FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 18, 2001

• 0918

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Basically, we convened the organizational meeting to decide what we want to put on the agenda over the next few weeks.

I'll go through a list, and people can add to it. Then we can decide. There are a couple of issues we have to complete. One is the Oceans Act, and Alan has sent copies of that to members.

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): I haven't done that yet. I just sent it to you.

The Chair: Okay. He can send it out right away, and we could deal with it this Thursday or preferably we could give people time to go through it and deal with it next Tuesday and Thursday. We could then report it to the House and get it behind us.

The second issue, which has been ongoing—forever, it seems—is the study on aquaculture. We have the motion from the committee to travel. I've asked the House leader to deal with that. I don't know where it will go. I talked to the House leader yesterday, and he indicated that because of events south of the border, it isn't being dealt with at the House leaders' meeting this week. So we'll see where it goes. If that travel is not possible, I'd suggest that we maybe have one or two more witnesses and complete that study as well and get it behind us. We should probably hear from Mr. Rideout.

As well, there's a forum on aquaculture being held in Newfoundland from October 19 to 21. I just give that to you for your information. If people want to go, they could probably travel on their own. It's a letter I got from the Coast of Bays aquaculture subcommittee. The forum is a focus on development scheduled for October 19 to 21. I'll give people a copy of this letter. For anybody who wants to go, it's on a weekend, so they can decide if they want to go.

• 0920

The third area I have is the Atlantic policy review. That review has been in place for a while. We haven't heard witnesses on it. The department is basically carrying out that review. We may need to find out where that's at and get a report from the department and have a hearing on that.

Fourth, and last, the minister announced on June 28 creation of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, which would set up a process to review decision-making criteria and processes for providing new or additional access in Atlantic commercial fisheries that experienced substantial increases in quota or value.

I understand that panel is likely to report in the not-too-distant future. Maybe we should have them in as well to see where they're at.

That's all I have on my list. If there are others, we'll put them on here and discuss them.

John.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): What was your third one?

The Chair: Atlantic policy review. The department was holding major hearings into, basically, fisheries policy on the east coast—very substantive. Committee members do have a copy of the...it's not a green paper or a white paper but a discussion paper that went out.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if I recall correctly, last year sometime or at the beginning of this year, we agreed to travel to Ontario before we completed our reports for aquaculture. We haven't done so. Maybe you can consider that.

The Chair: Let's talk about that under aquaculture, Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

The Chair: We'll go through them one by one.

John.

Mr. John Cummins: I think there are a couple of issues. I don't know how we want to advise ourselves on the issues, but I think there are issues that committee members may be asked to respond to. The first one is the issue in Miramichi and Burnt Church in particular and the troubles there in the last couple of days. I don't think that problem is finished.

There's the issue of the report that was done with the agreement of the band, and at the request of the band, the Caddy report. I don't know why the committee would want to bring somebody in to address that report, but they certainly should be aware of it, and if copies haven't been made available to members of the committee, I think they should have it.

The Chair: What report is that?

Mr. John Cummins: That's the Caddy report?

An hon. member: The lobster science report?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Cummins: If members haven't got that, they should have it, because I think it's interesting. The recommendation actually conflicts with the decision the minister made to allow for this fall fishery.

It's my take on it. I don't know, Dominic, whether you have a comment on that one or not. It's something that I think you would agree we should—

The Chair: We can hold a day's hearing on it or something, if so desired.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Cummins: There's another issue that I think is of great importance. You will recall, Chairman, that in 1996 we had, on the west coast of Canada, the Mifflin plan put in place, which called for a reorganization of the salmon fishery and imposed a series of area licensing on the industry. The promise was that if the industry cannibalized itself and if it agreed to go along with this area licensing, they would have ample opportunity or better opportunities to fish.

• 0925

In the last three years, area E gillnet, which is the south coast gillnet fleet, fished two and a half days. They didn't fish in 1999. There was no commercial fishery in the Fraser River for the first time in history. They fished two and a half days in 2000, and they didn't fish again this year.

Just to put it in perspective for members from the east coast, what you're talking about are vessels with an earning capacity similar to lobster vessels. They fished two and a half days in three years, so their fishery has essentially been destroyed, with no compensation. Really, it's a tragedy, there's no question. So that's the gillnet fleet on the Fraser.

