to vote. I find that absolutely disgusting. As committee members, we have this honourable responsibility and legislative responsibility when we're on committee and agree to go outside of Ottawa to have hearings and to talk to fishermen and other political parties about a very serious issue.

Because of the perception of their attitude towards the Nisga'a Treaty, or any other vote for that matter, they are taking advantage of this, just leaving without, one, consulting the committee in advance, and, two, by placing—and I also say this to my Liberal colleagues—their Liberal colleagues at risk here. We do know that for every Liberal member gone, an opposition member goes. That's the way it always is on committee travel. For them to use this opportunity to go back and take advantage of that leaves our Liberal colleague in a lurch. Plus they're telling something to people who are going to come this afternoon and possibly tomorrow for further discussions on this very serious issue. Knowing that the official opposition is not hear to listen to them sends a very clear message to other organizations and other people that their concerns aren't that important.

The Chair: I'm going to cut you off there, because I don't want to belabour this point. I'll let Mr. Bernier in, but we do have to hear our witnesses. Your comments are on the record and they will be transcribed.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, out of respect to all the witnesses we have to hear.

However, I'd like to check wether, from a technical viewpoint, behaviour in committee should be the same as in the House. In the House, we don't have a right to mention the presence or the absence of honourable members. We should check this as soon as the clerk is back.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is up to us to judge the behaviour of each of the parties. As far as I'm concerned, I'm working on the fisheries issue; I devote much time to it and I'm going to do the best I can.

Usually, when I have to leave, I give you notice within the time allowed. Furthermore, I would not want us to accuse any of the parties and I would like us to continue hearing the witnesses. Given the difficulty of the present situation, if one of our Liberal partners must leave, it will certainly be with regret. I think that those who travel with us do so as sincerely as possible, and that we will excuse the honourable member before the people if that is the case.

• 1410

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to get an answer to my question a little later. Do we have a right to mention the absence or the presence of an honourable member?

[English]

The Chair: I'm not sure. I've been told by the clerk you're not supposed to mention the absence of a member. I just want to indicate that from a government perspective, given votes in the House of Commons, we have to keep balance. That means one of our members will have to go.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Can't we have unanimous agreement of the committee to name them?

The Chair: Anyway, I'm going to cut the discussion. Sarkis has made his point, and thank you for coming to this point in time, Sarkis. I'm sorry you have to leave.

The next witness is Jeff Brownstein, who is president, Local 6, Maritime Fishermen's Union.

Sorry, Jeff, to get into some House of Commons stuff, but that happens sometimes when you're on the road. Go ahead, the floor is yours, and welcome.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein (President, Local 6, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Thank you very much. I think you have a copy of the presentation. Thank you, honourable members of Parliament for the opportunity to share with you today some of our thoughts and experience on this issue of first nations treaty rights in the commercial fishery.

In my area of the east coast of Cape Breton Island, we have begun the development of the Cape Breton Co-management Board. This process goes back at least a couple of years and involves four organizations of inshore fishermen, representing the majority of fishermen in Sydney Bight, or NAFO area 4Vn.

While we are in the Scotia Fundy region, which is so diverse, we are like-minded, as are the bona fide inshore fishermen in the gulf region. We have been working with DFO at the area level to develop and implement policies and fisheries management at the local level, with fishermen, through our organizations, playing an increasingly greater role in fisheries management.

It would seem that the logical step now is for this board to bring in the first nations in our area to work as partners in this co-management process. This was the message sent to the first nations in Cape Breton. So far, we have had one introductory meeting, and we are looking forward to continuing the dialogue. The first nations are seeking some financial assistance from DFO to carry out our negotiations together, and we support them in this.

We also agree to deal with Cape Breton Island as one unit. Thus, we bring in the representatives of fishermen's organizations in Richmond County, and Inverness County, which is in the gulf region. The fishermen and first nations in Cape Breton are all very happy to see one set of negotiations for Cape Breton as one large natural community where the fishermen are like-minded, as I believe are the first nations.

The essential ingredients toward successful negotiations, and then co-existence of natives and commercial fishermen, are the following: peace and friendship; the community base; local authority; strong organizations that can work together; support, and not obstruction, from DFO; and the financial responsibility from the crown to make room for new entrants from the native bands by buying out licences from commercial fishermen ready to leave the fishery.

To elaborate on these points further, peace and friendship are obviously urgent. We have had good relations in the past in our area, and we hope to build on that. We have to understand each others' points of view and be willing to work together. From our point of view, we are involved in fisheries that are highly regulated, and we would feel threatened by others fishing in different seasons and/or with different rules.

The community base in this case is Cape Breton Island. While DFO splits us into the gulf and Scotia Fundy regions and sends us to meetings in Moncton and Halifax, we agree with the five bands in Cape Breton that there should be one master plan for what the Mi'kmaq call Unama'ki, which is Cape Breton. We should meet in Cape Breton, and our decisions should be made there. If there are either commercial fishermen or native fishermen from outside Cape Breton who wish to fish our waters, then they should abide by our plans. We have agreed to this.

