FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 21, 2000

• 0905

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Committee members, our first witness is Michelle James, from the British Columbia Seafood Alliance. This morning the standing committee will be looking mainly at the Oceans Act, as part of our statutory obligations to review that act.

Michelle, the floor is yours. What we'd like you to try to do is hold the presentation down to not too much over an hour in total. You can open with ten minutes' worth of remarks, and then we'll go to questions.

Ms. Michelle James (Executive Director, British Columbia Seafood Alliance): [Technical Difficulty—Editor]...the B.C. Seafood Alliance is a self-funded, non-profit society representing the seafood industry in British Columbia.

I'd like to go through a list of who our members are: the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association; Canadian Sablefish Association; the Deep Sea Trawlers Association; the Fisheries Council of B.C.; the Fishing Vessel Owners Association; the Gulf Tollers Association; the Northern Trollers Association; the Pacific Halibut Management Association; the Pacific Trollers Association; the Pacific Urchin Harvesters Association; the Spawn-On-Kelp Operators Association; and the Underwater Harvesters Association. Our associate members are the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council; the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society; and the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance. Together these organizations represent over 90% of the seafood harvested, farmed or processed in British Columbia.

The fundamental objective of the B.C. Seafood Alliance is to promote an environmentally sustainable and economically viable seafood industry in British Columbia, including both a healthy, safe, and sustainable aquaculture and a commercial fishing industry that can compete in the rapidly growing global market for seafood products.

B.C.'s seafood industry is a vital element in both the economic success of the province and the social fabric of numerous coastal communities. B.C. seafood products are derived from over 80 different species of fin fish, shellfish and plants from both the freshwater and marine environments. The wholesale value of wild and aquaculture production averages about $1 billion annually, with wild and farmed salmon making up about half that total. About 80% of all B.C. seafood production is exported to Asia, the United States, and Europe, making the industry an important generator of foreign exchange. The industry employs more than 17,000 people in full- and part-time positions coast-wide.

Today I would like to talk to you about the seafood alliance's views on marine protected areas, marine conservation areas, and other programs and proposed legislation with the same objectives. Of course, marine protected areas are under the Oceans Act, plus there are other acts being proposed that would bring into play marine conservation areas and...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

In our view, the strategies for developing marine protected areas should explicitly recognize the importance of the objective of promoting and enhancing seafood production through the strategic use of MPAs.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance agrees in principle with the formation of marine protected areas. We are fully prepared to work with both the federal and provincial governments to ensure that the objectives of MPAs are met, while still providing for a strong, environmentally sustainable commercial seafood harvesting and farming industry. You will not find an organization whose membership has collectively spent more time on and under the Pacific coast waters of British Columbia than the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

• 0910

We believe marine protected areas not only can be part of an overall strategy to conserve marine ecosystems, but should also be used as part of a strategy to promote sustainable seafood harvesting and farming opportunities. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been recognized by governments, as the Pacific coast MPA strategy documentation does not recognize the economic importance of the seafood industry in Canada and the potential for MPAs to make a positive contribution to industry.

When DFO came out with some of its strategies in this respect, the one thing that was glaringly missing from the documentation was any mention of the economic value of the seafood business in British Columbia. It was glaring because it spoke quite convincingly about protecting areas and all that, but it didn't recognize the value of seafood.

Our second point is that marine protected areas are not necessarily no-take or no-production zones. The fundamental objectives for marine protected areas as outlined by the government are the objectives for good fisheries management. Given the general application of the MPA strategy vision and objectives, it may be more productive to identify the entire west coast of B.C. as a marine protected area. This would be followed by identifying, classifying and designating zones within a coast-wide marine protected area. This is more in line with the approach used for the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where the MPA covers an enormous area, but there are different designations throughout the range of the MPA that still allow 95% of the area to be accessible to commercial fishing of some form or other.

We would like to see governments ensure that the public understands that MPAs and marine conservation areas are not necessarily going to be no-take or no-production zones. A wide variety of objectives, and thus a wide variety of zoning designations is preferable. Just to give you an example, if biodiversity is an objective for a particular area and that area has a growing sea urchin population that is taking over, it may be prudent to harvest sea urchins from the area. We must develop reasons and scientifically defensible criteria for any and all levels of no-take zones in the marine environment that are over and above the regular management measures taken by DFO.

Our third point is that the seafood industry must be compensated for any exclusion from licensed harvesting or tenured seafood production resulting from no-take zones. When Parks Canada creates a terrestrial park, there is no question that any private owners or crown tenure holders on the land are compensated through either a fee simple purchase of land or through buying out the value associated with tenures such as trapping or timber tenures.

Just because marine resources are considered a common property, as are trees on crown land, that does not mean that those who have licences to harvest or tenures to utilize marine areas do not experience an economic loss and are not entitled to compensation for that loss. Therefore, the seafood industry should be compensated for any exclusion from licensed harvesting or tenured seafood production resulting from no-take zones. A requirement for compensating for losses is not formally addressed anywhere in the legislation or policies for MPAs or MCAs. This would be unthinkable in a terrestrial environment. Why has it not been considered for a marine environment, where the licensed authority to harvest or utilize crown resources is no different from timber harvest rights on crown land?

Our fourth point is that stewardship and sustainable management of the marine environment in Canada should be the responsibility of one agency. There is a great deal of confusion about the various responsibilities of various agencies and their planning processes for the marine environment. There is an enormous amount of overlap and duplication of effort in this area, with a corresponding waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Under the Oceans Act, DFO has announced a number of pilot MPA sites, with public consultation on each one of these areas. DFO has also published information about integrated coastal zone management. Theoretically, the Ocean Act sets the framework for an all-inclusive ecosystem approach to the management of Canada's oceans and ocean resources. We do not see this happening.

• 0915

Parks Canada has proposals and plans for marine protected areas, and I'd just like to refer to the Parks Canada brochure, where it says what an MCA is:

NMCAs are established to represent a marine region and to demonstrate how protection and conservation practices can be harmonized with resource use in marine ecosystems.

I would ask you what DFO does, then. That's exactly the mandate of DFO.

Parks Canada has proposals and plans for marine conservation areas, and they have identified three locations in the central coast as potential ones: a large area surrounding South Moresby Island; a large area off Pacific Rim National Park; and a large area in the southern Gulf Islands. The proposed legislation requires management advisory committees in each MPA to advise the minister on the development and implementation of management plans for that marine area. At the same time, the policy allows fishing to be managed by DFO or, where appropriate, by provincial authorities.

On top of this, we have Environment Canada. Environment Canada is planning to introduce a species-at-risk act that will potentially manage and set aside residences of threatened species or endangered species. This legislation, which is largely thought of and written around terrestrial species, applies to species in the marine environment. Recovery plans could very well include the management measures and zoning similar to MPAs and MCAs. This is being done despite the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority and the expertise to manage marine species at risk. Again we see overlap and duplication of effort.

On top of this, we have the provincial government. The provincial land use coordination office—and I would stress the word “land” here—is running a land use management planning process that has had a marine component tacked onto it. Of particular concern to the seafood alliance is the current central coast land and resource management plan process for an area spanning from Campbell River to the top of Princess Royal Island, and covering about 25% of the marine environment in British Columbia.

The provincial process is heavily flawed and is being hijacked by special interest groups that, for example, refuse to allow the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association a seat at the table to discuss the marine plans for the northern half of the area. The provincial government, after over a year of complaints from both the seafood alliance and the salmon farmers, has not rectified this situation. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans continues to participate in this fundamentally flawed process, saying they are using it to get input on location for potential MPAs.

I would also mention here that the marine component of this MPA process has got to the point where, at a recent meeting, the marine advisory components said they want to see all fish farms removed from the Broughton Archipelago, which is a very large area. We can see where their biases are coming from, because they don't want to see growth, they want to see removal.

The provincial government also has a network of marine parks, marine heritage sites, and marine ecological reserves. Industry and public stakeholders are confused and do not have the time or money to participate in all the consultation processes on all of these initiatives. The federal government needs to put one federal agency in charge of the stewardship and sustainable management of the marine environment in Canada. In our view, that agency should be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Using words like cooperation and coordination is not good enough. Despite these goods words, each agency continues to set its own agenda, process, priorities, and activities in this area.

In summary, British Columbia has the opportunity to be a world leader in sustainable marine resource management and seafood production at the same time. We are concerned, however, about the apparent lack of balance in considering the needs of the seafood business and the policies, legislation, programs, and processes around the many initiatives that plan and manage the marine environment.

Fundamentally, the participants in the seafood business in B.C., from the harvesters and farmers to the processors and marketers, need an environmentally sustainable and stable access to marine resources; assurance that if valuable licensed or tenured resource access is expropriated, compensation will be provided; and a simple and cost-effective method of having a real say in the management of marine resources.

We urge the standing committee to review the existing and proposed legislation and policies on marine protected areas, marine conservations areas, and species at risk with these issues in mind.

Thank you.

• 0920

The Chair: Thank you very much, Michelle, for a very well-documented point of view.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Michelle, I'm especially interested in the latter part of your presentation, point 4, because it highlights what for me is a very real problem with management of ocean resources—namely, this question: Who's in charge? It seems to me there's a huge deal of confusion on the part of the federal government just with these marine conservation areas and marine protected areas.

I find it difficult, in my own mind, to separate the two concepts, and it must be a huge headache for your organization. Who do you deal with?

Ms. Michelle James: It is a huge headache. We have tended to deal with DFO, but on the other hand, we have to deal with anybody who's dealing with this, and it becomes very confusing.

The seafood business in B.C. is uncertain enough with its many issues, and to add onto that potentially three departments coming to protect the resource.... As well, you never know where it's going to come from, or at what time, or in what fashion.

It seems to me that DFO, by legislation, has the authority to do all of the things being covered under the Marine Conservation Areas Act. I think the one exception might be such heritage resources as sunken villages and so on. But the provincial government has legislation in place to deal with that through their marine heritage sites.

It does seem to me that it's a nightmare for industry. We don't know where the whole thing is going. We think it has potential, but small business people just can't afford to deal with this many groups and governments.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be noted here that Michelle has a very extensive background in the fisheries department.

Michelle, you know of what you speak. Just for the benefit of the committee, I wonder whether you could perhaps very briefly outline your resumé. It might be helpful for committee members to understand your depth of understanding of these issues.

The Chair: Go ahead, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle James: Sure.

I have a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's degree in resource management. I worked for 15 years for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, largely in the Pacific region but a little bit in Ottawa. My positions there included chief of economics for the B.C. region and a stint as director of fisheries management in the region. As well, I dealt quite a bit with aboriginal issues. So I have had quite an extensive background at DFO. I also worked for two years for the Fisheries Council of British Columbia. Now I'm a consultant on my own, dealing with the B.C. Seafood Alliance as their executive director.

The Chair: Thank you, Michelle.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I have one other question, Michelle, just for the record. From a constitutional point of view, of course, the Minister of Fisheries does have the authority to manage the resource totally. In fact, in my view, the legislation, allowing for some of these other bodies to operate, seems to impact on the minister's authority or detract from it in a way that may not be entirely legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but is that your sense of the mishmash you're dealing with?

Ms. Michelle James: I think that's always been our sense of it, that there may be a problem there. When governments pass legislation, though, it's amazing what happens. In particular, when you look at something like the marine conservation areas, they say, oh, yes, we're going to allow DFO in here to manage this; fisheries people in a marine conservation area. To me, though, that just sets up an overlapping jurisdiction and potential for a mess.

DFO, when it manages fisheries, quite often has to make decisions very quickly. If they have to go back to Parks Canada to see if they can do something, you don't know how that's going to work.

I think the same thing could be said about the Endangered Species Protection Act. The minister has huge authority to protect endangered species. I'd like to bring your attention to Thompson River coho. This year, according to DFO, $20 million was lost in recreational sport-fishing opportunities on the west coast to save seven coho. That is a huge hammer. And we need endangered species legislation on top of that for marine species? I don't get it. It just adds more taxpayers' dollars and more bureaucrats' time to something that clearly is right now being done by the minister, and in a big way.