In area D, the next one up the central coast on Fraser stocks, they fished one day this year. Their opportunities have been lost. The whole of the south coast seine fleet fished one day on the Fraser stocks this year. That's their only fishery. You're now talking about vessels that have a value of between $1 million and $1.5 million. They fished one day this year, which is the peak year for Fraser River stocks. If you don't fish this year, when are you going to fish? So I think that whole management structure in British Columbia has to be looked at.

The side issue that underlies that is the issue of native food fisheries. That's the underlying issue on the lobster fishery on the east coast and it's the one that's causing the problem on the west coast. I think we as a committee may want to look at that whole issue of the food fishery in the broad perspective, look at how that access is allowed by the government. It may be something we should look at, because I think the government is certainly going to be held to account on this in the short order, and it's something that certainly needs a look.

Just as a last comment on that food fishery, we had a protest fishery in British Columbia in late August. The protest was held at the same time that the natives were allowed a food fishery, so the protest was a protest against the government's handling of that native food fishery.

There are about 400 boats, area E gillnetters, on that south coast. In the old days, prior to 1996, we had a fishery on the Fraser River with 1,500 to 1,800 vessels. There are 400 of them left. We had well over 100 vessels out in that protest, and 43 of them were charged with fishing in a closed area. Their defence will be to challenge in court that native food fishery.

I think it's an issue that's only going to get hotter, and it's really the basis of the problems in Miramichi Bay now. I think it's something we probably should be taking a look at.

The Chair: Okay.

Sarkis, you had a point, or anyone else? All I want to deal with first is the potential issues we might get into in future business.

Bill, then Dominic.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that the committee should have a look at, or hold a number of hearings on, the Newfoundland shrimp fishery. The fishery has been shut down for a number of months, and the biomass is very healthy.

The European Union has a 20% tariff on our products going into the EU. There have been suggestions of collusion amongst fish processors in the province. It's thrown 5,000 people out of work. As I said, the biomass is not a problem. It's very healthy, which people attribute to the downturn in cod stocks. They're not eating as much shrimp.

There's a serious problem here that someone needs to get to the bottom of, because at the same time that our shrimp industry is shut down, foreigners are fishing shrimp on the Flemish Cap. Many of them are landing in Newfoundland and shipping their product out. It's a hell of a problem, and I think the committee should have a look at it and make some recommendations to the minister or....

The Chair: Dominic.

We'll go through them one by one.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, when you get to the Atlantic policy review, I'd like to make a brief comment on that. I just want to agree with you on that.

The Chair: Okay.

A few members have come in late. Just to quickly review, we wanted to have kind of an organizational meeting to start to get some things off our plate and look at the new issues we should look at.

• 0930

I've mentioned that we need to complete the Oceans Act. Alan has done a draft that can be sent out. It will take two days of hearings to complete that, I would think. We have the aquaculture study to finish.

As Sarkis mentioned, travel is also up in the air. We'll see what happens with the House leaders' discussion on that. If it's not a go, I would suggest we complete it. Sarkis brought up the point that we have not travelled. There's been a request to travel to Ontario on aquaculture and we didn't do it.

There's the Atlantic policy review and the Independent Panel on Access Criteria on the Atlantic coast as well.

John Cummins brought up the issue of Miramichi, the situation there at Burnt Church. He also brought up the west coast—the Mifflin plan, where it's at, and how it ties into the native food fishery.

Bill Matthews brought up the issue of Newfoundland shrimp.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Three things. First, I support Bill's shrimp concerns. There's a 20% tariff still over in Europe that we haven't dealt with, and that's putting a huge crimp in that.

Plus, Bill, if I may make a friendly addition, not amendment, to yours, there's also the purchase of FPI in Clearwater. What does that corporatization and the control mean to the future of some plants that are up in Newfoundland especially? We need to look at that.