• 1415

Our preference is for local authority and also that more of the decision-making happens locally. It also means that just because our plans don't work in Shelburne County or British Columbia or wherever, they should not be rejected. Let us not destroy good local initiatives for lack of conforming to regional or national policies. Success will best be achieved at the local level and should be supported.

Strong organizations that can work together are essential on the part of both the natives and the commercial fishermen. Never was the need for appropriate representation and good leadership more urgent than now. Fishermen must voice their concerns and get their information from organizations that are democratically accountable and have the necessary resources and experience.

Native leaders must be able to speak for their people. Their rights being communal really simplifies matters and is to be respected if the leaders of native bands really want to see their communities gain as a whole, rather than a very few individuals. Inshore fishermen's organizations have been struggling for years for the survival, not of a few individuals, but of our communities.

Another point about organizations is that inshore fishermen's organizations and first nations organizations are based on broad-based fishing communities, not according to species or gear type. We have spoken in our area of the need for basic policies and understanding first of the fisheries in general. Only after the basic framework is in place do we talk about specific fisheries. In this way, we can be real partners in co-management, not just mere adversaries at the table, arguing allocation.

In the end, DFO must enforce the fishery overall and look out for conservation. They should support us when we work together and not try to lead us in other directions. Local negotiations can be highly successful if the regulations are clear and conservation comes first. Then DFO can enforce with all of our blessings.

My point about the crown assuming responsibility should be clear enough. The treaties were signed by the crown, not the local commercial fishermen. We want to try to accommodate the native peoples, but everyone knows too well that no fishery can withstand additional effort right now.

In my area, it was the fishermen who realized there was a problem in the lobster fishery and that we had to do something. So the fishermen in Sydney Bight voted 75% in favour of increasing the minimum size of lobster we could take in order to conserve the stocks. This happened before then Minister Anderson decreed the need to double egg production in each lobster fishing area. Our fishermen already knew we had to do something and had done it ourselves.

Clearly then, the only way the commercial fishery can accommodate new effort is to transfer it through a voluntary buyout of commercial licences, and the crown should assume responsibility to provide funds for the buyout. Fishermen have been hit hard enough in recent years with more costs and fees than you'd have time to hear about today.

I hope I have addressed some of the questions you have raised and look forward to more discussion on this topic. We all know the road ahead will not be easy and that it is too easy to be derailed from the track of progress, but we have to try, and we mustn't be misled by individuals. This is where the community focus is so necessary.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Jeff.

Mr. Bernier and then Mr. Provenzano.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: First, I would like to thank the witness to be here with us. I know that it is not easy. I know that your organization, the MFU, has faced many responsibilities and has had to look after numerous matters recently. By the way, we met one of your colleagues, Mr. Reginald Comeau, during our hearings. I think it was at the very beginning of our hearings. I think that what you are saying today is in the same spirit, namely in the peace of mind and particularly in the perspective of peaceful solutions.

• 1420

One thing in your document caught my attention. It is in the last paragraph of page 2. I would like to give you the opportunity to give more details to the members of this committee.

My comment or my question is the following. You are saying that it is the responsibility of the Crown to clarify the treaty issue. Moreover, you are saying that the treaties have been signed by the Crown, and therefore not by commercial fishermen. You are telling us that you are trying to accommodate the first nations and that nobody knows local problems better than you or than your local representatives.

I have asked the question I'm addressing to you to several other representatives this morning. Perhaps this is not a good time, but there has already been a recommendation from the standing committee on this when George Baker was chairman. All the parties represented in the Standing Committee on Fisheries had recommended that DFO review their management of the fisheries and the way they issue the Total Allowable Catches. They could perhaps do so during the implementation of a Plan II. I would like you to tell me how an aboriginal crisis is managed, day by day. How could we have more transparency as far as decisions are concerned? How could we communicate the will of the grassroots, of your communities, to Ottawa?

As a matter of fact, Ottawa will have to sign the treaties with the first nations but you will have to live with what Ottawa has signed. Thus, we have to ensure that what Ottawa will sign reflects in fact your wishes. How can we have a management system which takes this into consideration in the future, at Fisheries and Oceans Canada? Can you make a comment on this at this time?

I know that perhaps you will have to meet with your colleagues, once the crisis is over, in order to elaborate further. However, we'll welcome any solution or part of a solution. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brownstein, there are a lot of questions there.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: Yes, I'll just sit and think about it for a month.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It's only the beginning.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: Yes.

We still have a lucrative lobster fishery after a hundred years, after every other fishery has gone up and down, and some of them are gone altogether or at least for the time being. We've had so many problems, but the lobster fishery has been the most stable of all, because the lobster fishery has been controlled, for the most part, by inshore fishermen. It's been grassroots. In my area, for instance, we knew the catches were going down, down, down. We wanted to increase the size of the carapace before anybody asked us to. We knew we had to do it, because it was our future at stake.