• 0925

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Duncan, Michelle, on this trip we are looking at the aboriginal fishing strategy, among other things, including the Oceans Act and aquaculture. We do have an hour, so if you want to broaden into those areas, you can.

You're really talking about three areas here in terms of protection of the resource or the marine area. What happens if you throw aboriginal fishing management plans into the mix as well? Where does that leave us, based on your experience?

For instance, we've been to Washington state; we may possibly go to Alaska; we have the Marshall decision in eastern Canada; and we have the aboriginal fishing strategy out here. I guess it's fair to say we see some difficulties with all these different components. What's your view on it if we bring in different management plans for each band or whatever?

Ms. Michelle James: I'll preface my remarks by saying that the B.C. Seafood Alliance represents a very broad spectrum of the industry, including a lot of aboriginal participants in the commercial fishery. To give you one example, the Spawn-On-Kelp Operators Association is a member of our group, and the vast majority of licence-holders in that fishery are aboriginal people. With regard to the commercial salmon fishery, I'm not sure what the percentage of participation is now, but it has been around 20% to 30%.

So we represent all commercial participants. I'm talking to you from the perspective of not just non-aboriginal commercial participants but also aboriginal commercial participants. The view of the aboriginal commercial participants and non-aboriginal commercial participants is that there is one commercial fishery and that we have to come up with business solutions that respect the investments of the people in the business currently.

Our organization talked about this the other day. You should understand that you have to tread carefully on these issues when you're dealing with a lot of aboriginal people and participants, because they find themselves often in two camps, and it's a very difficult situation. From the perspective of the organizations that have members who are aboriginal and are commercial fishermen—and there are many of them—their support programs include the AFS, under which there's a licence buyout and transfer. That's an economic solution that is a business-based solution. For example, the halibut management group is very pleased that they are buying out quotas and licences and transferring them to aboriginal people.

So it provides economic opportunities in a businesslike way and protects the investments of those who are currently in the business. That's the perspective we come from in the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

The Chair: Michelle, thanks a lot. I don't want to get us going down two tracks here, but I would like to thank you for that information.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was pleased to see you describe in your document your concern about what's going on in the central coast land resource.... I forget what it is.

Ms. Michelle James: Long name, no can say.

Mr. John Duncan: Oh, yes, it's the land resource management plan process. That's a very significant planning process, and you're not the first one to bring it up. I believe Anita Peterson brought it up in Campbell River in reference to the aquaculture people being very distressed about their lack of support from DFO in terms of being a supportive organization in that process. I've heard similar concerns from the forest industry, that DFO is just not being a good citizen in terms of their input into that committee. They're not providing balance or support when required. The fallout from that exercise could be quite serious indeed.

• 0930

I was interested to see that their posture, according to your document, is that we're not here to support the other organizations in their needs but to suck out information in terms of planning strategy for marine protected areas. Is that the perception you have?

Ms. Michelle James: It's difficult to say. We have said directly to DFO that this should not be used as input for MPAs—we said that very directly to them—because the process is so flawed. That they continue to go there, I think, is based on a commitment they made to the province. They had some agreement where they were going to go, and they still go despite it being flawed.

Now, I personally think they could get out of that agreement by saying, look, this process stinks, and we're not going to be part of it. I think they could justify that, chapter and verse, by some of the things that have gone on.

Certainly at the B.C. Seafood Alliance we were encouraged by DFO to participate in that process. So we investigated that process, as the alliance. After investigating that process, we were invited to apply to have a seat at the table. We declined that invitation to apply because we saw the process as being so flawed. We didn't want to participate in a flawed process or, even worse, provide some justification to agree to that outcome.

So the fact that DFO continues to be there...and I don't think it is.... I think it's just watching rather than, as you say, defending or helping out the interests. I just think they shouldn't be there at all.

Mr. John Duncan: If they're going to be there, though, they should be doing more than warming a seat, which is what appears to be the case right now. It gives legitimacy to the exercise—

Ms. Michelle James: That's right.

Mr. John Duncan: —when maybe it doesn't deserve that categorization.

Ms. Michelle James: It shouldn't have it. To give you another example, the Mining Association has also pulled out entirely.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Thank you for that.

I took part in the committee hearings where representation from British Columbia came to the heritage committee, which is Parks Canada, when they were contemplating their legislation—I believe it has now gone through the House—on creating marine protected areas on the west coast and other parts of Canada as well. So I heard a lot of concerns similar to what you've expressed today about these areas from a lot more groups than just yours.

All of those concerns, without exception, were considered trite by the committee chair of the day and the governing party. No changes were made to the legislation, and it's proceeding.

This legislation, under the Oceans Act, is basically carbon copy, in many respects, only it's a different agency, obviously. I share your concerns about the number of people who are now into the marine protection business. It's like a trophy for the department, and it's considered no-cost, or low-cost. Well, it is to government, but it costs everyone else.

So I hope we're able to bring some sense and bring one agency back into this thing, but I'm not convinced. I think I'll leave it at that.

• 0935

There is a reverse onus for DFO in this business as well, and this was a great concern of the witnesses. The onus is now on DFO to close an area from either commercial fishing, or recreational angling, or oil and gas, or mineral, or underwater harvesting, whatever it might be. Once these areas go into marine protection, it's the reverse. The concern of all those user groups is that they'll just say nothing and that means it remains closed. Do you share that concern?

Ms. Michelle James: We certainly share that concern, which is why I said that marine protected areas are not no-take zones. Also, our concern is about bringing a balance back into the equation of the economic use of marine resources in a sustainable way. That balance has to be there. There's always the risk that people won't take that balance once they have the legislation, and you're right, the onus goes in the other direction.

In Australia, for example, it has worked, but that's because they came at it from the point of view that, yes, we have a marine protected area, and we expect a fair amount of commercial utilization to go on in that, but there are special places that we're going to protect. We're not seeing that kind of view coming out of governments, that these are truly special places. For instance, in the marine conservation areas, that reverse onus is on huge bodies of water where a lot of economic activity takes place; for instance, all the way around Queen Charlotte Islands, out 10 kilometres. Well, most fishing in British Columbia happens within 10 kilometres of any shore.

The Chair: Thank you, Michelle.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Michelle. You seem to have quite a CV there that carries you to this table in terms of discussion.

There are a couple of points I want to relate to you. You represent quite a few member organizations. These are all user groups, for the most part, right?

Ms. Michelle James: They're all seafood-producing organizations, investors.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Relating to the Oceans Act side of it, how do you see these particular groups that you represent through the B.C. Seafood Alliance compared to some of the views we might hear from some of the environmental groups, in terms of your suggesting the protected areas and then maybe user spots within them? I don't have any problem with that as an MP, and certainly I see the practical side of where you're coming from, but have you heard overtones of the environmental side of this from environmental groups?

Ms. Michelle James: The approach I've heard environmental groups take is for some pretty massive closures, basically a preservation approach: draw a line around this, and nothing happens in there except for passing over, certainly not utilization of marine reserves. That has tended to be the approach taken, and it's one of the reasons there is a public perception that marine protected areas are equivalent to no-take zones. Despite anything government might do to try to reassure us, because the environmental groups take that approach, people are tending to equate both marine protected areas and marine conservation areas with no-take.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The Oceans Act is a fairly new concept in the world, really, and in Canada. It is under review this year. There's a mandatory three-year review, as I'm sure you know. I don't think we've taken it very far, but certainly we've recognized the importance of the oceans and we've put the act in place.

• 0940

Do you have any strong views as to what we can do to further strengthen that? There are the emissions into the harbours of many major cities—and I'm not going to name any, but certainly on the west coast one comes to my mind, and others on the east coast. Then there's the protection we're talking about: the conservation areas, the marine protected areas. Then there are the oceans generally, and the use of the oceans in terms of fishing and so on. Do you have any general advice to give us, or any specific advice beyond what we've discussed this morning to this point in time, relative to that: where Canada is, where it should be going in taking the lead to make this Oceans Act probably the leading act for the rest of the world to follow, if need be?

Ms. Michelle James: I think the potential is there, but I also think that one of the reasons it's not moving forward is the confusion. So I'm afraid I come back to that, even though you asked me for other advice. But I think the bureaucrats are tending to spend more of their time figuring out how they're going to get along with their fellow bureaucrats in another department than they do getting out in front of the issue.

It seems to me that if you really believe in doing something, you give that authority to one group, let them focus on it, let them be the experts, let them do their thing, and leave it at that. They've started with some small projects. I think that learning by doing is not a bad idea, looking at the hot vents and Race Rocks and small areas—let's test this out.

One of the problems we've seen is that there is such a variety of objectives to be met by any specific area you're dealing with that you have to go in and get good science and good information. Otherwise, you're just doing an opinion survey. If all of the resources that have gone into putting a marine conservation act in place and all the resources that have gone into bringing the marine component of the protected species act in place had gone into good science and into trying to come up with scientifically defensible reasons for doing these things, I think we'd be a lot further ahead with that focus.

What we're finding now is that because we don't have...well, we have as good science as we've got. DFO's science is world renowned, and we don't have a problem with that, but it can be improved. They're the first ones to tell you: we don't know this, and we don't know that, and we don't know the other thing. So going out and doing a lot of public consultation in a flawed environment and spending your resources sitting in rooms at the...[Inaudible—Editor]...where people are just lobbing bullets at each other and giving opinions rather than anything they know about the ocean underneath, saying “Not in my back yard, you're not”, which is basically what you're getting, is not forwarding the overall objectives of the Oceans Act.

The Chair: Last question, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Michelle, you obviously have a lot of knowledge due to your involvement with DFO. You spent 15 years here and you work with them very closely. How do you find the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, at the senior bureaucratic level and the executive level and political level, relate to you and the B.C. Seafood Alliance? Do you have a good rapport? You represent an awful lot of bodies here, and I'd like to get your take on this.

Ms. Michelle James: That's a nasty question.

The Chair: It's a loaded question, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle James: Really.

Right now, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has swung too far away from the balance of economic utilization of marine resources versus conservation. This is not to say that any of our members don't believe in conservation. They do, 100%. However, what we've seen is a move away from creating a reasonable business environment for the seafood industry and from a balance between the utilization of resources and conservation.

• 0945

I'll just give you one example: the salmon fishery. Many times in the past.... I think in 14 out of the last 30 years the Fraser sockeye run was 3.5 million, or at that level, which is the level it was in 1999. In that time period, harvests were up to 3 million out of that lower number. Last year there was no commercial harvest. Yet the resource over the last 40 years has been there, conservation has been protected. And they keep telling us—and DFO does tell us this point blank—we don't want another northern cod. I don't know how many times I've heard that: we don't want another northern cod. I'm tired of hearing that we don't want another northern cod, because what they've done is swing so far to that side of worrying about the science—well, they should worry about the science—and overreacting that the balance is not there between economic utilization and conservation. They're overstretching.

So in terms of relating to the department and the concerns of industry for stable access, environment, and stable rule, and for a respect for the investments that people have made in the business, we would like to see more of that come back into the department.

The Chair: Thank you, Michelle.

Mr. Bernier, and then Mr. Stoffer.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to start by thanking the witness for meeting with us and by apologizing for having missed the start of his presentation.

I took the time to read the entire document that you have given us, and I find your analysis and comments fair and relevant. That is my first comment.

Above all, I think that you have put your finger right on the problem in point 4 of your document, where you indicate the various departments within the federal government that are creating new protection zones. The Oceans Management Strategy placed Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the pyramid of decision-making agencies and gave it the responsibility for coordinating and guiding the strategy. You are calling the government to order with the proper vocabulary and specific examples.

The other important point that I noticed, and that we had not yet heard this morning, is point number 3. You say that if no-take zones are created, it should be considered as expropriation and you would want there to be financial compensation. I think that you have raised a good discussion point.