As well, as many of you know, there was an aquaculture site more or less placed—not yet, but it will be—in Northwest Cove in the Aspotogan Peninsula, against the wishes of 90% of the community. They did the reviews and everything and said, well, okay, it can go there, but the community itself was adamantly opposed, almost unanimously, to having this here. I met with the aquaculture representative in Nova Scotia, Marti MacNeil, and said that if you're going to grow your industry, pissing communities off is not the way to do it.

We were always told by David Rideout in this committee that we will not go where we're not welcome. Well, they're definitely not welcome in Northwest Cove. If we're going to promote or assist or move the aquaculture industry in a more positive way, they need to have better community involvement, as other aquaculture sites have done across the country.

In aquaculture on the west coast there was another escape of fish again. This issue needs to be dealt with.

The other issue I have is Burnt Church. There were shots fired the other day. On a normal news day, that would have been on the front page of every newspaper, but it wasn't. I don't know how we get it onto the agenda of the House of Commons, but somehow this needs to be dealt with, and fairly quickly, before somebody gets hurt.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR Coalition): Because Peter mentioned it, I'll just make a quick comment on the Northwest Cove aquaculture site, if I may. The site is off Horse Island and meets all the criteria. The residents are against it. The ones I've talked to are against it because it's in their viewscape. They don't want to look at it.

We can go there if you want as a committee and we can examine that type of issue, but I'm not sure that's what we need to be doing. The provincial and federal regulations have all been met. The onus is on the site manager now to comply with the very stringent regulations. If he doesn't comply with the rules and regulations, it will be shut down, as it should be.

The same people who are against that site are also against the site they can't even see off Saddle Island, off of Blandford. That island site is a fairly large site. It's well run. The same group is against that. So I'm not sure there's a win-win here at all. I think the onus is on the site managers to comply, to run it properly, and if they don't, absolutely it will be shut down.

There's another issue we could take a look at that might, like the aquaculture issue, take a shorter window of time for the committee. I'd like to take a look at the dogfish quota on the east coast. The dogfish is a scavenger species. It's a nuisance for most fishermen. We've always had a huge quota. That was severely cut back last year because the Americans cut their stocks back.

We're accepting American science here. We're not using Canadian science at all. The Americans are saying that the dogfish off of Cape Cod come up, breed in the North Atlantic between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and in the Bay of Fundy, and then they go back down in a big migration back down to Cape Cod and Virginia.

• 0935

There's no proof for us to be able to say at all that this is what happens. We don't have our science to back that up and we have poor science out of the United States. All indications are that the Americans themselves intend to increase that dogfish quota. We have a number of plants in Nova Scotia, on the south shore and in West Nova, that process dogfish. They have found a market for them. It's a low-value species, but they're making a buck with it.

So it's worth taking a look at. It might be a matter of having hearings for two or three days and then coming up with some recommendations that we can pass on to science.

That becomes the other issue, Mr. Chairman, that I think is a real downfall of this committee, a real shortfall. We make recommendations all the time to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I'm not sure they're ever looked at by the minister, by his department, or by anyone else. Somehow we have to have better communications between our committee.... We've seen proof of that a number of times. And the minister will make a recommendation, as has been done in the past, that completely overlooks work we've already done.

So we should try to focus and do something about that. I don't know what the answer is, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I think, Gerald, if you go back to the reports we've tabled, you will see that quite a number of the recommendations have been implemented. In terms of some of the current issues, no, but in terms of some of the recommendations, if you go back and go through them one by one, you'll see they have now been implemented.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's good to hear, but maybe we need to do that. When we file a report, we don't come back six months later and say, “Listen, have any of the recommendations been implemented?” That might be a process we need to implement as a committee.

On the other issue, the dogfish, it would be easy to set up a video link for a couple of meetings on the dogfish quota specifically. It would be a short-term thing that we could handle. I think it would be beneficial for the committee to look at that species, the potential that's there, and the fact that the Americans are controlling the quota.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you, members. We'll have to try to put this in some kind of order so that we can deal with it. We have gone around the circle. I'm told the Independent Panel on Access Criteria is to report this fall. That also ties in a little bit with the Atlantic policy review. So we had to hear them relatively early, at least on the Independent Panel on Access Criteria. The panel is chaired by Arthur Kroeger. Also on that panel are Professor Martha Jackman, Dr. Paul LeBlond, Professor Gordon Munro, and Professor David Newhouse. If we want to deal with that issue, we have to deal with it relatively quickly if we're going to have any input. I think we had to deal with them before the end of July.