In discussions we've had in my area... And I only want to speak about my area, because if you're going to have national policies to deal with the natives and we all have to go to one big place, it's going to be very hard to have something that's going to accommodate everyone and is not going to get very complicated. So I'm suggesting that in our own area, fishermen assume a greater role in management of the fishery and that natives work in this same process with the fishermen.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: In reality, what is the way to manage? What is the real link between your fishermen and the mediator, the negotiator?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: We haven't even met the negotiator yet, or the mediator, and there are other mediators who—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Really?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: No, not MacKenzie. When I say “we”, I mean in Cape Breton we haven't met with him. As for the Maritime Fishermen's Union, yes, there have been meetings in Moncton.

Our meetings so far have just been with the natives. Nobody has actually been fishing yet, so there hasn't been an immediate crisis. We have some time, we hope, over the winter to work things out before the next fishing season.

• 1425

I believe native involvement in the fishery has not been great in our area. It's not the richest area going, so I think we have some time. They haven't been so involved yet, so I think it's really to their benefit for us to help them, to support them in gaining some employment in the fishery and in getting on their feet in running boats and getting involved in the fishery.

I think we have a chance to work together, and the more we can work things out... It's just like in southwest Nova Scotia. The success was between the native bands and the fishermen. Leave all the negotiators and the mediators out of it until you have to. I think the best approach is a face-to-face one, and I think DFO should be there because it's DFO that has to enforce the deal in the end.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brownstein.

We may get back to you, Yvan.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think some of the answers to my question were given in response to Mr. Bernier's questions.

It's acknowledged in your presentation that enforcement and conservation have to be left to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On the other hand, you're making a strong plea for more local authority and more local decision-making. I'm just wondering if you could clarify what residual authority and decision-making you would be looking for in view of the acknowledgement that enforcement and conservation has to be left with DFO in the final process.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: I guess what I'm suggesting is that we can make DFO's job an awful lot easier. For instance, you will not find terrific criminal activity in the lobster fishery in my own area. You won't find fishermen taking many undersized lobsters or fishing too many traps. You might find some, but it's not a terrific problem. The reason it's not is that fishermen have made the rules to begin with. The more we're involved in making the rules and making decisions that are going to sustain our livelihood and sustain the resource, the easier it is to enforce them. Ultimately, it's like the members of Parliament making rules on behalf of the people of this country. You still like to have a police force to make sure they're carried out in an objective fashion.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Brownstein, if I could just ask you this, if you had pick one thing over which you would like to have more local authority and more local decision-making, what would that one thing be?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: It would be management decisions. It would be how a fishery is run. Certainly you allow that conservation only allows you to fish so much. It might not be quota-controlled, because I think quotas have failed miserably. I think more effort controls, as we have in the lobster fishery, might be more successful. But it's the way you control a fishery and what you watch for to make sure that conservation is not jeopardized. I think we have a lot of ideas that have been ignored.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brownstein, it's a pleasure to meet you once again. I couldn't help but notice that you were talking about all of Cape Breton, incorporated together.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: That's right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We heard earlier testimony today from the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, which basically has its management plan in place. I think next year is the last year of that five-year plan. The association has come up with nine concerns that it says are essential to the area plan. Have you met with those fishermen at all in regard to your proposal?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: No, the meetings we've had so far have been amongst members of our Cape Breton management board, which actually covers 4Vn. I've had a lot of discussion with the fishermen in Inverness County, and I think we're on the same program.

It was actually the natives who initiated the idea. From my understanding, their idea—maybe it's changed—was that they were going to split the Maritimes off into districts. One district was Unama'ki, which is Cape Breton Island. Of course we're very used to dealing... As I said, in 4Vn, we have been dealing as one management board. To take in Richmond County is easy. We've been working with Richmond County too. That's the Scotia Fundy portion of Cape Breton Island. Inverness is in the gulf. Usually because of DFO management, we're not together, but I think—

• 1430

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Jeff, in your terms, the word that is used by the average people is Unama'ki. I assume that means everyone together, right?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: That's my understanding of their name for Cape Breton Island.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Having said that—I know the committee's getting tired of me asking this question, but I ask it to almost everyone. It is not clear whether or not non-status aboriginals are included in the so-called Marshall decision. In fact, all the aboriginal chiefs I have spoken to at this time, including Bernd Christmas, their legal representative, have stated that it applies to status aboriginals only. The Native Councils of Nova Scotia and P.E.I. obviously have a great difference of opinion on that, and they're taking their processes to the courts now.

When you say the five bands you're talking with or dealing with could come up with resolutions for the long-term fishery plan, are you inclusive at all of the non-status aboriginal people on Cape Breton, or are they left out of this process?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: I can't really tell you much about non-status natives in Cape Breton. I'm sorry, but I'm just not aware of numbers or where they are. All of my experience has been with the native bands in Cape Breton.

I guess my biggest concern as far as non-status natives are concerned is that we want to make one deal so that we can work with the native bands. We want to make one deal that we're all locked into so that there's no discomfort on either side in the future. We want to be able to work together.