Based on your experience to date, have zones like that been created? Have there been expropriations that have been detrimental to fishers? Could you give us some examples?

Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Michelle James: The marine protected area strategy is very new, and so far the only marine protected areas that have been announced are the three small ones. So in terms of current no-take zones, they are all in place for fisheries management reasons. We are not concerned about that.

• 0950

For example, there are zones all over where there is no commercial fishing for a specific species, and they overlap, so there are some places where there are total no-take zones, but they're there for fisheries management reasons. You can't fish salmon in Howe Sound commercially. It's just a whole area that's closed. There are many areas of the coast that are closed to specific fisheries, but they were put in for fisheries management reasons; they're not representative area closures for preservation.

So, no, we haven't seen any. There's a very small one around Porteau Cove. There's another one around Whitecliffe Park. But they're so small, and there wasn't any commercial fishing happening there anyway. When you have an area like that where there's no commercial fishing, there's no loss, so there's no compensation due.

What we're saying is that if there is an area that is taken out of people's use now—that is open because it's fine for fisheries management purposes that it be open—and it's closed due to an MPA or marine conservation area, then compensation is due. So we're talking about areas over and above areas that are closed as a regular fisheries management issue, and we don't have any of those yet, really.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you for your presentation this morning.

Are there any sport groups in your organization? I didn't see any listed here.

Ms. Michelle James: No, there are not. We thought about it, but....

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are there any shellfish growers from the aquaculture industry—

Ms. Michelle James: Not on the aquaculture side. We invited them to join our organization, but as I think I said in my introduction, our organization is totally self-funded, and we would probably have a lot more organizations in it if we didn't charge a fee to participate.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

You had indicated something about compensation in the event of a no-take zone. Can you walk us through how you would see that working? How would they compensate a particular individual or company if a no-take zone were created?

Ms. Michelle James: We're getting into theoretical arguments there, and I really don't have an answer to that. I think the principle is there.

Certainly when South Moresby was created, one of the larger items of discussion, which I think is still ongoing, is how MacMillan Bloedel was going to be compensated for the timber tenures it had in South Moresby, when nobody had the money to pay them out. So they're talking about land swaps and all sorts of things.

I don't have any details on the technicalities of how it would work. But it's the principle that's important, so that people don't feel that somebody can just cordon off an area and say, go blow, and too bad.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sure you probably were watching the efforts around the Georges Bank to exclude oil and gas exploration. The moratorium is now to be maintained until 2012. There's been discussion on the west coast of the lifting of the moratorium on oil and gas exploration here.

I'm just wondering what your organization would think of the lifting of the moratorium. If it is lifted, is that a good idea, or is it not a good idea? Could your organization work with those companies in the event that it does happen, or would you like to see a continued moratorium to protect your industry?

Ms. Michelle James: To be honest, that's a discussion we haven't even had in the seafood alliance. We don't have a position on that.

Our position on a number of things tends to be that as long as we're respectful of the business needs of the seafood industry and respectful of other users of the resource, I would look at them as another user of the marine resource. Obviously we're very concerned about negative effects, there's no question about that, but we're not a totally protectionist organization, if I could say it that way. We believe that our business has a place on this earth, and other people's businesses have a place on this earth, and we would like to be respectful of that in a general sense, while making sure there are no negative effects on our business.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Stoffer.

Does anyone have any further questions?

• 0955

One of the things in the land-based area that we have similar to the marine conservation area is probably under Parks Canada. I think I have probably the only national park in the country where there's a lot of actual farming taking place. One of the problems we've run into there with great difficulty with Parks Canada is that there is land leased out, but under the Parks Canada Agency Act, land is supposed to go back to its natural state. So we had great difficulty with Parks Canada until a couple of years ago, when we got it sorted out. But if they went specifically by the act, we'd have problems. There would be no farming where there's been farming for 100 years.

As one of the people who live in the area, I can say the land would go back to bush and poison ivy. I'll tell you, tourists in my area would rather see a nice field of potatoes or hay than bush and poison ivy. That's one of the difficulties with some of these federal acts: if you go by the letter of the law, you have a problem.

We've had some experience in other areas, Michelle, and your points are well taken. We do need one overall authority, there's no question.

You have a last question then, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Michelle, concerning the land-based systems that the government has just referenced, my understanding is that the minister has the authority to deal with these concerns, whether it be issues arising from logging practices or farming, if they impact on the fish or the fisheries resource. In fact he does have the authority and ability to deal with those. Is that your understanding?

Ms. Michelle James: Yes, but I think Mr. Easter's point was more the fact that if they set up a marine park, if you go by the mandate of their act, it's similar to land-based...you're scaring me, basically. Their authority and their objectives are so potentially different from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' objectives in a particular area, you don't know who's going to win out. If it's a marine conservation area, likely Parks Canada will win out, unless you make an arrangement like you were able to do.

The Chair: It relates to your no-take zone kind of approach.

Ms. Michelle James: Yes.

The Chair: In this case, land had been in agriculture for 100 years, but the act itself says that the forest should go back to its natural state—which in that area was bush and poison ivy. It was really difficult, because the senior bureaucracy says here's the act, here's what it says. And John, I'll tell you, you can be into a fight forever and lose that productive ability.

Having it productive doesn't jeopardize it being a park, nor would it jeopardize it being a marine-protected area, if you do it under a good management plan. I think that's what, from your perspective, one has to be concerned about.

Ms. Michelle James: I'm concerned that the two agencies are going to start arguing all the time and not doing the productive science, not doing the things that would happen. That's not to say that there shouldn't be oversight as to what DFO does. Obviously there has to be. But it seems to me you should put one group in charge, and let them put all the right resources to it, rather than spending half their time arguing with Parks Canada about what to do in an MCA.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. James, for a very worthwhile discussion. Thank you once again.

The next witnesses are from the—and I may not have this name right—Ahousaht First Nation: Darrell Campbell, Joe Campbell, and Sidney Sam, Sr., with the fisheries committee. Welcome, gentlemen.

According to our agenda, we have half an hour, gentlemen, if we could have an opening presentation and go to discussion from there. Who's leading off? Darrell?

The floor's yours, Darrell.

• 1000

Mr. Darrell Campbell (Manager, Ahousaht First Nation): Good morning. We three have been delegated by the Ahousaht Nation to talk about the issue of fish farming.

I guess I'd better define some of the words. hawii means chiefs, hahoulthe means territory, and hicukisauak means everything natural is one.

Management of these areas within a territory comes from our advisers to the chief, and they're muscum, the people. All our people played a role in the management within our territory, and they respected the resources that were extracted from the waters.

Prior to contact, there was bloodshed over what lies within our territory. What we want is certainly for our future generations. We've lived with fish farming within our territory for ten years and we've seen the impact, not the scientific impact but the visual impact, which has been impacting resources we extract. We are here to voice that opinion. If we are not dealt with in a respectful manner, we will see to it that we will be, by means that you know.

We've had confrontation with the fish farmers. We've had litigation with the fish farmers. If that's what we have to do to create certainty, then we will do it. We also have an IMEAC agreement within our territory, which also gives us a say as to what is going to happen within our territory.

I want to reflect back to the salmon aquaculture review. If somebody could help me with the quotes, it was stated that “there is little or no impact on human beings”. As a representative for Ahousaht First Nation, I tell you I am a human being and all the people living in Ahousaht are human beings, and the impact is big, due to displacement of food-gathering areas and displacement of the aquatic resources that existed prior to the fish farm being put there.

There are a few questions now. I don't know if some of you are expert enough to answer. I'm not from the scientific world. Define “obstruction of a migratory route for a fish”. Define “destruction of aquatic habitat”. What we see with our own eyes is that it is destructive.

I'm going to reflect back to a statement Minister Streifel made. I don't know the exact date, but basically what he said in that media release was that if a community says no to fish farming, then that's what it will be. Well, I'm going to tell you right now that Ahousaht is a community and we are saying no to fish farming. We've lived well over a decade with them within our territory and we're going to say no until our environmental degradation has stopped.

We have drawn up twelve requirements within our working group. I think the province has received some of it and responded to it.

I feel Ahousaht has sacrificed too much, and I'm going to speak about the neighbouring municipalities. They will not speak for Ahousaht First Nation. Ahousaht First Nation has a territory, and the neighbouring municipalities will not speak for us, and we've made that very clear to them.

That concludes my report. Thank you.

• 1005

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

Who wants to start? Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Ahousaht is fairly isolated. I was just curious to know what the closest fish farm would be to Ahousaht. Which would be the closest location?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: That would be Ross Passage. There's another one about the same distance away, Bawden Point, I believe the Blue Heron Company. That is about three nautical miles away from where we live.

Mr. John Duncan: The biggest cluster would be where?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: In the Cypress Bay-Bedwell Sound area. We have 17 operational within our territory, and I think about 25% of the fish farms lie within Nuu-chah-nulth territory.

Mr. John Duncan: Would that include the south end of Meares Island and the area east of there? Are there fish farms at Mosquito Harbour?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: No. There are at Warn Bay, though.

Mr. John Duncan: If you had to sum up your main objection to the fish farms, what would you say it has to do with? What difficulty do you have with it in terms of offsetting the natural circumstance before the fish farms?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: There are quite a few issues. We just concluded a sound study working with industry and government, and we found that the noise from the auto feeders is quite loud. That's why I posed the question about the obstruction of a migratory route of an aquatic species, such as herring, for example. Right now we're coming into the herring season. We turn our engine on and the herring take off. That's why we concluded that we should do a sound study.

Mr. John Duncan: To your knowledge, are they using night lights?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, they are, in some of them. It's used to mature the fish more quickly so they can be used as brood stock or something. That's what they tell us, anyway.

Mr. John Duncan: Do you have people from Ahousaht working at any of those sites?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, we do. It's gone up, mind you, since we've been opposing fish farming. We're not against the job issue. We're against the environmental issue.

I'm going to make that very clear right now. We have no objection to jobs created within Ahousaht territory. What we're against is the environmental degradation. We've made that very clear to our people. I've been approached by a few, and I've said “Fine, go to work, but keep in mind that the environmental degradation is still going on.” To date, there hasn't been a heck of a lot done in regard to dealing with that issue.

Mr. John Duncan: Do you know how many people you have participating in the commercial fishery? How about in the herring industry, for example?

The Chair: If any of the others want to answer, it is not a problem. The mikes will pick you up from quite a distance. If either Sidney Sam or Mr. Campbell want to add to this, go ahead.

Mr. Sidney Sam, Sr. (Fishery Committee, Ahousaht First Nation): I can try to answer that question.

It's hard to say how many people are commercially involved in it. We have a few gillnetters and we have one with what is known as a J licence, a kelp operation. There should be at least a dozen or more working on those. Other than that, I don't have the figures on herring gill nets.

The Chair: While we're on this line of questioning, Darrell, have you seen improvements over the last ten years? One of the things we're certainly led to believe is that a lot of improvements have been made, especially in the last four years. There were a lot of bad experiences a number of years ago, but improvements have been made. What's your view on that? Can fish farming coexist? That's part of my question. Have there been improvements made, and can fish farming coexist in the environmental way you want it to?

• 1010

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Well, things have definitely improved, and it's only because of Ahousaht pushing it, going out there and saying, clean this up, clean that up. One scenario is where they had left totes of morts out there, but the eerie part is that it was very hot for two or three days, and, you know, natural things will happen, you'll get maggots, but that wasn't happening in this case. So you wonder what kinds of chemicals they're using within these fish, why the natural thing won't happen.

That's why we're opposing it until studies prove to first nations that it is safe, because it's gone well beyond...a decade is too long to have no scientific data for Clayoquot Sound, which Ahousaht owns a majority of, to state that it's safe. I think data from back east differs from the west's when you talk about the environment. That's what I feel, anyway.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Bernier and Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Joe Campbell (Band Manager, Ahousaht First Nation): Can I say something?

The Chair: Oh, yes. Sorry, Joe. Go ahead.