So what I would suggest right off the bat, to get some things off our plate, is that maybe Alan can get the draft report on the Oceans Act to committee members. We could meet on that next Tuesday; maybe meet with this independent panel on Thursday, if possible; complete the Oceans Act on Tuesday, the 30th; and then deal with the other issues that are on there, if that would be acceptable. Then we'd have the Oceans Act behind us and we wouldn't have to worry about that. Is that possible?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, because Tuesday is October 2.

The Chair: Okay, Tuesday, September 25, the Oceans Act; Thursday, September 27, this independent panel; and Tuesday, October 2, the Oceans Act, when we'll try to complete it.

Are we okay that far?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I make a suggestion? Can we aim to complete the report and everything by the end of November of this year? We have two weeks in December—hopefully we'll stay here for those two weeks—when we could present the reports, and when we come back in February we could start fresh with a new agenda.

The Chair: I think, Sarkis, we should be able to if we have the draft report done. Alan has to write the aquaculture one, and we have to give him some direction. We should be able to table the Oceans Act in the House and have it behind us the first week of October.

• 0940

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

The Chair: The aquaculture report is a little more in-depth. You have now made the request to look at Ontario. I suggest the way to deal with that is for you to propose a motion sometime next week. We could deal with it that way and see where it goes.

Next is Peter and then John.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On a completely different note, do we have a new junior minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the room?

The Chair: Yes, we all rose when he came in earlier. You were late.

I suggested to the committee, Peter, that we do need quorum to start.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Unfortunately, some of us come from smaller parties.

The Chair: Yes, I know that people have other agendas. But it would be easier if people came right on time so that we could start the meeting. Then if people have other matters to attend to, they can go and do them. I know everyone has their agendas, but it would be a lot easier.

John.

Mr. John Cummins: On the aquaculture issue, you will recall that I advised the committee of a report that had been done by EVS EVS Environment Consultants in Victoria. It was entitled An Evaluation of Knowledge and Gaps Related to Impacts of Freshwater and Marine Aquaculture on the Aquatic Environment. I had asked the department to make that available to the committee. I had an English copy of it. The department advised us by letter in July that this was simply a report for the department and that they weren't going to make it available. But they were going to make available the executive summary. I wondered if you had received it. I certainly haven't.

The Chair: No, I haven't.

Mr. John Cummins: I think that might be helpful to the researcher and certainly to the committee on the aquaculture issue.

The Chair: Georges, could you look into that and see if it's possible to get that for the committee? It would be useful information. It's a great thrill of your new job.

Where do we go after the second? There are a number of issues on deck. We'll know within a week or so whether the committee travel we had planned to look at the European component of aquaculture is on or off. Then we have to finish that up. Four or five issues have been put on the agenda. How do you want to deal with them?

John, you brought up the Miramichi situation. Do you want to request to have a hearing for a report on where that issue is at?

Mr. John Cummins: I think that would be a good place to start. We could have someone from the department come in and give us an overview on it. I think that at some point the committee may want to go to Miramichi and hold hearings over a day or two to try to find out just what has happened over the last couple of years and where this thing is going. It may be a little late now, but it's certainly something that we should be aware of.

The Chair: Before we decide on travel, we would need to have the department in. Are people agreeable to doing that? Do we want to request the department to update us on the issue within the next couple of weeks?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, we can make that request, and it will have to happen. Do you want to do that on the regular Tuesday and Thursday or is it of enough importance to try to fit in one other day?

An hon. member: A regular day.

The Chair: Okay. Then we'll make that request.

On the other issues—

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like that same thing. I'd like the department to report to the committee on its management of the Fraser River fishery this year.

The Chair: Can they do both at once?

Mr. John Cummins: No. It will require different people.

The Chair: Is there agreement on the issue of the management of the Fraser River fishery?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: We'll make the request to the department to fit both of those in.

Dominic, I think you had a point on the Atlantic policy review.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to agree with what you said. I saw the document you referred to, which is called “What We Heard”, part of the discussion paper. I would certainly be interested in hearing from the department.