Despite all the difficulties, I think there could be some positive things in working together. They have done some good research. They've done some good things that we can learn about. Philosophically, we're probably not that far apart. We've been looking for communal rights to fisheries for years, so I think we might be able to get somewhere. But when you throw the non-status ones in, particularly from my understanding of experience elsewhere in the Maritimes, it gets complicated.

The Chair: This is your final question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Although you haven't really said it yet, I'm assuming you're saying the MFU supports a more community-based management system in the fisheries.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: Most of the MFU is in the gulf, in the Scotia Fundy region. In the Bay of Fundy, they're very much involved in a community-based approach, and we certainly are in Cape Breton, so I think that's a fair statement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: I just have a couple of questions, Mr. Brownstein.

The idea of negotiating at the community level and coming to an agreement there is great. There seems to be good work being done at the community level. But given all the processes that are in place—this committee, the mediators, DFO, the regulatory authority at DFO, the minister, etc.—how do you take what's agreed to at the community level and encompass that into an overall policy? Would it be the same in Cape Breton, or would it differ in Prince Edward Island and the Miramichi in New Brunswick? How do you get from A to Z? I guess that's what I'm asking. How do you encompass all of that into a regulatory regime that will work?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: With me, more of it starts and ends at the community level. Obviously, since we're part of the Maritime Fisherman's Union, we're certainly in touch with what's going on elsewhere in the Maritimes. I know our ideas actually are very similar anyway, particularly throughout the gulf. What's important is that the organizations and fishermen in Cape Breton can sit down with the native bands to negotiate a deal that does not in any way jeopardize conservation and normal enforcement out on the water and these types of things. If we can do that, then I don't see why any deal we come to... If it's congruous enough with our management plans as they exist now or as they shall exist, I don't see why it really matters what they do in other areas if we can come to terms. We're the ones who are going to have to incorporate—-

• 1435

The Chair: I understand that, but I also understand how government works and how difficult it is to enforce when you have different agreements in different places.

For example—and this is just an example, not theory or anything else—say you agreed in your area that there would be 15% aboriginal access into the fishery as a result of the Marshall decision, and in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick they decided that access is 5%. Then are you going to find yourself in court and the people in the other area saying, yes, but the precedent has been set in Cape Breton?

I'm saying it's not as simple as it looks. Although I agree with the theory very much, the question is, how do you implement it into law in an overall regulatory regime that will work without creating greater problems? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: Yes.

The Chair: It's not as simple as it looks. It's great in theory, but how do you make it work?

In my own area, in the Malpeque Bay area of Prince Edward Island, everyone is saying there has to be an agreement that we can live with here and that we can fish in the water together without hostility. That's one of the important points of working it out at the community level. But then from an overall federal responsibility, how do you regulate and implement that? That's what we have to grapple with, and I wonder if you can be helpful in that regard.

Mr. Jeff Brownstein: Certainly you make a good point. All we can do is work things out the best we can at the local level. I guess the work of Mr. MacKenzie and others is to see what the overall picture is going to be. It's just that it always gets more complicated.

When you start comparing regions, if we were in the gulf region... I have to say I've always regretted we're not in the gulf region, because we're all so like-minded in the gulf region that I think we could all come to one agreement that easily works for all of us. But when you get into Scotia-Fundy, it's so diverse and it gets so complicated. So I know it's more tricky.

Anyway, I guess all we can do is work things out the best we can at the local level and see how it corresponds to the greater picture and adapt as we go along.

The Chair: I might say in closing, if there are no further questions, we certainly congratulate people for working at the local level. The fishing community and the native communities, in coming together, have shown real leadership at the local level and should be congratulated on that.

Mr. Brownstein, thank you for your presentation.

The next witness on my list is Harold Theriault. Is he here?

He's not here, so we'll hear from Eben Elliott, with the North Shore Fishermen's Association.

Mr. Elliott, welcome. We do have your presentation here, if you want to read through that or highlight it, and then we'll go to questions.

Mr. Eben Elliott (Spokesperson, North Shore Fishermen's Association): I'll read through it for starters. I'm not much of a public speaker.

I apologize for not having a French copy too. That was requested, but I couldn't do it.

The Chair: I think Mr. Bernier understands.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Some of the things I have to say maybe don't really have to be said. It would be easier not to say it, but I think you should be aware of some of the feelings that are out there.

I'm going to start with a few comments on the overall situation with the natives, and then I'm going to get into the specifics of the fishery.

First, I'll tell you where I'm from. I'm Eben Elliott. I'm from Wallace, on the north shore of Nova Scotia. That's just about right in the middle of the Northumberland Strait. I represent fishermen in that area.

• 1440

The clarification of the Marshall decision by the Supreme Court shows that they've learned a lot in the last two months. I hope that others in Ottawa have learned the same lesson. We can't have different laws for different races of people. It divides us more than any petty prejudices ever could.