Mr. Joe Campbell: I think what we have to do is manage for the resource and not for the buck. That's the biggest thing. The province and the feds manage for the buck and the industry. That's the wrong thing to do, and I think it's important to realize this. We do some studies, but they're never finished. It leaves it in doubt, and that's what fish farmers, scientific people, and others use. All it says is that it might be, and that's not good enough for us. We want an end to it, a finish to it. We don't have recommendations; we have conditions for them to operate in our territory.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I'm just wondering if you can help the committee out in terms of examples that would further illustrate the points you're making. You're talking about environmental degradation, about depletion of the resource—and I assume you mean the aquatic resource—and about interference with migratory routes. And I did hear what you said about the herring. Those are all headings that have some significant substance. Perhaps, as I said, you could elaborate. What do we mean by “environmental degradation”? From your perspective, can we have some examples of that? What do we mean by “depletion of the resource”? Are these comments you're making based on observation, or do you have some data the committee could have a look at that would support any of the comments you're making on those three areas?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Ahousaht has been—now in its sixth year—releasing coho and chinook when we do our home take for chum, and the numbers haven't been going up. And there is no sport interception toward Hotsprings Cove, which is the way the salmon and the coho migrate. We don't have data, but what we have observed is that Cypress Bay was significant for herring spawn, and since that farm was put there, there's been basically none. We had the farm relocated from Cypress Bay through the court. Then we shut down the gweduc fishery so the herring could migrate in, and last year we did have a spawn—a very small spawn. But that's what I'm saying—incorporate some of the local knowledge into some of your decision-making, because it can make a vast difference.

• 1015

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: How do you suggest we access this knowledge? If we're going to incorporate the local knowledge you're referring to, what form is it in? How do you suggest we access it?

The Chair: Joe, go ahead.

Mr. Joe Campbell: It's pretty simple. Talk to us. Instead of developing strategies for us, develop them with us. Look at recommendation 38. It's saying, they're too dumb to develop a strategy, so we'll develop a strategy for the first nations. It's insulting to first nations to say we can't manage our own area. That's what starts to really bother us, when you start saying we have to, that to include us you'll develop the strategy for us. You have to some day bang your head against the wall and sit down and think about what you're doing.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Can I ask you a specific question?

Let's talk about degradation of the environment. I assume when you're talking about fish farms what you mean is the waste discharges from the net pens. Is that what we're talking about—the discharges of waste, or are there other things that are degrading the environment?

Mr. Joe Campbell: Yes, there's discharge. What if we took a load and dumped it in your yard and said “Do you like the smell of that?” And then there's the medicinal stuff. You don't know what you're getting—the steroids and the medicines. They've cut it down a little bit—they've told us that—and we agree they've cut it down a bit. But is that going to have an effect on our children, on their immune systems?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: What do you say the discharges from the net pens are doing in terms of degradation of the environment? Can you give us some examples?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Okay, you help me give this example. We talk about micro-organisms, and what I'm told is that there is no...the fish farmers call it a dead zone. These micro-organisms drift through this fish pen. Will they survive? They're so small, you can't even see them with your eye. And that's pertinent to the herring. That's what the herring feed on.

It's all linked. Degradation is what it is. You have to see it to believe it. I guess it's—

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: This is the last question.

This is what I'm getting at, sir. You're asking a question: will these micro-organisms survive? Well, that certainly is a legitimate question. But I think the committee would like to know if you have some evidence that they don't. If they don't, we want to hear about that.

If you know they don't survive, if you know for sure, or feel very positively about some negative impact on the environment from these open net cages, that's what we want to hear about, because any one of us could come up with a long list of questions that nobody could answer.

The Chair: I think Sidney wanted in here a while back.

Sidney, go ahead.

Mr. Sidney Sam: Thank you.

I'm an elder on the committee, and I've been around for almost 67 years. I've lived around Cypress Bay, observed the changes from when we had miles and miles of herring spawn at one time, and now we have next to nothing. We've protested against our herring seiners. We got them out of there. We protested against logging. We got them out of there. What else is left?

• 1020

Fish farming is the only thing that is there now, and yet it's a dead zone. You want evidence? We moved that fish farm more than two years ago. We did a dig down below. We sent down a little grab thing and grabbed some samples from down there, and what we got was awful. It's dead. If you know what a dead person smells like after a few months, then that's what it smells like. We moved about 100 metres from there. There's very little life there, but a mile down, there is life there. If you want that kind of evidence, then we should bring it out. We did some bottom fish, and what happens to the bottom fish is that with the dorsals down like this, the scales are coming off the fish as they're coming up. So there's something wrong down there.

I eat seal as part of my diet, and today the seal fat is just that thin. It's no longer that thick. The ones on the fish farm are very sickly.

What do they call those black ducks?

A voice: Scooters?

Mr. Sidney Sam: Scooters, I guess. They used to be plentiful in Cypress Bay at one time, but now they've moved away from the farms. But we notice the taste of the ones that hang around the farm. It doesn't taste right. The taste is no longer there.

So if you want to have some proof, that's why we recommend a study. We want to know if it is by the fish farmers. As long as they have an open pen, we're in trouble. If we have some 20-odd fish farmers in Clayoquot Sound, how big an area have we damaged over 10 years? The beach clams are dead. They've turned black. We don't want to eat that any more. We're afraid something has gone wrong. So we need to correct that. But what is it? Is it really the fish farm, or is it something else? Should we pull out everything else under it?

Yes, there is a way, my friends, that we might be able to correct it. The policy that was announced not too long ago doesn't go far enough. We recommend closed containments and disposal of the waste. That may be an answer, but not totally, because you still have migration. You still have noise factors. So those are the kinds of things we need to have a close look at, and we need funding to do that. We've only done, as I'm telling you, just a little bit, and we need to do it thoroughly. Let's not go halfway about it.

The Chair: Thank you, Sidney.

Next is Mr. Stoffer, followed by Mr. Assadourian and Mr. Cummins. I'd appreciate it if you could be quick, Peter, as we only have about eight minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Thank you for your presentations.

When the farms were first put in your area, were you consulted at all about the fact that they were coming up?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: No, we were not.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So with regard to the leases or the areas the farms were allowed in, you weren't consulted in any way, shape, or form. Did they just show up one day?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: No. There wasn't any consulting until two or three years ago.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But they're already established.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes. After the renewal had to be done, that's the only time they consulted.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I can only assume that you've asked the provincial and federal ministers of fisheries to apply some sort of scientific research to ascertain that what you're saying is actually happening. When you've asked for this money or this research, what answers are you getting from the province and the federal government?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: That's still in a process. It's very slow. As I keep telling you, we go to a working group meeting, and it seems to be one stall tactic after another. That is in a process. We have now prioritized some long-term and short-term things that can be done immediately.

• 1025

A good example is that around the month of May or June my people eat seagull eggs, and a lot of it, and these seagulls feed on these automated feeders. That's one of the degradations we're worried about. Even the migratory ducks become residential, because mussels are so abundant. What are the effects of the medicinal feed falling through the pens? These are the things we're concerned about.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question, sir, is have you had actual dialogue with the owners of the fish farms to ascertain the difficulties you're expressing?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, we have, and I tell you, it's very slow. We have in our 12 requirements no expansion until studies prove different, and, lo and behold, they have expansion in there from 2.3 hectares to 22 hectares. Is that not expansion? They say, no, it's not, because of the anchorage. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out. When you look at what their forecast is, the number of fish increases in years one, two, and three, so therefore in reality it is expansion.

So, yes, we've been consulted, and the only reason they're consulting with us is that we sought litigation.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

My question follows up on the answer you gave to my colleague regarding the contamination and environmental degradation at the bottom of the ocean or the sea. You said in reply to his question that you sent teams down to the bottom of the ocean, and you took a sample of the soil that was contaminated. Am I right?

Mr. Sidney Sam: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Where is the report? Do you have the report with you?

Mr. Sidney Sam: No, we don't. We went out with a group. We have a working group with the feds and industry, and it so happened that it disappeared.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What disappeared, the report?

Mr. Sidney Sam: The evidence we had, the samples we took from the bottom. It was the same thing with the fish. We sent it out to a lab. It's no longer there. So there's something wrong with our system. We're trying to find out what it is.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When the report disappeared from the files of the government, it also disappeared from your own files. Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Sidney Sam: No. The fish was sent to one of the DFO labs.

The Chair: It's the physical evidence that is missing.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The report says this is the case—

Mr. Joe Campbell: Can I answer? When the thing goes to the lab, it disappears, and they don't send the report—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How do you—

Mr. Joe Campbell: That's what our concern is. You have two governments that are backing that whole darned system, and how can you expect a report from someone who destroys evidence?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But, sir, how can you tell me this is the case when you haven't seen the report?

Mr. Joe Campbell: You have to be pretty dumb not to see why it doesn't come back.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Don't take us wrong. We're trying to help you out here, but in order for us to help you, we need to have evidence in our hands. The report is not out, so we can't go to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and say this is the report we were given by the first nations. If I don't have the report, I can't say it's based on this. They're going to say, “Where is the report?” “Well, sir, the report is lost.” That doesn't carry much weight. Am I right or wrong?

The Chair: It's not the report that was lost, Sarkis, it's the evidence.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On what basis does he say this is the case when you don't have the evidence and you don't have the report?

Mr. Joe Campbell: What we're saying is, who can you trust in the whole system? We sent some bottom fish. We went to a private lab because we sent some fish to the biology station and it got lost. That's what we are saying.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When was this test done?

Mr. Joe Campbell: Do you mean of the bottom fish?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

Mr. Joe Campbell: It was done about a year and half or two years ago, and we got the write-up on that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

Mr. Joe Campbell: Because we did it ourselves.

• 1030

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Second, you said you're against fish farming. We were told that we have three kinds of fish farming: net, tank, and the bag in the ocean. Am I right? So which one of them are you the most opposed to: the net farm or the tank farm or the bag?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I guess we'd have to only oppose net, because that's all that resides within our territory, until they prove to us.... As we said to them, prove to us that it's not harming us.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If that's the case, sir, I assume you are in favour of tank fish farming.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: It's like Sid stated earlier—I don't know if you heard Sid or not—until you start dealing with the noise factors and all that is tied in with it, i.e. even for an hydraulic hose to break, because they're turbined by the hydraulics.... There's a bunch of issues we have to look at.

The Chair: Last question.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would you consider installing on your territory a tank fish farming business to help your own community, your own citizens, and your property to benefit from the economic activities of these fisheries so that the people can advance in life, make some money, and do things like everybody else? Would you consider tank fish farming on your own territory, on your own reserve?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I think that's number 12 in our requirements: must bring in closed containment. But what we observed was that they didn't deal with the waste issue. What we're saying is bring in the closed containment but deal with the waste issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Cummins, and then Mr. Sekora for the final question.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the things that concerns me in this fish farming business is the use of these night lights. We did hear some evidence that when night lights were in operation food bills went down 30%. The salmon farms would have you believe that fish grow better when there's light 24 hours a day, but I think maybe common sense tells you they must be feeding on something else.

What I'm wondering is if there are streams in your area where it could be documented that the returns have declined since the fish farms came. I'm wondering if somehow we could attribute that decline somewhat to the night lighting and the eating of the young salmon as they migrated to the sea. Has anything been done on night lights in your area? Or is it possible that something could be done, that a study could be done?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, it is possible. The funding is an issue. You know that—

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: —and I know that. So we have to prioritize. Seeing that herring was rolling around, we felt it was one of the studies we had to get done. There is a report to the effect that there is a sound study that has been done. As for the night lighting issue, we brought it up, to the effect that some of our own people who work within a farm have observed these fish feeding on the fry that migrate through.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. It would be a simple thing to determine, because it would be a matter of, at night, hooking some of these salmon and examining their stomach contents, really. It certainly wouldn't be a difficult job to do and it wouldn't be an expensive one, if the government had the will to do it.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes. I guess another example is that we were over at the Bare Bluff site, one we opposed very strongly. We dropped a buzz bomb beside the pen. Every time a buzz bomb went down, we had smolt chinook.

