FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

• 1543

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I believe we have a quorum, so we'll call the meeting to order.

The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a briefing on the implications of the September 17, 1999 Supreme Court decision on R. versus Marshall on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region.

We welcome the minister, the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, here this morning. He is accompanied by Jack Stagg and Pat Chamut. Welcome, gentlemen. I expect today's will prove to be an interesting discussion. I believe you have an opening statement, then we'll go to questions.

I've just been asked a question by a colleague. Maybe, Mr. Minister, I'll read you what the committee's request was, and you can answer it following your opening statement.

I sent you, on behalf of the committee, a request that the legal opinion or opinions, whether produced by officials of the Department of Justice or otherwise, stemming from the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the Donald Marshall case be provided to the committee. We sent that letter to you on March 15. I understand there is a letter in preparation, being translated at the moment, but in any event, I think it's the committee's request that, although we do not have written response just yet, you do respond to that question immediately following your opening statement. After that I'll turn to regular questioners.

• 1545

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you've indicated, I have a statement, and after that I'll respond to that particular letter and to questions.

Good afternoon, honourable members.

[Translation]

Good afternoon honourable members.

[English]

It's a pleasure to be here today to update you on my department's work to respond to the Marshall decision passed down by the Supreme Court more than one year ago. As you know, this issue has continued to be a concern for everyone involved, for the government of course, but also for others, especially our Atlantic communities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

I'm sure you will recall a few clashes that took place between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers, particularly around the Miramichi Bay, shortly after the decision. I'm sure you'll recall confrontation between aboriginal fishers and the federal fishery officers last summer and in the fall.

But while these events were well publicized in the media, they are by no means the whole story on Marshall. Indeed, following the issue through headlines makes it harder to trace what has actually happened and is still happening on this file. That said, I'm not going to waste our time here today by going over, ad nauseam, what brought us to this point. This committee has been well aware of this issue since day one.

Rather, today I'd like to talk about what's been going on since those times of controversy and clarify some persistent misconceptions that have arisen. Indeed, we're moving forward and finding ways to build on our successes last year.

In February, as you know, I joined Minister Nault in announcing the Government of Canada's long-term approach to addressing the Marshall decision. Our goal is to build on our successes last year. Despite reports to the contrary, we did enjoy a high level of success last year. In total, 30 of the 34 affected communities signed fishing agreements. These agreements included access, of course, but also the tools that are needed to make that access work, such as capacity building, vessels, and gear. As a direct result, we've seen a higher degree of aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery than ever before with an improvement in the economic and social conditions for first nations communities.

The process Minister Nault and I announced in February builds on this success. I have reappointed Jim MacKenzie as the federal fisheries negotiator to negotiate agreements of up to three years, depending on the specific needs of each community. Once again, the agreements will include not only access but also capacity-building assistance and co-management opportunities so that first nations can participate and be successful in the commercial fishery.

But we also recognize that views of the non-aboriginal communities need to be taken into account. That's why I reappointed Gilles Thériault as the associate federal fisheries negotiator to ensure that the views of the non-aboriginal fishing community continue to be taken into account in the negotiation process. The fishery is, after all, central to them as well.

In fact, the non-aboriginal fishing community was an important factor in shaping our approach to Marshall. They were among the first to tell us that the best way to make room for aboriginal fishers without damaging fish stocks would be through a voluntary licence retirement program. As you know, that's exactly what we've done and we're continuing to do.

We also understand that concerns expressed about crew members being displaced when licence holders retire their licence under the Marshall program. To date, 248 licence packages have been retired under the Marshall program. This represents about 3% of the nearly 8,000 core enterprises in the Maritimes and in Quebec.

While this is a relatively small percentage, unemployment is still an issue. Indeed, unemployment is not just an economic issue; it has very real emotional implications for people and their communities. The federal and provincial governments in Canada understand those implications and offer a range of programs and services to help unemployed people to learn new skills, upgrade existing skills, and find places in the workforce.

• 1550

While my department doesn't have a mandate to run such programs, I can assure you that we're doing everything we can to ease this time of transition. For instance, we're involving non-native commercial fishers in mentoring and training programs, which offer them employment while providing new entrants to the fishery with access to their skills and experience. We're also participating with our federal and provincial partners in a “crabbers adjustment group” to find creative ways to ease the transition.

Clearly, the needs of non-aboriginal commercial fishermen will continue to play a role in our work. But from the beginning the Government of Canada has also said clearly that a broader negotiation process is needed, one that looks beyond fishery access and considers more fundamental questions about aboriginal and treaty rights.

That's why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is leading a parallel process to do exactly that. They've appointed Tom Molloy as chief federal negotiator to lead discussions on those important issues. I understand that Mr. Molloy is currently meeting with first nations chiefs in the Maritimes and Quebec and beginning a constructive dialogue on treaty rights.