People have been learning racial tolerance in this country, but this is a huge setback. Don't underestimate the level of resentment that this has caused. You might have a soul full of charity that turns a blind eye to unfair treatment if it benefits the people you decide need an advantage, but you must remember how it offends all of us who have had to struggle for everything we have.

I've heard it said that Mi'kmaq have been denied opportunities, but when? They haven't been any more than a lot of other people in my lifetime.

Is a person really disadvantaged because their ancestors have been wronged? Many people could lay claim to that.

I've heard it said that to blame others for the situation you're in is to surrender your ability to change it. If you're told all your life that your people are unemployed because of the way others have treated them, you could feel that you're not expected to achieve. And that may be the biggest difference between natives and others.

Most people I know started out with nothing. We find some humble job, we earn a living, and we may or may not get ahead. Most people I know are not advantaged, and we have laws against discrimination on the basis of race. So to suggest that someone is disadvantaged because of their race is to suggest that people of that race are inherently less intelligent or less physically competent than the rest of us.

I refuse to believe that of the Mi'kmaq. Don't make a person feel that because of their race they require special treatment. That's an insult, regardless of how well meaning.

But what we're here to discuss is the integration of more natives into the fishing industry. This must be done in such a way as not to increase friction between natives and non-natives. I'm sure you've already heard many times that the only way this would be acceptable to other fishermen is, in a nutshell, to have the same seasons and the same rules. Any other way would create differences between our peoples.

The importance of fishing the same seasons is about sharing and can best be demonstrated by a look at the late summer, fall fishery in area 25, the western half of the Northumberland Straight. Half of the season's catch can be caught in the first week of a nine-week season.

The reality of this is crystal clear to those of us in the spring season areas immediately adjacent to area 25, who have first-hand knowledge. I think that's why the reaction in Miramichi Bay was so strong. If you catch the lobsters in late summer, they will not be there to catch in the spring. Lobsters are caught up through each fishing season in each area and aren't replenished until after the summer moult.

The easiest way to catch lobsters is to fish when the lobsters first recover from the moult. Not only is that the time when there are the most lobsters available, but it's also the time when the lobsters move the fastest because of warm water and are the most hungry because they have a new, bigger shell to fill. However, it's also the time when the quality is poorest, because the shells are not full.

The Chair: Eben, if I could slow you down a little, the interpreters, I think, are having a bit of a job to keep up.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Sorry. Okay.

The Chair: They have to interpret this. Just slow down a little.

Mr. Eben Elliott: I'll just talk more slowly.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Do you want me to go over the last paragraph?

The Chair: That's fine. I think we've got it.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Okay.

To harvest many more lobster in later summer would seriously damage the market, because of the poor-quality lobster.

The lobster fishery, which is the backbone of most core enterprises, is already at maximum harvesting capacity. There's no room for more effort. We can't simply add more traps and catch more lobster.

Although some fishermen make big profits in some areas in certain years, the average fisherman, over time, makes only a moderate living. The poor years balance out the good years. There's no way to add significantly more fishermen and still maintain a profitable fishery.

The best way to quickly get more natives involved in the fishery is to buy back core enterprises and give them to the natives to fish under existing rules. This has been going on for years, and least 66 have been given to them—although I've heard it's 50 in the gulf alone.

To increase the numbers, just increase the price paid. The losers in that situation are the poor guys in the back of the boat who have been waiting years for their chance to buy into the fishery.

Considering the native food fishery and the enforcement problems that have been created by it, I would suggest that those permits be traded in for commercial licences to be fished during the regular season. Bands could work out a deal to provide band members with lobster caught under the commercial licences.

• 1445

A few traps fished through the late summer can drastically reduce the spring catch of the fishermen in that small area, and the food fishery has opened the door for illegal selling of lobster.

DFO now has the power to regulate the native fishery. They have been told how it can be accomplished. Should DFO choose to ignore our basic demands, there will be trouble. If they decide to give the natives a separate season or a quota to fill at any given time, I promise you we won't be happy. A quota to fill in the summer would take next year's profit away from those who fish the areas they choose to take the cream off.

A buyback program should perhaps look at a five-year period, with a target of a stated, reasonable number. We have to show the courts that they have equitable access. Since they have had equal right of access, this must mean more like equal numbers based on population percentage. At about 25,000 status natives out of about one million Maritimers with about 8,000 inshore core enterprises, it works out to 200 core enterprises for the Mi'kmaq. Is that equitable?

When all is said and done, I want to see more Mi'kmaq involved in the fishing industry but no lasting decrees that divide our people. We must get through this without the legacy of racially based laws that our children will have to deal with.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott.

Do you want to start, Mr. Bernier?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: First of all, I'd like to thank the witness for his presentation. I understand the message and the sensitiveness of the witness. As we heard on several occasions, we are told that if aboriginal people are allowed to fish, it should be during the same seasons and under the same rules. I think the message went through; you have brought it forward very well.