Mr. John Cummins: Is that right?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: So are there smolt chinook feeding off the excess feed falling through? The workers at that fish farm saw it. Four boats came over to that site right away because they saw two Ahousaht boats there.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: So I'm saying put two and two together.

The Chair: And is this with the night lights on?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: No, this is just during the day. And I know my membership were working for that company, so they witnessed that.

The Chair: A fish may be different in this regard, John, but I do know that in the agricultural sector, if you're feeding hogs, chicken, or even dairy cattle, if you time your lights you can get more production, actually. It's scientifically proven in the agricultural sector. Even though it's artificial daylight, you do get more production. But what we certainly need to look at are the implications of those lights for the wild fishery, I'm not denying that.

• 1035

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions.

You mentioned the fact that you sent some stuff to a private lab. Where is that report? You would have that report from the private lab, would you not?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: That's with our NTC biologist. She has a copy of that report, and it's available from their office.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Can you table that copy with us?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I can get a copy to you, sure.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes, please.

The one thing that disturbs me a lot is how you mention that somehow, between the federal government and the provincial government, evidence has been destroyed. That bothers me a lot because it's not the ministers, and no politicians are handling it; it's staff. Why would staff go ahead on either side, whether it be provincial or federal? They have nothing to gain and nothing to lose in destroying evidence. What type of evidence?

What is it that you're saying? I can't believe that. That's one thing I cannot believe.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Well, prior to my getting on the fisheries, about six years ago, I guess, Sid's son, Rod, worked for the fisheries, along with a co-worker I work with now. They scooped out 18 Atlantic salmon from a creek we call Mikey's Creek. They called the DFO reps in, and they called them sockeye! These fish were right shiny, and 10 minutes later, they said, they turned dark black. They shipped in all of those samples and they disappeared.

Then there have been some commercial rockfish fishermen who shipped in or brought in samples to DFO, and those have never been responded to or had reports given either. A commercial rock fisherman is the one who brought it to my attention when we were patrolling. He said that he wanted to show me something. He said “Do you see tumours? Do you see lesions?” This guy is in and out of there every year as a commercial rock fisherman. He's the one who brought it to our attention.

That's why we stemmed from there and did our research on rockfish. In my personal opinion, that study wasn't long enough. I think it should go consistently for maybe five years or something like that to prove.... What our biologist interpreted to us was that there is a parasite in there that has never existed in B.C. before now. That scares me.

Mr. Lou Sekora: You're talking about the—

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Rockfish research we've done.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The wild fish.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, the wild fish, the rockfish.

The Chair: Rockfish...?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Lou Sekora: They had a disease.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Well, I'm not saying it's a disease. There is a parasite that now exists within the Ahousaht territory and isn't known to B.C.

The Chair: Thank you.

Last question, please. Be very quick, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On that, would it be possible for you to document the time and everything on that? You've made some pretty serious accusations to Mr. Sekora, and I'm wondering if you could give us more written information so that we can follow up on where those samples went, to see what they can send us as well...if it's possible.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Okay. I talked to our biologist this morning. I'll have her dig out that report.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You can give it to the committee person.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Okay. If they can just give me their fax number or whatever, I'll get her to fax it over to them.

Mr. John Duncan: Who is your biologist?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Josie Osborne.

Mr. John Duncan: Is she appearing today?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes.

The Chair: No, there has been a change. Josie Osborne will not be appearing. We changed it this morning, John. It's on the list, but—

A voice: The women who are outside the door can get that for you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate that.

Mr. John Cummins: I just wonder, in regard to the documents mentioned this morning, the evidence that has gone missing, if somehow committee staff could work with these gentlemen to see if they could locate that stuff and find out what happened.

The Chair: I think that would be appropriate. We'll look into it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Sam. Is there anything else you people want to add before we close?

Joe.

Mr. Joe Campbell: I think the biggest thing is working together in the monitoring part of it. As you've probably noticed, the guy who comes to monitor only gets to some of these sites once a year, if he's lucky, so some of these people have the run of the whole show. Nobody checks on them. It's important to have somebody monitoring the whole system, because it's pretty well a free show if you don't do it.

• 1040

We have some videotapes of some of the sites that have been cleaned up now. We took them before and after. We have pictures of what Darrell described, the fish that weren't rotting. Even laid out in the hot sun they didn't decompose quickly. Then you see all the eagles flying around, and the other birds. They closed it up pretty quickly when we went there.

So we hope to make a video of all this stuff and maybe even of the fisheries, how they manage for the industry instead of for the resource.

For example, in the herring fishery, it's “Oh, there's still lots of herring here”, but then for the fish farms, “Oh, there's no herring here”. We intentionally asked their names on this video just to see who they were.

Mr. John Duncan: Just to follow up, when you talk about people coming once a year to monitor, are these people you're talking about from DFO?

Mr. Joe Campbell: The province.

Mr. John Duncan: Does anyone from DFO come on any type of basis you're aware of?

Mr. Joe Campbell: Not to our knowledge.

The Chair: If you want add something, Sidney, go ahead.

Mr. Sidney Sam: Maybe just half a minute.

In terms of the loss of our resources, all the things we do eat, is there any way we could be compensated for our losses? Because it's our right. I believe DFO has to protect all that, and it's all lost. It's our right to have it. We have fishing rights, and it's no longer there.

The Chair: I expect that discussion has already taken place, but we'll look into what discussions were held. That avenue, I assume, has probably been gone down, has it not?

Mr. Joe Campbell: With regard to what Sid was saying, the previous speaker was talking about compensation, and if you set it up for one you have to set it up for all. That's going to be a big one, and we're the big losers in this because of the resources we still eat. So that really has to be thought about.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The next witness on your schedule, Josie Osborne, a member of the Ahousaht First Nation, is not here. The next witness for 11:30 a.m. has been moved up to this timeframe. They are here, but Bill has gone to find them. They must have gone for a smoke.

If you want to take a five-minute coffee break, go ahead.

• 1045

• 1057

The Chair: We're resuming after our brief pause.

Our next witnesses, Pat Alfred and Victor Isaac, are from the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for coming.

Mr. Pat Alfred (President, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You all have a copy of our submission, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Alfred: You've all gone through it?

The Chair: It's the one with the map on the front, members.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Before I start, I just want all you guys to know that I've been following the aquaculture process since the time they started the environmental assessment. I have sat on those committees and I have followed it, even though I argued all the way through that it wasn't acceptable to the Kwakiutl people, especially to the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk people.

I want it understood that just because I attended, it did not mean I was being consulted and being told the beauty of the thing. Campbell River twice.... In fact, at the last one I was at, I was awfully disappointed in the new commissioner for aquaculture, when he made a statement that by the year 2020 fish farming and wild fishing would be integrated into one fishery. In other words, the wild fishery would die completely and be taken over.

Now, I'm not sure, the man is just brand new at his job and he makes a statement like that? Dhaliwal, on his first day on the job, said the fish farming moratorium should be lifted.

So I want you to know that I followed all of those meetings. In fact I've had numerous meetings with fish farmers—the president of B.C. Packers, Heritage Sea Farm, another guy from Beaver Cove, and I met with a guy from Alpha—to try to find a way to stop them from continuing the damage they are causing our territory.

Having said that, I may be able to explain more after I read the statement.

To the standing committee, this is the position of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission on salmon farmers within the Kwakiutl fishery territory. Thank you for this opportunity to address your committee regarding the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission.

In relation to fish farms within our traditional territory, KTFC represents the fishing interests of eight fishing coastal first nation communities. The KTFC has the mandate to work with our member communities in respect of the management of fishery resources and to ensure that our members' voices are heard. KTFC is an organization devoted to the advancement of the KTFC members' interests in fisheries and marine resources.

Members of the KTFC have a strong and vibrant tradition of harvesting the wealth of the fishery and marine resources through our territory. The fishery resources have maintained and sustained our communities and culture. Since contact, we have witnessed the devastating effects of the large-scale commercial harvesting of fishery resources and mismanagement of our fisheries by both the federal and provincial governments.

Despite the constitutional protection of our aboriginal rights pursuant to subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, the government continues to unjustifiably infringe on our aboriginal rights. The decision by government to authorize more than 30 fish farms in our territory without consultation or our consent and the negative effect of fish farms on the exercise of our aboriginal rights are prime examples of the government's continued infringement on our aboriginal rights.

You will find enclosed a copy of a map that indicates the location of 37 fish farms within our traditional territory. Most of what—

• 1100

The Chair: Pat, I don't want you to lose your train of thought, but maybe you could skip over some areas. We want to keep as much time as we can for questions. I don't want you to lose your relevant points, so you can make a judgment call.

Mr. Pat Alfred: The important part of this document would be.... I'd rather have questions if you've all read it, but I can explain each one of the concerns that we have in regards to operations. I'm sure no one around this table would understand the term “pit lamping” if it was just used as pit lamping. In the document, you'll see that it doesn't explain the problem of pit lamping.

I've fished herring all my life. I was there when we almost completely destroyed the herring industry, because the pit lamping sucks everything into the lights. That's the most important part of my statement. They have denied that there is any feed inside the fish farms for the Atlantic salmon. In the meeting in Port Hardy, I questioned Dr. Rosenthal—I think he was some renowned scientist from Germany—about what they used pit lamping for, or pit lighting. He said it was saving up to 40% of the feed. But from the very signal of a little finger, he changed his mind after looking at someone across in the corner. He said, no, they call it post-period manipulation—I think that's the expression I heard—because it helps them to grow.

I know, and any other fisherman in this room would know, that pit lamping just sucks everything in. That's the effect it has had on the eulachon runs, which haven't been very good for the last ten years since this pit lamping thing has been going on—and neither have the chums and the pinks in the Knight Inlet and Wakeman Sound. Viner Sound and Knight Inlet have come back, and we have not fished commercially in any way in area 12 in the Mainland Inlet. We believe it's because of fish farming. That's the important part.

On the scientific part, I would have to find a technical person to explain that to you. I'm a first nations person who has lived in that territory all my life, and I know what good clam beaches are and what bad clam beaches are. I never saw a bad one until fish farming came about. In fact, if there are any members of the provincial government listening, they would understand the question that I asked of a provincial guardian.

Suppose there was a fish farm, and less than a hundred yards inside of it was a clam beach. Suppose there was an environmental issue, there was a disease factor, there was infection, or there was some kind of germ present here. I asked what they would do. He said they would shut down the clam beach. I said that common sense, to me, would say to move the fish farm so the beach can come back to the way it was. Look at the direct infringement on aboriginal rights. It cannot be justified by shutting down that beach.

My people no longer have access to the salmon like they used to, and this is part of the importance of the fact that there is no recovery of salmon that escape. In fact, I phoned Stolt Sea Farm Group—I think that's who it was—when salmon escaped in Mainland Inlet. I asked why they didn't phone a fisherman. Well, luckily, before I called them, I phoned some of the skippers. They said they had never got a call from any fish farm about recovery. I then went and questioned them, and they said “What was the point? They were already gone.” Meanwhile, they're spawning up in Tsitika and some of these other little areas. They're now mixing.

These are the only things I can talk about. If there's anything scientific except for the story about the...if you understand accumulative and distance effects of antibiotics use on the fisheries. A scientific study was done by some lady, who mentioned in Campbell River the effects of the antibiotics used in the fish farms in Florida. As for the effects that came out of it, they were practising with crocodiles. In the next generation of crocodiles, they noticed there was a 30% shrinkage of the penis. Now, as a man and as a human being, I find that to be unacceptable. I live in an area in which there are 37 fish farms located in front of all the villages that we have on the archipelago. That's the territory I'm talking about.

• 1105

The message I have from all of the chiefs is that there is absolutely zero tolerance until some of these provisions are met. Closed containment is one of the more important ones. One of the reasons they can't put in closed containment is that it costs so much. I just wonder what the price is for human lives. It doesn't make sense to me.