• 0945

We had a general discussion last winter, I believe, about what the Atlantic policy review might entail. But I think it would be interesting for all of us to see what the timeframe is and to hear from the department what substantive issues they're looking at. I'm hearing in my own riding some concern about licensing issues and so on. I don't know if they're included in this review and how they are. It would be a chance for me and other members of the committee to get a sense of where this process is heading.

I just wanted to support what you said in your initial comments.

The Chair: I'm not sure of the timeframe on that. We may not be under a lot of pressure on that one, but then again we may. So we'll do that.

Bill, on the shrimp fishery, how do you want to deal with that? I wouldn't say that in the initial stage we would decide to travel. We need some information from someone first, and then we can make some decisions.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

The Chair: Who do we go to for that information?

Mr. Bill Matthews: One source, Mr. Chairman, would be FANL, which is the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. It represents the processors. Then there's the FFAW. Those are the two main players.

The Chair: Could we invite them in?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, I think that would be a good start.

Mr. John Cummins: Do you want the department in first to brief the committee on it?

The Chair: Could we do them all on the same day?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, I think so.

Mr. John Cummins: I don't think so. I think they are different issues.

The Chair: We have the department on the Miramichi situation. We have the department on the Mifflin plan for the reorganization of the salmon fishery. The Atlantic policy review probably involves the department as well. So that's three.

Mr. John Cummins: But it would be different people each time.

The Chair: Yes, I suppose so.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on what Mr. Matthews said, it would be interesting to find out if DFAIT has initiated any discussions or been involved in any negotiations with the European Community. Perhaps we could invite DFAIT representatives here to find out where they stand on the situation in Newfoundland and to hear their thoughts on the 20 per cent tariff on shrimp.

[English]

The Chair: On that one could we request DFO and DFAIT to appear before us and then the people from Newfoundland? Do we want the people from Newfoundland first or the departments first?

Mr. Bill Matthews: There have been discussions about the tariff between ministers Tobin and Pettigrew. Where it's gone from there I don't know. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be most interesting to hear the two different views on the industry in Newfoundland.

The 20% tariff no doubt is an impediment to what's going on, to selling a product and everything else. But as I said, at the same time large amounts of shrimp are going to the EU and other countries from the foreigners who are catching on the Flemish Cap. So the story is not as clear as one side or the other would want you to believe. So I think it would be wise to hear from both Newfoundland interests.

What DFO is going to be able to tell us about it I don't know, only that the shrimp that's in the water is not caught. They allocate the shrimp. Outside of that there's not much more they do.

It's a problem between the processors and the harvesters and the general.... The processors will say that there is a glut of shrimp in the marketplace. There are huge amounts of shrimp being caught and sold. FPI announced two weeks ago that they were going to buy shrimp anyway. At the same time an arbitrator was to rule on the price of shrimp. They said, we don't care which way the arbitrator rules, we're going to buy shrimp next week. So if indeed there was a glut in the market and FPI couldn't sell shrimp initially, which shut down the industry months ago, how come out of the blue they would announce they're now going to buy shrimp and sell it regardless of the price the arbitrator places on the shrimp?

• 0950

So it's a serious problem. As I said, 5,000 people are out of work. It's a very lucrative industry that means millions and millions of dollars for the Newfoundland economy and the Canadian economy. I think the committee should look at it and see if we can't get to the bottom of it, and in addition put pressure on the federal government to make some move to get rid of or at least reduce the tariff. If not all at once, at least over a period of time, gradually, on a sliding scale, reduce the tariff or remove it. I think we can play a role there as a committee, if someone listens to us.

The Chair: Bill, how crucial is time on that one? When do we have to do it?

Mr. Bill Matthews: The industry is in chaos now. It's been shut down for months.

The Chair: When are you suggesting we do this?

Mr. Bill Matthews: As soon as we can. I realize that we have other things to do, but....

The Chair: There are a number of issues that I guess are critical to people's lives. The Atlantic policy review can be pushed back in terms of our holding a hearing on it.

I guess I'm asking you, and all members, should we give priority to that issue because it's pertinent right now?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Well, you know how I feel about it.