However, there are two small issues on which you could give some information to the standing committee. I am from Gaspé, a fishing community, and therefore I know a little better the situation, but for the benefit of all those of us are around this table... In fact, what you said was recorded so that everybody in Ottawa can understand how fisheries work, particularly the lobster fishery.

I would like you to explain in more detail what you mean when you are talking about lobster catches. In the last but one paragraph of your last page, you are saying the following, I think:

[English]

“If you catch the lobsters in late summer they will not be there to catch in the spring.”

[Translation]

I would like you to further explain this statement and also to tell us about the lobster which can be removed a month before the beginning of the fishing season. In Gaspé, we have to be careful not to miss the boat during the first two weeks of the fishing season, because it is during that time that 50 percent of the revenues are made. Is it the same in your area?

My second question is the following, Mr. Spinney. You are saying that the fact to land more lobster at the end of the season or in late summer can seriously affect the market. You are one of the first to raise this issue of the marketing of the product. I would like you to give us further information on this. You are telling us that the shell is not in the same condition and that it can have an impact on the price in relation with the customer.

Moreover, if you have time, I would like you to tell us if the lobster should be processed or packed by the present processors, according to the relationship you have with the aboriginal people. It could have an impact on the majority of workers.

Now, these are the two or three questions I would like you to answer, if you can, of course.

[English]

Mr. Eben Elliott: Well, I can tell you why if you catch them in late summer they won't be there to catch in the spring. The lobsters don't move around very far; they'll go maybe five miles in a run of a year. The crop comes on after the summer moult. There you have all the lobsters that are going to be caught next spring. They're ready to be caught in late summer.

• 1450

If they're taken out of the water then, they're not in the water any more—they're gone. So the guys who come out the next spring to fish that area are going to get exactly the amount of lobsters less what was taken out in the fall. Say there are 10 fishermen in an area and they got 10,000 pounds each, which is a moderate catch. That's 100,000 pounds. If someone goes out in the fall and scoops up 50,000 pounds, when those guys go out in the spring they're only going to get 50,000 pounds, which works out to 5,000 pounds per boat. I think that's as clear as I can make that point.

As far as the quality of the lobster is concerned, anybody who has ever eaten them knows that in the fall they aren't full. It's still good lobster, but it's simply not...for the price you pay for the pound, they aren't full of meat. You don't get as much meat as you do in the spring, and on the foreign market, if people get too much of that they might get turned off lobster. That's all I can really say about the quality.

The Chair: If I may, Yvan...

Beyond the lobster caught, like you said, the 50,000 pounds, certainly if 50,000 pounds of lobster is caught this fall, that 50,000 pounds isn't going to be there in the spring, but are there not other implications beyond that in terms of future production? Are there going to be more egg-bearing lobsters caught at that time of year or not? Is there not a multiplier effect here? You get lower quality for sure. A pound caught then is not going to be there in the spring, and you get lower-quality lobsters, but is there anything beyond that in terms of production, from your point of view?

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes, that's a good point. I'm not a biologist, but yes, as soon as the new-shell lobsters come off the moult, most of the females wouldn't produce spawn right away, but maybe they would produce spawn in October or November. I know that in the spring we do get a lot of spawning lobsters in the central Strait area. Exactly when they spawn I'm not sure, but yes, it is a very strong possibility that they're going to lose the chance to spawn.

The Chair: I'll not take your time, Yvan.

It was evidence yesterday in Malpeque Bay that 1939, I think, was the last time there was a fall fishery there. At that time, due to bad weather in the spring or whatever, they went with a fall fishery. The fishery was in turmoil for five years as a result of them having that fall fishery. There are some lessons to be learned there as to why we have the seasons.

Mr. Bernier, I'm sorry for interrupting you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The pleasant part of the work in the Standing Committee on Fisheries is that there is no partisanship. When it is supplementary questions, it is fine.

I have one last short question. I asked it to you earlier. I would like you to illustrate the way fishing works in your area. The season lasts ten weeks. Is it true that lobster landings are more concentrated during the first two or three weeks? In any case, in Gaspé, landings are not equal from the beginning to the end of the season. During the tenth week, we only land a very small volume compared with the first weeks. I would like to know if, in your area, you also make 50 percent of the revenues during the first two or the first three weeks. If yes, the whole structure caves in when someone treads on your ground earlier.

[English]

Mr. Eben Elliott: In the fall season especially, when half the catch can be caught in the first week of the season, yes. If somebody else is in the water a week ahead of that, they're going to get the cream before anybody else gets a chance. I know that if a person starts a week late, they've lost half their catch. So obviously if a person starts a week early, they will have a chance to get a whole lot more. It takes a little away from everybody.

• 1455

In the fall season it is more pronounced because the water is warm and you start catching your lobsters right away—bang. In the spring season it varies from port to port, and within a very short distance it can be different.

My biggest week in the spring is usually the second week of the season. The water starts out very cold and that slows them down. If somebody goes out in the middle of April, they'll catch lobsters nobody else can catch, but they won't get the big catches like you would in the late summer.