I understand there are some tribes that are agreeing with fish farming. Well, I'd say to you that the chiefs of those tribes are not going to their people to ask them if they should get into fish farming. It's a carrot before their noses, because I can tell you from personal experience that I've been offered a job to work on a fish farm with my own boat, with my own crew, and I could be the eyes and ears for my people.

At a meeting like this, I mentioned that there's a price on everybody's head and that anybody can be bought. Money talks and bullshit walks. The day after that, even as the president of this organization, I was approached and asked if I wanted this job. I had to go to my family and to my community to see. They said not to betray them, and here I am today, still without a job from fish farming. There are parts of me that say to take it, and parts of me that say not to.

There are no more jobs, but I understand that some of the government people are saying the only job we're going to have in the next ten years will be in fish farming. That's bullshit—pardon my language—because in any given fish farm in this country, in this territory of mine, there are only two people who work, two at the very most.

As for the statistics that they show you in this document they give you, “Economic Potential of British Columbia Aquaculture”, these are super stories. These are truck drivers. These are the fancy restaurants in New York. Those are the people who are employed, not my people in my community. We're already devastated enough by this stupid thing that's happening with sockeye. We can't even get sockeye any more. What else is going to happen, except for this new approach to genocide that is happening to my people? Never before has anything affected my people as badly as fish farming, at least not since what happened with smallpox in the early part of the century. That's how terrible this is.

I've followed this fish farming thing since day one, trying to reason.... The other important thing for you to know is that the government of B.C. was giving out leases years ago, and they were called section 10s. These had a life of 18 months apiece, and every fish farmer in this country was applying for those leases. They did not ask the first nations who were within their traditional territory, because they didn't have to. It wasn't until the Delgamuukw decision came down that you had to consult with first nations before doing anything in their territory. If the Delgamuukw decision had not come down the way it did, the fish farm moratorium would have been lifted.

Now they're consulting with us, but as you'll notice on the paper, we have no funding for a referral system. We've asked for it. We're looking for the recommendations, which are probably the most important part of this paper. We need the money to do our own study on the effects of fish farming, on the economics, on diseases. We've never been allowed to approach a fish farm with our own guardians. We have a guardian program with the KTFC. We've asked them if we can come aboard to look at their farms.

They're still towing net pens. Another haywire part of this whole thing is that some of the people who own fish farms don't really care. In Port Hardy, Alpha Processing still tows the same net pen in the same line, from Francis Point to the inside, to the processing plant. It keeps getting ripped in the same place at the same rock. What is wrong with these people?

• 1110

I've approached them to ask if they would allow us to have a guardian on board so that we could observe and watch that they don't do it wrong, but they've refused this. And Francis Point, by the way, is less than 200 yards from us. It's one of the last major spawning beds in the Kwakiutl territory. That's in the mouth of Port Hardy, at the point by the Masterman Islands, around the Fort Rupert area. I know because I fished spawn on kelp two years ago.

So these are some of our things, then. Maybe you should ask questions now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alfred. You have a number of recommendations at the end of your submission, so we'll go to questions. Thank you for the very detailed position. I've read most it as we've been going along here, and I'm sure members will read it at their convenience.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks very much.

Part of the brief talks about environmental assessments that you've been doing with smolts and the province since 1995. Are those ongoing?

Mr. Pat Alfred: Part of the problem is that we don't have enough funding from the DFO to employ our people year-round. It's only a seasonal job. Right now, we have our guardians working part-time, going around looking at farms and just photographing any damage they may see, such as witnessing dumping of garbage, shooting guns, or whatever. Hopefully, however, if the province and the feds were to come out with some funding, we could do a good job of helping fish farms operate properly.

Mr. John Duncan: The document talks about remedial measures needed at Mound Island, Port Elizabeth, and five other sites. Do you happen to know if those sites were actually cleaned up?

Mr. Victor Isaac (Vice-President, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission): There have been some dives there to go down and to clean up the one at Port Elizabeth, I know that. The other ones I'm not sure of. I don't know if they've cleaned those up yet, but we have video footage of what's down there. They were going to that one, and we know they did that one. As for the other ones, we can't say they've done them, because they've never reported back to us. They never got back to us on what they had done. We know they were sending a dive team in there. What they actually did we don't know yet. We asked for that report but never got it.

Mr. John Duncan: What you're saying is that it would be really useful to know what has been cleaned up and what hasn't.

I was at Swanson Island—I'm sure you know where that is—which had been abandoned by someone earlier. I believe that's a smolt site. When they went back in, they had to clean the whole thing up, and I understand they did a very good job of doing it. It can be done, and it is done in places, but what we need is a better reporting mechanism to know what's done and what isn't.

In your recommendations, Pat, you talked about not towing net pens. It's not in the recommendations here. That's one you would add, I presume, eh?

Mr. Pat Alfred: Which one?

Mr. John Duncan: I don't believe the fact that you don't agree with towing net pens—to the processing plant, in this case—is mentioned in the recommendations, but that's one that you would add.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Yes, I have it in recommendation 8:

Utilization of KTFC guardians on-site during harvesting, smolt transporting, and off-loading to ensure adequate monitoring in the event of escape or loss of product.

Mr. John Duncan: Oh, I see.

Mr. Pat Alfred: I just put a little note on here for towing, that we should have the guardian program working on this.

Mr. John Duncan: We've heard other people talk about the use of lights and acoustic deterrence devices, so that's a pretty consistent request. And then there's a recommendation in which you're talking about being two kilometres from any existing shellfish stocks. That's number 6. How many of the existing fish farms would that impact? Do you have any idea? Is it half?

• 1115

Mr. Pat Alfred: If you look at the map, you'll notice that it's actually a park. The funny thing about it is that all the fish farms are just outside those parks. Is that kind of a coincidence or a plan? I'm not sure.

Mr. John Duncan: Is that the map on the final page of the document?

Mr. Pat Alfred: Yes. You see where all those sites are. Those are at the archipelago.

The Chair: I know one thing we have to start to do is take a big map with us for those people who are not from the area.

Victor.

Mr. Victor Isaac: If you recall the Musgamagw presentation the other day in Campbell River, you'll note that in there it's recorded that only three sites be within the legal limitations beach-wise, for the two kilometres and all that, and all the other issues that are on the table, such as prawns or anything within those areas or close to a beach where there's a cultural component or there are wind factors. Only three would be allowed within that territory. So out of the 37, if you look in the Musgamagw recommendations, three would fit.

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Duncan: That does it for now.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier. Are you going to go in English or French, Yvan?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I am better in French.

The Chair: Fine. In French.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I thank the witnesses for coming. I took the time to read your document before your presentation and I would like to ask you two questions, one dealing with recommendation 9 and the other with recommendation 12. You mention pit lamping in the latter. I know that you talked about it in your presentation, but I would like you to repeat the definition that you have given it, because I did not have time to write it down.

With respect to your recommendation 9 on royalties that could be paid by salmon farms to the First Nations government for using their traditional waters, I have two questions. First of all, what would that look like? Are there already royalties that must be paid to the province or the federal government? I don't know. If you know, could you explain it to me?

Secondly, perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me in reading your document that you are not in favour of salmon farms in your territory. Perhaps that is the case with open cages, but it seems to me... At any rate, there seems to be a contradiction between imposing charges on something that you are not prepared to accept in your area and... Perhaps I misunderstood. That's why I'm giving you another opportunity to explain what you meant.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Pat Alfred: That thing was ringing in my head, so I had to take it off. You should have had another earphone for Kwakiutl so I could speak to you in Kwakiutl. It would have really helped me explain to you the position of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission.

In the map in the back, that is all of the territory of the Kwakiutl people. Traditionally, each one of those places...because I also sit on the land resource management planning that's going on with LUCO. The front page shows the territory of the Kwakiutl people. This is the comprehensive claim of the Kwakiutl people, all those lands from 200 miles off Cape Scott all the way into Kingcome Inlet and Kwakiutl.

When you talk about royalty, we're saying that in partnership there could be a royalty paid to my people for any damages that are done. It would be like an insurance so that we could look after our own land.

• 1120

Pit-lamping, I'm sure, is one of the hardest things to explain. During my time fishing herring, I saw the effect of pit-lamping herring. Everything from jellyfish to clams to flounder, ratfish, cod, any kind of thing under the ocean, comes to the light. The fish can't escape; they can't move until you snap off the lights. Those things come into a big school and they just bunch up and they almost squash each other. It's like shooting a deer with a pit lamp. They're hypnotized by this.

If you understand selective fishery, you might understand a little bit more about what this means. You're not just taking away the selective fishery of the Atlantic salmon, but you're also sucking in all those smolts and fry. We're losing the fry that are leaving the rivers to go out to the ocean. Nobody has done a study on that and nobody has done any studies on what effects those fish farms have. It comes from pit-lamping.

I have fished spawn on kelp. That would be another story. We have a net pen full of herring, maybe 100 tonnes to a pen, where we wait for them to spawn on kelp. We have 100 sea lions coming around us, and there's no known way you can keep sea lions away from those pens. Bullets, sea lion bombs, noisemakers, they don't work.

What we did in fact at that time was allow the sea lions to go into the net pen, and not one of the kelps were damaged during those times. So with fish farmers, I'm not sure what their problem is. One grown sea lion would eat maybe 40 pounds of herring in a day, hardly enough to make a dent in the 100 tonnes you have in the nets.

So the pit-lamping takes away the explanation of some fancy scientist from Germany saying it helps them grow. That could be done away with.

I also don't want to sit here and sound like there is a way. Until the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk people and the Kwakiutl people who live within these territories tell me they want to go and negotiate, I cannot agree with any of this problem that's happening. I can't say maybe we can negotiate this, maybe we can negotiate that. I don't have that mandate. My only mandate is to tell you there is an absolute zero tolerance based on traditional culture, the culture we have, and based on our role as hereditary chiefs of our territories. We're there to protect our people and their rights.

These people invaded the territory. They didn't come to the chief and say “I want to make a fish farm here.” Maybe it would be different if they had come to the chief and said “I want to do something here. Do you want to come in as partners with me?” But that didn't happen.

You yourselves all know what it is to be educated and to be taught to go in and make as much money as you can as quickly as you can and get out of there, but remember this: my people are there forever. They're not going to move. By destroying all of our food products, you're destroying our people. My people cannot go out there to catch their wild fish to eat. There's no more cod out there. They're all sick.

The royalty could be used to fund the replenishing of the stocks of the territory. I am not the Indian government; I'm only one of many. There would have to be a bigger discussion on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alfred.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I have a couple of problems with some of the presentations you made, maybe because I wasn't listening closely. But you're talking about destroying the food products, and you also mentioned you'd like to work with the farmers. You said you don't care, you don't want farmed fish, but you would like to work with the people who are producing farmed fish—to work with them to be a better type of producer, and maybe cleaner and a few other things. What do you mean by that? How would you go about producing it much better?

• 1125

Mr. Pat Alfred: At this moment, I gather from this hearing and all of the meetings I've been to that we don't really have a choice about whether there's going to be a fish farm or not. The only other alternative we have would be to say we may consider it if you meet the conditions here—closed containment, using our guardians.

I'm not saying we don't want to work with them. I have not said that and we don't say that. The recommendation from this committee may be, “I don't believe those guys. Let's deal with the fish farms. Let them operate, because the government says it's good.” I'm saying if we can't beat you, at least we want to be able to work with you at the end of the day. It's like the old card game where you pick up a card and you can tell me what's on top.

Mr. Lou Sekora: You also mentioned that you should be subsidized. With the previous group that was here, their last parting words were, “We should be subsidized for what happened to our food in the ocean.” There seems to be a twisting story in what you're saying. You're saying somehow these farmed fish are destroying the habitat in the ocean, therefore, please, government, give us the money because we're losing our fish. The fact is you can get 50% of the stuff that's in the ocean, but you can't get the 50% that's in the pens. Is that the problem?

Mr. Pat Alfred: I'm not into this treaty bullshit either.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm not mentioning any treaty.