The Chair: Others?

Mr. John Cummins: Some directly affect the management. The Miramichi one, the B.C. one, and this one of Bill's are the priority items, because they affect people directly.

The Chair: Dogfish is long-term, right? So we can do that a little later.

Based on the discussion, perhaps I would suggest that I draft a proposal of what we should do in the hearings, meet as a steering committee, and see if we can agree on that and get them in the works. Initially, however, we can plan next week for the Oceans Act on Tuesday and the Independent Panel on Access Criteria on Thursday and then go from there.

Would that be all right? We'll try to give this one and the salmon fishery management priority.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, I just want to piggyback on what Mr. Cummins has said. All those three issues have had an impact on us over recent months. If you look at the Burnt Church issue, something has to be done there, I think for obvious reasons. We have a shrimp industry in chaos in Newfoundland, involving millions and millions of dollars, with 5,000 people out of work.

I just think these issues should take priority. The Burnt Church issue is not playing out the way I thought it was going to play out, and decisions have been made within the last number of weeks that I didn't think would have been made.

So we have to try to deal with it. As I said, whether or not anyone listens to us as a committee, we still have to carry out our mandate and exercise our responsibilities as prudently as we can. Outside that, there's not much more we can do. So I think that's the proper way to proceed.

As to the other issues, who knows whether the access issue will ever really be dealt with? I don't know if it ever will be. It's one thing to go through the process, but will it ever be changed? That's my view on it.

The Chair: You're saying we should move the access issue back further?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes. I think we have time on our side here to do that. We have other issues right now.

The Chair: Okay. I don't have a problem with that.

Which one do you want to try to deal with next Thursday so that we at least start to call witnesses? Will it be the shrimp or the Miramichi? Which one?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Listen, they're firing shots in Burnt Church. As to the native fishery, I may have some disagreement with Mr. Cummins on what we can or cannot do about the food fishery, but he's absolutely right about it being critical that we deal with it now. We have a responsibility as a committee to deal with this issue, to make some recommendations on it, and to be better informed on it. There's a lot of information out there that we've not been given, and there's serious discussion about having a separate season for a native commercial fishery, which I think probably was offered but not granted. We need to take a look at those issues because they affect every fishery.

The Chair: Okay. Let's deal with that one next Thursday.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think the point that Gerald made is very valid, in a way. He said that many issues on the east coast we are not aware of because we don't read newspapers from, for example, P.E.I., Newfoundland, or Nova Scotia.

• 0955

The Chair: Why not?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Don't you get the Herald?

The Chair: Do you not get the Guardian?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What's wrong with you?

An hon. member: That's a disgrace, Sarkis.

The Chair: I read the Globe and Mail. I don't see why you shouldn't read the Guardian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that maybe—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Wayne, he doesn't read the clippings he gets in his office. Maybe it's all in there.

The Chair: Sarkis, the floor is yours.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Perhaps the researcher would be good enough to provide us with news items about those incidents and issues. It would be much more informative for us. The Globe and Mail, despite the fact that it's a national newspaper, doesn't write in detail or focus on the issues we are discussing here today, or will be tomorrow. Maybe it would be a good idea to do that.

The Chair: Okay. That's not a problem. Before we have a hearing next Thursday, Alan will put together a clip sheet on some of the recent issues in the press.

Is there anything else? We have next week basically—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Tell him to read the clippings. You're the chairperson.

The Chair: Peter, I've learned there's no sense telling you what should be done, and I don't think Sarkis would be any more willing to listen.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: So we have next week lined up. I think we have enough information to propose a schedule for the steering committee.

Georges, you're going to get that information.

Is there anything else anybody wants to raise? I just felt we should try to get off to a fast start so that we can get some of these things off our agenda. That's what I was trying to do.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, how about I prepare some briefing notes on dogfish and give them to the committee?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then we could take a look at that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: With some clippings?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With some clippings, yes.

The Chair: That would be great, Gerald, if you would agree to do that.

Sarkis, on the aquaculture in Ontario, perhaps you want to give us a little background on that at some point and maybe provide a motion on how you want to proceed.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

The Chair: Is that it?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: The committee adjourns. Thank you.