As I said, my biggest week is probably the second week. At places up or down the shore, the biggest week of the season might be as late as the third week.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Elliott, for your presentation today. You live in a beautiful part of Nova Scotia, by the way. You have warm water and nice beaches.

Tell me now, how long have you been involved in the fisheries?

Mr. Eben Elliott: I've held a licence for 16 years—17 maybe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you are aware, one of DFO's mandates is the protection of fish habitats. I'm going to stretch my question a bit here, Mr. Chairman. You know that the oil and gas lease is up in phase one in the corridor. The corridor resources have that area. So you folks who make a living off lobsters are not only dealing with the results of the Marshall decision, but the possible interruption of the habitat for the lobster grounds themselves.

I wonder if you can just comment on that briefly.

Mr. Eben Elliott: I haven't been as involved in the oil and gas war as other people. There's another guy in my organization who's really been out to all that stuff.

There's a lot of concern. The fishermen don't want it there. There's a lot of gas and oil in other places, so why do they need to drill for oil here? But there is a possibility it could have a huge effect in the future. I don't like to think about it a whole lot. I just hope nothing happens.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

You mentioned the food fishery. One of the things I said a while back with other people—mind you there's no consensus on this—is with the Marshall decision and the integration of the aboriginal people into the fishery on an equal basis, where everyone abides by the same rules and regulations, you could eventually do away with the food fishery and make it all into a commercial fishery.

Even the aboriginal people admit that a lot of the lobsters they catch for food, ceremonial, and cultural purposes are actually for back-of-the-truck sales. We all know that happens. In many cases, that really put the interpretation to non-native fishermen like yourself that this just wasn't fair and not a good process.

Do you think then, with the integration of the aboriginal fishery, after consultation with the groups—as we have heard before today and yesterday and with yourself—you will be able to see an end to the food fishery and see it turned into a commercial fishery, as you sort of suggested here, under the same rules, with everybody working together?

Mr. Eben Elliott: I think everyone would benefit by it. It's not going to hurt the commercial fishermen to take those food fishery licences and turn them into commercial licences to catch lobster in the fall, when they can catch a lot more than they can in the spring. Even if they added a few traps, they still wouldn't take any more lobster out of the water in the spring than they would in the fall. So it wouldn't hurt the commercial fishermen. It would simplify everything for DFO enforcement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So in terms of overcapacity or additional effort on the lobsters, would you see it as having a more balancing effect?.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes. I don't see it as being additional effort at all.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: On the food fishery, I know the discussion between you and Peter tied the food fishery into the newly created commercial fishery—the native fishery or recognized right. That's a personal point of view. I don't know how you could make that work under the Sparrow decision, because we are dealing with two different issues here. We are dealing with the food and ceremonial granted under Sparrow and we are dealing with the Supreme Court decision, in this case clarified on November 17, which is a different kind of regime. I think it would be great if what you two people are talking about could be done, but I don't think it could, given the way the court decisions have come down.

• 1500

In the event that it can...we're willing to have a look at that—I'm just thinking out loud. You're correct. In everything I've seen in the food fishery, there is a difficulty in enforcement and there is a difficulty in terms of the illegal selling of lobster. I don't think there's any question about that. We hear a lot on that.

Do you see any other way of handling the food fishery so that it doesn't become a problem for enforcement or illegal selling or whatever, other than what you and Peter were talking about?

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes, simply make it apply during the regular season only—they have a food fishery during the regular season. The Mi'kmaq community, if they want to go out and fish with the traps they have been allocated, can do it. They can go out and fish during the regular season. I'm sure most of them have freezers. They can freeze as much lobster as they want. They can go and get their free lobster, and it would be better than it is now. And there wouldn't be any problem with them selling it over the side. It wouldn't matter. They're simply taking it out of the water at the same time that everybody else is.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Elliott. There are no further questions. Thank you very much for your presentation and information.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We are in waiting. Is there anybody else in the room who wants to present or has something further to add?

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: ...many years of fishing experience in terms of aquaculture and the provincial issues. I was just wondering if he wants to come up—

The Chair: Well, if he wants to come forward, he's certainly welcome to do so, but...

Okay, we'll adjourn then. Could members come back in about 15 minutes, just to be absolutely sure that we have no further witnesses this afternoon? Tomorrow is going to be overly busy, and then we're going to have a slack afternoon. But there's lots of reading to do, fellows.

The meeting is adjourned for 15 minutes.

• 1503

• 1523

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, you can explain your reasonings here.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes. I'll give the witness the time to make himself comfortable, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Because I'm a smoker, I go outside and I trust these gentlemen, and I learned more in the smoking area than I learned here. They didn't raise the point, because I believe it was the same in Quebec City, in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

I'll ask my question again to the witness, because I don't feel completely comfortable with the language of Shakespeare. I learned some details on the way Fisheries and Oceans manage the lobster fishery in Nova Scotia, which is quite different from how they do it in Quebec. I'll therefore put my question again to the witness. To be able to settle the issue of the cohabitation of natives and non natives, we now have one tool among some others at our disposal: the licence buyback program.