Mr. Pat Alfred: That's what you're just talking about. We could be asking for the interim agreements. I could be using the word “fiduciary” and saying to you that the Government of Canada owes the first nations people for the destruction of their way of life—it's genocide. They're asking for funding to pay for some of the damages—it's happening across the country—and they're winning in every place. But we haven't mentioned that. We're saying if you destroy the salmon, you pay to bring those salmon back. That's what I'm talking about. I'm here with a message from my people.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The parting words of the previous group here were: send us money. You've mentioned it a couple of times, so this is why I'm asking you very clearly. If you know how to raise farmed fish, why aren't you in it?

Mr. Pat Alfred: There are two answers to that. First, aquaculture doesn't just deal with finfish; it also deals with shellfish. I'll ask you the same question my people ask me: why the hell would we want to grow clams when we have thousands of acres of clams in our territory? There's something wrong here. There's something crooked here. The corporations are moving into our territory. They want to buy up all of the land and start paying you 10¢ an hour to dig clams for them. That's eventually what's going to happen. It's the same thing with fish farming. Why would we want to farm fish?

Last week, Mr. Pat Chamut said “Don't let these people bullshit you guys about suicides happening on the Indian reserves”. That was kind of a bad statement from him. When I lost my boat to B.C. Packers, the year the buyback came into place, my grandson was two seconds away from dying because he hung himself. He lost the only thing he had ever dreamed of in his life. He dropped out of school at 14 because I taught him how to do all the stuff on the boat. Then I got a letter from B.C. Packers saying “We won't be needing your services any more; we're taking your licence and we're going to sell it.”

That is what's happening. We may be forced.... Maybe at the end of the day we're not going to have a choice because somebody may say “To heck with these people. How can a few lousy Indians stop progress? The heck with them.”

• 1130

Mr. Lou Sekora: I want to make it very clear I'm not saying you should or you shouldn't. I want to be able to weigh the evidence I'm hearing today, in a couple of cases. You've mentioned that you'd like to help the farmers raise the fish in a more environmentally friendly way—whatever it is. I think maybe that's sealed. But again, you're looking for the federal government somehow or the provincial government to give you some money to go into it. Those are the things I have mixed feelings about. I'm not saying how your people are being treated fairly or unfairly. I'm not here to judge that. I'm here to think about the fishing.

Everywhere, what seems to be mentioned is money, money, money. That's the only message I'm getting.

The Chair: I think the previous witnesses, though, Lou, in fairness to them, said we should be managing for the resource and not the dollar. That was one of the points they made.

Mr. Alfred.

Mr. Pat Alfred: I can say this to you in my way. My name is Namoogis. I am one of the chiefs of the Nimpkish First Nation. In that role, I would never betray my people. I couldn't. They would shoot me if I did that. But if I become an honorarium chief—elected chief—you're a chief for two years and then you're out. Anybody can change the way.... But in a hereditary system it can never happen that way.

I think maybe the statement I made should have been broken into two parts. I should have come in and said “This is zero tolerance. We won't go any further than that. We don't want any fish farms in our territory. Are there any questions, sir?” And you couldn't have asked me that question. But we had to put some rationale behind it in case we lost the argument. You know better than that. There's always a plan B if you lose.

The Chair: Mr. Alfred, we understand where you're coming from and we appreciate your openness to look at all avenues. There's no question about that. I think all members appreciate that.

Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's amazing that no matter where you go, Pat Chamut's name keeps popping up all the time. I'll just leave it at that.

The British Columbia government has just announced the lifting of the moratorium. Obviously this is in concert with Mr. Dhaliwal, because one of the first statements he made put more emphasis on aquaculture—finfish farming, in terms of the west coast.

Were you consulted at all in terms of what Mr. Streifel was doing on the lifting of the moratorium? Were you able to present these concerns directly to him prior to his announcement, or to Mr. Dhaliwal?

Mr. Pat Alfred: I spoke to Mr. Streifel numerous times. I asked him, “Could you repeat that, please?” He said “If you don't want fish farms in the archipelago and anywhere in your territory, it will not happen.”

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've heard that.

Mr. Pat Alfred: The only thing I remember, if you recall there was a man called John Cashore somewhere in the past. When he was a minister we asked him, “Why did you do that?” He said “We cannot stop the existing licences. There are 40 or 50 licences out there that are on hold. They can't be used until the moratorium is lifted because they would sue us. We'd have to give them money if we took something away from them.” They're the ones that asked that question. They said “We're going to sue you for moneys if you close our leases.”

Dhaliwal is brand new. I've met with him, and he's promised to come to my territory and have a look at the devastation of the gear buyback and the fish farms. We promised him we would take him out in a traditional way to our boats, our country. I said “I'm sure you are a bit naive about the situation of aquaculture.” We did not really have a conversation, but I said “Mr. Dhaliwal, I think you should ask before you speak, because what comes out you can't take back.” That's from the teachings of the big house. What comes out doesn't go back in. I had to tell him that, and that was it.

• 1135

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But Mr. Streifel said that if you don't want it you don't have to have it. Did he also mention anything in terms of expansion of the current farm? We heard a previous witness say, I think it was three or eight hectares or acres moving up to twenty-two, and that's just an expansion, it's not.... I guess we could play with the semantics of those numbers, but was that included as well, so that instead of three or four newer farms, you just had one that got bigger and bigger and bigger? Was that taken into consideration as well?

Mr. Pat Alfred: We already told him, “No, you're not going to do this, because your net pen was 100 by 100; it should not be 200 by 200. You actually are expanding. You're lifting the moratorium ahead of time.” So we did object to it. We objected to it strongly.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question, sir, is have you had a chance to meet or consult with Mr. Yves Bastien, who's the commissioner for aquaculture development for Canada?

Mr. Pat Alfred: Yes, we met and we debated in Victoria. We only met briefly and we were supposed to have another meeting with his assistant, but he was very strong. It was obvious that no study was going to change his mind that fish farming is the way of the new century. In fact it was brought to the floor of the assembly. There were maybe about 90 of us in the room when he put a motion to the floor: Do you agree that fish farming will be the new way of life in the next century? And that was 2000 on. And there were only two of us who voted against, myself and another fisherman from Victoria, because it was paid for by the aquaculture companies of this country and from Europe. So really we had no choice. How the vote goes all depends on where you're at.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alfred.

Just before we go to John, because I understand it's a little different question dealing with the buyback, maybe you can answer this, Pat, and maybe you can't. On the pit lamping, have there been any studies done—I guess it would be better to ask a fish farmer—in closed containment versus caged containment on feed conversion? I think the industry is saying they get 40% better growth with lights, or 30%, whatever the number was. I'd have to go back to the record. But the way to be sure they're not getting extra feed swimming into the open cage would be if it was tested and researched in closed containment. Then you'd know for sure whether it was really better feed conversion or more food coming from elsewhere. Do you know of anything in that area?

Mr. Pat Alfred: We did meet with a company from Sweden years ago when IBEC first came to our country, and they said not to worry. We were going to object to his opening his fish farm in Beaver Cove, and a person from Sweden came over and showed us a closed containment they had, I think it was in Sweden, somewhere in Europe. And in fact in the new study they're doing now in Nanaimo—they have one at the biological station, they're doing a study now—it's a closed containment up there. But the feces is another problem. It still drops down in one big lump in the bottom of the ocean rather than spreading out in the tide.

Now we're not worried about the feed, we're worried about the effect it has on the fry escaping in and out, that's what we're scared of.

The Chair: I understand that.

Mr. Pat Alfred: But fish farmers do agree, and the government does agree, that the closed containment is the only way to go, but it's just a matter of fact that they can't afford it. And I thought it was a billion-dollar project, so how can they not...?

My thing with the Department of Fisheries is that if the Department of Fisheries don't shut it down, then they should be sued in class action suits for lack of fiduciary duties to their own people for the salmon. I thought this Dhaliwal was supposed to announce that wild salmon are a priority, that he's going to save the wild salmon. Why would he say that fish farming is the only way to go? He didn't make sense to me. To me it's common sense.

The Chair: I want you think about this in the meantime, if you would, Mr. Alfred, and we'll go to John's question. I would like to ask you, if it's fair, what your own view is on the aboriginal fishing strategy of the federal government, but could you hold that in abeyance and we'll go to John's question first.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks.

About a month ago I met with a group in Port Hardy, and, Victor, you were one of the people there. There was representation from someone in the meeting about the fact that there's a long-standing grievance over the fact that there was a gear buyback associated with the buyback program, but it did not apply to people in the same fleet, and there were certain skippers who, as a condition of employment, had nets. That was a requirement.

• 1140

Those nets have become a burden. In many cases there are monthly loft charges applied. Please, could either one of you comment on that. We did make a recommendation in 1998 from this committee to the minister that this would not be a huge program but that in fairness it should be implemented. I'd like this committee to revisit that with the minister.

Maybe you have some comments on that.

Mr. Pat Alfred: I'll try to start with it, but Victor can close it off, because I'm one of the victims of the gear buyback. I had a $25,000 seine net. It's still sitting at B.C. Packers in Alert Bay in the Nimpkish net loft. I also have a locker full of gear. There's about $15,000 worth of gear in there. Because of the cost of paying for the lockers, I eventually just gave it to my son-in-law and said “Here, you can have it. Here's the key.” I let him pay the bill because he's still out fishing.

So lots of promises came out, and also a stupid problem is the early retirement plan. The province and the feds will not sit down at the same table and talk about this. We have been told the province agrees, we've been told the feds agree, but they never agree together in the same room like this. Thank God we're able to sit down like this and talk.

I've never been able to ask Minister Streifel...in fact I did ask him at the last meeting I had with him. He's the hardest guy to get hold of. He's been hiding for three months. I don't know what's happened. I said, “Why have you not come up with the 30% that you owe the feds to come up with the early retirement plan?” He said “Why should we? We didn't cause the problem, the feds caused the problem. Let them pay the whole works.” The feds say we can't do that until the province meets their agreement.

Even now no one will declare a disaster in sockeye, because the two government's won't sit down with fishermen and talk to them about it. This gear buyback and early retirement is a crazy situation, and I'm one of the victims. If there's anything you want to know about victims, I am a victim of the, what do you call it, the people who have lost their jobs in the fishing industry.

I think Victor had a comment too.

The Chair: Victor, I'm sorry, I think you are aware we made a recommendation in our last committee report, and we should review that again as well. We didn't get a good answer on it. Victor.

Mr. Victor Isaac: I'm glad you brought that up, John. It's an issue in Alert Bay, where the B.C. Packers have now left the net loft they used to run before. So now it's even worse. We have our own net loft down on the reserve, and what we're dealing with now is one net loft that cannot support the gear that is even being used to this date, let alone the gear that is sitting all over the wharfs all over town, which hasn't been bought back yet. There are people who should be reimbursed or getting their nets bought back by this Mifflin plan. They're sitting on the wharfs all over town just rotting, and it's not a very nice sight. They were just left out. Most of them ran company boats, and the company boats were taken back and bought, the licences. The person who owned the net was responsible for the net.

So as you say, there are costs incurred, and it's getting rather unsightly now, because B.C. Packers has pulled out of Alert Bay now and abandoned all their nets and told their fishermen to find a place for their nets as well. So our small little net loft on the reserve has become packed with those nets of the people who are still in it, but also all along the wharfs there's gear everywhere and it's really unsightly. They know they're out of pocket and they're still paying expenses, even having them sit on the wharfs, because nobody knows where to put them. They should be bought back and they can get reimbursed.

• 1145

The Chair: Just for my own curiosity, because I haven't seen them, how much room does one of those nets take?

Mr. Victor Isaac: They're 220 fathoms long by 28 fathoms deep, and they have cork running all the way through. So an area about the size of this meeting table we're at probably would store one net.

So you have an unsightly—

The Chair: So when B.C. Packers pulled out, they had a net loft?

Mr. Victor Isaac: They had a net loft.