• 1525

I understood that here, in Nova Scotia, like in Quebec, lobster licences were issued to a fisherman from a particular area. Now, while discussing with the witness outside this room, I understood that the licences which are issued here don't bear any indication as to the area where you can fish. I would like the witness to confirm this.

What underlies my question is that Fisheries and Oceans will have to be very careful when they buy licences under their buyback program. If those licences are primarily used by fishermen of the North Shore of Nova Scotia and if the aboriginal people who use them later want to fish in the South Shore area, we are going to have an operational problem.

I would thus like some clarification on how the lobster licences are issued and on whether they are linked to particular areas or not, because it can have a dramatic impact on how the buyback program will be managed.

[English]

Is it clear enough?

Mr. Eben Elliott: You may have misunderstood me a little bit, but—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: That's why we're coming back here.

Mr. Eben Elliott: I saw a paper somewhere about how they do it in the Gaspé of Quebec. They have the shore blocked off into small sections, and there are so many fishermen fishing each of those areas. When the licence changes hands, it must stay in that small area. There might be only six other fishermen in that area. That's the way it works in the Gaspé.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Eben Elliott: In the rest of Nova Scotia, a licence has to stay within the LFA, the lobster fishing area. If I sold my licence in 26A, it could move 100 miles down the shore, but it couldn't move out of my LFA, for example, out of 26A into 26B, or out of 26A into area 25.

But normally a licence stays in the same port in which it is sold, because there's no friction that way, and that's what's expected. When a new fisherman comes on, he's expected to fish the same area that the fishermen who held that licence before fished. So this is something to consider when you are making up your rules. At least explain to them that they should fish a licence where it was purchased. The rules may hold within an LFA, but explain to the natives that you're going to be a lot better off if you go back to that area. Not only is there a space there for you to fish, but you're not going to land somewhere else and cause a whole lot of fellows to get upset. If it happened now, if a licence changed hands and moved from one port to another port several miles down the shore—which does happen sometimes—it causes friction. So that's the reason: it's out of respect for the other fishermen that people generally fish the same area. Do you understand?

The Chair: Yes. In fact, it came up yesterday somewhat in the discussion in Prince Edward Island. You said the licence is supposed to apply to that port, but not necessarily so, correct? It could move, as long as it moved within the zone. But it certainly would create friction.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes.

The Chair: I'll give you the example we have that was raised yesterday in Prince Edward Island. We have Malpeque Bay, which is the most sensitive lobster-breeding ground in Prince Edward Island by far—and it is a bay. Right next to Malpeque Bay is Lennox Island, which is the Lennox Island aboriginal community. If there are licences bought for Lennox Island in some of the other fishing zones around Prince Edward Island, but nobody sells a lobster boat and licence that fishes in Malpeque Bay, then what you have is a concentration of effort on that most sensitive bay, and that's certainly going to raise some problems.

• 1530

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes.

The Chair: I think that is similar to what you were saying.

Mr. Eben Elliott: Yes, and it brings me to another point. I don't even know if you people are actually considering a buyback program, but I would hope that's the direction in which DFO wants to go, because that's certainly what most of the fishermen want.

You might expect to pay more for a licence adjacent to an aboriginal fishing community, because not only do the fishermen know that those are the licences that are going to be wanted the most, but those are the ones the natives will most want to have and it would be the most beneficial to get those licences for the natives in those communities. If you have to pay another $100,000, it would be worth it.

As far as the rest of the area goes, if you just put out a call for whoever wants to sell a licence...I've heard some pretty high prices quoted. Maybe they have reason to feel their licence is worth that much, and in some areas certainly licences are worth more than others. But you might want to consider a reverse bidding option on buying back licences. You could just put out the word: if you would consider selling your licence and have it purchased and given to the natives, what price would you be willing to sell it for?

The Chair: Okay. Are there any questions?

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: In my opinion, this clarifies the problematic as a whole because, in Gaspé, the territory is really blocked off into small sections. I can give you as an example the conflict we had three years ago with the Mi'kmaq band in Restigouche. There were only six fishermen in that area and we had to buy back some of their licences to be able to solve the problem which arose in the area located opposite the reserve.

When I was outside earlier, I understood that no area was tied to the licence. As far as I can understand now, there is one, but it is a very large area.

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We should pay attention to this. Thus, if everybody understood that... When it is not recorded, it does not show in the record and, back in Ottawa, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember everything that was said. It is for me, anyway.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much again, Mr. Elliott.

We'll move that the meeting be adjourned until tomorrow.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): I have one point.

The Chair: Okay, one point.

Mr. Charlie Power: I presume with all this discussion of lobster that the chairman is taking us and all our support staff out for a lobster dinner tonight.

The Chair: No, the chairman doesn't have a budget for that kind of thing, but I'm sure we would accept the hospitality of a good Newfoundlander.

The meeting is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.