The Chair: And they don't store nets in it any more?

Mr. Victor Isaac: No. It's totally not insured now, and they've told all the fishermen who were existing to get out of there and find a place for their own nets. So we have them all over town now.

The Chair: When did they make this decision?

Mr. Victor Isaac: Just this past year.

The Chair: And B.C. Packers was compensated for the loss of their boats, right?

Mr. Victor Isaac: Yes, well, lots of the licences they had were company boats.

The Chair: But you people owned the nets in your own right and worked on the boats?

Mr. Victor Isaac: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to clear that in my own mind.

John, did you finish?

Mr. John Duncan: Well, just to clarify, that's the situation in Alert Bay, but there are some places where guys are still paying for net storage, and they're paying, what, $90 or $100 a month or thereabouts?

Mr. Victor Isaac: Yes.

The Chair: Holy jumpin'!

Sorry. Mr. Alfred, go ahead.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Nimpkish people bought one of the net lofts years ago for a dollar, when B.C. Packers first started pulling out, and we've been using that. That's where my net is. I had a net that took this kind of room, plus I had a locker this size with all of my gear in it. I was paying $100 a month. As I said, I had to give it away in order to get myself out of this paying.

There are people in the buyback program now who are paying $100 a month for mooring their boats. For some of that money, they sold their licences back before going back anyway.

But I need to say this. B.C. Packers pulled out of the salmon industry, the wild fishery, and B.C. Packers Heritage Sea Farm is now controlling fish farming, because there's more money to be made in fish farming than there is in B.C. Packers. B.C. Packers moved all their business up to Alaska.

I need to say this, because I experienced this. I was the chief councillor of the Nimpkish Band when this was said to me a few years ago. The vice-president of B.C. Packers said to me, “Pat, you have to sell your net and your gear and get out of the industry or buy the boat, because I've been told by the board of directors of B.C. Packers that if I don't save $20 million in the next two years, I'm out of a job.”

It didn't dawn on me until later that if there was ever such a thing.... I don't understand insider trading, but I think this is what this is leading up to. B.C. Packers knew what the government was going to do three years prior to the Mifflin plan coming into effect.

I asked him, “What do they mean by saving $20 million? Why are you telling me this?” He said “Because your boat is going to save me that. I don't have to buy insurance for your boat any more. There's no longer any maintenance for your engine. There's no longer any shipwright we have to pay the shipyards. Not only that, the 58-foot licence we have on your boat, I'll be able to lease that off for $50,000 to another big boat somewhere.” Boom! There's $20 million.

There's something wrong here. B.C. Packers, Canadian Fishing, and Ocean Fisheries had control of what was going to happen to my community. It's always been a mystery, but I think I know where it's at. I'm glad you asked this question, because no one has ever given us the opportunity to say this. I really think there has to be a review of this whole thing. Even with the AFS and the sockeye crisis and all the different things that have happened, I want my job back, for my kids and my grandchildren, because it's a way of life. That's the only reason I keep talking about it.

The Chair: Thank you for that evidence, Mr. Alfred.

Mr. Stoffer, and then we'll have to move on.

• 1150

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just have a quick one.

On that charge of $100 for your net loft, was B.C. Packers at all being reimbursed by the federal or provincial government for looking after that responsibility, or was it just a private thing they were doing for the fishermen?

Mr. Victor Isaac: It was a private thing for the fishermen, plus there were insurance costs as well attached to that, so there were extra costs at that time. They had to pay insurance dollars. This was recorded too, the insurance money.

So there are lots of people who are right out now. They were hoping something was going to change and they were keeping their nets and their gear in there, hoping somebody would buy it back in this program and the buyback would eventually pay them off, but that didn't happen. So they incurred lots of extra costs. And now with B.C. Packers leaving the area, all those nets are just sitting on wharfs now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. Victor Isaac: It's just unsightly in the whole community.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Isaac.

Mr. Alfred, I asked earlier if you might comment on the aboriginal fisheries strategy at DFO. The reason I raise that question is we are having a debate over the multiplicity of management plans occurring, the Marshall decision in eastern Canada, and so on. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the issue that might be helpful to us.

You're not on the spot to answer it. If you don't feel you want to answer it, that's fine.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Oh, no. I'm sure there's a lot of debate on it, but the AFS....

When we first started the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission, there was so much politics amongst all the people—fifteen tribes, fifteen chiefs, fifteen different ideas. So we thought we'd do something to get outside the political BS that was happening, because you can't divide the water and say “This is mine; this is mine; this is mine.” It's all of ours, the passing stocks and all that.

So our goal was ultimately to finally manage all of the fishery someday, with the non-native people who are with us in our own community, much like the RAMS thing I hear about on the west coast. We wanted to make sure we had cooperative management among the local communities, and not have to have someone from Ottawa telling us when we should open what.

As for the AFS project, for me, I'm satisfied with what's happening with it. I think it's been expanded a year or so.

As far as the Marshall decision is concerned, I knew that before the Marshall decision came, but I've never been to court with it. So until it goes to court, it isn't going to mean anything to anybody. But I do believe I do have an aboriginal right, in accordance with all of the court cases, such as Delgamuukw.

But we are only in management. You have to understand what I'm saying. I'm only in management. I have my chief to answer to. I may be speaking out of turn by saying to you I own lock, stock, and barrel. Maybe my chief only wants 5%. I don't know. That's up to him to say, because he speaks on behalf of all of the people.

Victor and I are in this.... I'm the president of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission, which represents all of the tribes. I'm also involved in the South Coast Advisory Committee on Net Fishing. I also sit on committees where I try to get more openings for my people, because there's never been any consistency. I'm sure we're not here to talk about treaty or land claims or whatever, but if you ever really wanted to, I'm prepared to talk about treaty and the Marshall case and what I believe my people, the Nimpkish people....

The Nimpkish people and the Heiltsuk are brothers and sisters. We're all one family almost. Gladstone won a court case a few years ago saying there was trading, bartering. They won the court case and are still doing that practice today. The Nimpkish people also traded with the Heiltsuk. The Nimpkish people also traded with the west coast people. In fact our young people walked to the west coast of Vancouver Island just recently to prove a point, to make a statement to the world. There is a grease trail.

My people traded with your forefathers when they were anchored outside our village. We went out there and taught them how to fish. They didn't know how to fish, so we had to teach them how to make hooks and nets. We traded with them. It wasn't cash they gave us. It was the funny little beads we see floating around our villages now and then. That was the money your people used. Yes, we did sell our fish to your people years and years ago, long before. Then also with the Heiltsuk people we traded for seal, eulachon, eulachon grease, and fur. You name it, we traded. Whatever they didn't have, we had, and what we didn't have, they had.

• 1155

With regard to the AFS overall, not everybody agrees with it, but at least it gives us some control over the management of our territory, even though right now the guardian program doesn't really work, because I can't board a boat if it's not an Indian boat. It has to be an Indian person. So it's too limited. That's why we can't monitor fish farming that well, because we don't have the authority to board a boat and say we want to search. With regard to the sports fishermen that are carrying 50 extra pounds in a hidden hatch on those fancy American pleasure craft, we can't do anything about that. But as far as I am concerned, AFS is doing a job and will continue to do the job as well as they can until we can eventually meet our goal, which is ultimately to manage the ocean.

The Chair: Thank you. That gives us something else to think about.

Thank you, Mr. Alfred and Mr. Isaac, for your evidence. We appreciate your coming before us today.

Members, we have a motion we have to deal with on the potential Alaska travel to complete the hearings out here. If somebody would move it, then we can discuss it. It's moved that the committee travel to Alaska on February 23, 24, and 25 to continue its hearings on aquaculture and an aboriginal fishing strategy and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That was too fast for Mr. Bernier.

The Chair: Sorry, Yvan. I'll go slower.

It really is a motion to deal with what we've been discussing over the weekend. It's moved that the committee travel to Alaska on February 23, 24, and 25—although we wouldn't be there on February 25—to continue its hearings on aquaculture and an aboriginal fishing strategy, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Goodbye.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Alfred and Mr. Isaac.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Call me back any time.

The Chair: Will do.

Mr. Pat Alfred: Next time I'll be prepared with your AFS.

The Chair: Okay. I didn't mean to pop it on you. Thank you.

Is there a mover for that motion?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I so move.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. John Cummins: I have a concern about the lineup of witnesses.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: What have we done on that? I have other things on during that period, and I'd like to know just what we've done about witnesses.

The Chair: I think we can get Bill to answer this as well. There was some discussion with the Canadian consul office in Seattle, and they know some people we could contact. We haven't firmed anything up, because we don't have a complete list of witnesses. We'd have to get yours. The only thought on it is that if we don't do it while we're here, we'll probably not get back. We would be in contact with Bill Woolf of Senator Murkowski's staff, who knows a lot of players in the fishing industry. It would basically be Wednesday and part of Thursday that we'd be there. The rest would be travel.

Mr. John Cummins: Wouldn't Wednesday be travelling too?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: So we would travel Wednesday morning and do hearings Wednesday afternoon.

The Chair: Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

Mr. John Cummins: But you're saying Friday as well.

The Chair: No. Some people will have to continue to travel on Friday. I know both Lawrence and I have to be on the east coast on Friday, so we have to get back to here and get on an overnight flight to get to the east coast.

Mr. John Cummins: The return from Alaska would be on Thursday.

The Chair: Yes.

• 1200

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: We're looking at a charter too, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: We don't want an MD-80 from Air Alaska.

The Chair: I don't think so.

I understand Mr. Stoffer can't go.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I can't go, but it probably wouldn't hurt if you contacted Gerald Keddy to see if he can go, just to give him a heads-up.

The Chair: We have a note here to call him.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I think it would be a good idea for the committee to go.

The Chair: What we certainly have to talk to them about is the one management plan overall.

Mr. John Cummins: We want to get their views on aquaculture as well.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: That's the value of aquaculture—

The Chair: Aquaculture and the overall management problem.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: May I also ask, if you're going, if you can ask them about their hatchery program?

The Chair: Yes, but first we need to.... Yvan talked to Suzanne Tremblay over the weekend. If it's blocked by the Bloc, then we don't need to worry about it any further. If they agree to it, then we have to quickly put it together. And there's no sense in our completing discussions with the House leader's office if you don't think it's possible to do.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you want me to go back?

Mr. John Cummins: I think the transportation may be a little dicey. I don't know what kind of.... It's a good hike.

The Chair: The charter is being looked at. There is enough money in the budget to do it. It would be cost-prohibitive to do it again.

Mr. John Cummins: What kind of charter?

The Chair: Charter an aircraft.

Mr. John Cummins: We don't want to go there in a Dash 8. You want to get above the clouds; you don't want to be going on something small.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Right on.

Mr. John Cummins: Air BC has one of those British Airways 146s or something, but that's not a big airplane.

The Chair: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there further discussion?

Go ahead, Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: This is perhaps a point of clarification for committee members.

We talked about the possibility of going to Alaska during our return from Bellingham, Washington. I thought the idea was interesting, because the opinions of all the fishers seemed to be that the State of Alaska's management plan seemed to be the best in comparison with the plans in California, Oregon, Washington State and even in Canada. I thought it would be time to go there.

I talked to Mrs. Tremblay. From a logistics perspective, our leader recognizes that it would make sense to go there. However, to reassure committee members, I will point out that while we are here discussing fish, there is an important bill, Bill C-20, over which I have no control.

So I reiterate that if you are asking me if we should go to Alaska this week, as a committee member, my answer is yes. Now, I hope Mr. Boudria and Mrs. Tremblay will be able to find some wording they can agree to. But it is out of my hands. I cannot predict anything, nor do I want to bring any pressure to bear, because if I do so, I am going to quickly get an answer that will perhaps not be the one we are looking for. So I will leave the matter in the hands of the whips in Ottawa.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Yvan. The best we can do is give it a roll and see where it ends up.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: From there on, it's up to the House.

Okay, we can do this later. The meeting is adjourned then until one o'clock.