I want to make it clear that while this is a parallel and complementary process, it is distinct from the process DFO is engaged in. To put it simply, DIAND is looking at a long-term solution to aboriginal and treaty rights issues, while DFO is implementing immediate fisheries measures over the next three years. This “parallel but distinct” approach is also consistent with what both industry and first nations have asked us to do.

And while we do this, I want to assure you once again that wherever enforcement measures are warranted, we will act. Of course, there are limits to enforcement, and I would rather focus our resources on other things, like helping first nations gain access and training.

But while I am an optimist, I am also a realist. And I intend to continue doing my job in order to conserve the resource for all Canadians.

The next point I'd like to discuss today involves the agreements themselves.

I've heard concerns expressed by some first nations that the template agreements we're using are inflexible, and that they will somehow prevent them from going to the broader, DIAND-led negotiating table and arguing that the access they've received doesn't address their treaty rights. This is not the case.

First of all, we recognize that each band has different needs. There can be no “one size fits all” approach to the agreements we want to negotiate. We want first nations to bring their individual capacity-building and co-management needs and desires forward, to the negotiation table, so we can tailor each agreement to those needs.

The template agreements we're offering are exactly that—templates. Jim MacKenzie has a mandate to discuss requested changes or additions to these templates to suit the different needs of each band. His door is always open to first nations chiefs to discuss these changes and of course the unique needs of each community.

We've also responded to first nations' concerns about their positions in future negotiations. We've made it clear that our goal is not to extinguish any rights or to prevent them from taking different positions in future negotiations. That's why we fully support the inclusion of strong “without prejudice” clauses in each agreement, to protect each party's interests in any future discussions between DIAND and first nations on aboriginal or treaty rights more broadly.

In response to first nations' concerns, we've added a further clause confirming that agreements will not be interpreted as an extinguishment of any treaty or aboriginal rights.

We see advantage for first nations communities from these agreements—both economic and social. But we recognize that our choices are not necessarily the choices of first nations. If chiefs and their communities decide they don't want to negotiate with Mr. MacKenzie but would rather wait to sit at the broader, DIAND-led negotiating table, that is their decision. But we will still provide them with access to the commercial fishery—consistent with the Marshall decision—by issuing communal licences.

• 1555

That brings me to the last point I want to make today.

With the opening of some fishing seasons upon us, concerns have been expressed about the negotiations with first nations. Some are anxious about how the fishery will be managed if agreements aren't signed, and about whether time is running out.

It is important to understand, though we don't need signed agreements in order to have a peaceful, orderly fishery this summer, that the opening of the spring fisheries does not mean the negotiating window is closed, nor does it mean that the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet communities will be shut out of the commercial fishery. In fact, we've written to each first nation advising that they will be provided with fisheries access consistent with the Marshall decision, whether they sign an agreement before the fishery opens or not.

Last year, in cases where communities did not reach agreements before the opening of the fishery, we issued communal licences and tags to them anyway, to ensure they had the opportunity to participate in the commercial fishery with the appropriate authorization. While we would prefer negotiated agreements, communal licences will be issued to first nations without their being asked to sign for them.

Without agreements in place, aboriginal communities will still have access to the commercial fishery, but they will not receive start-up assistance like vessels, gear, and funding for important infrastructure like wharves—benefits that provide a real opportunity for them to prosper. That assistance is only available through agreements negotiated through Jim MacKenzie.

It's important that we give Mr. MacKenzie's process time to work. After all, he's working with first nations on one- to three-year agreements. It's only natural that this will take time.

Through this process, we're effectively offering a table where Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet communities can express their needs and aspirations in the fishery, and where we can negotiate ways to address them.

From the very beginning the government has said that we are committed to dialogue and negotiation as a key to addressing the Marshall decision. We want workable arrangements and are sincere in wanting to accommodate the needs and desires of first nations. But these arrangements can only be developed through dialogue and mutual trust. We don't expect to reach these agreements overnight. Our discussions must be careful and measured to ensure that the individual needs of each band are properly reflected in the agreements.

Once again, we are not operating under any deadline. As we did last year, we will provide access to first nations whether there is an agreement in place or not. Our objective remains the same, to accommodate first nations' interests in the commercial fishery and to ensure their success in that fishery, while providing for conservation and the orderly and peaceful management of the fishery for all users.

The Marshall decision holds great promise for the future of the first nations in the maritimes and in the Gaspé region of Quebec. We want to see aboriginal communities reach their potential and be successful in their endeavours. This can only be achieved through dialogue, discussion, and sound, measured planning. That remains our preferred approach.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, maybe I'd respond first to the letter you've written to me. We're reviewing that, and because it involves more than just me as the Minister of Fisheries, it requires that I consult with other ministers and get their input. We will be ready to respond after we have our consultation with them, because the legal advice I get is from the Minister of Justice, and we follow their advice. So we will be responding to the letter you've written to me on behalf of the committee, but it requires consultation with other ministers.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your opening statement, and thanks for your response to our letter.

I believe at a previous time we also asked you for copies of the treaties. Where are we at in that respect?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think we have a response coming with the copies of the treaties being provided. I understand this can be given to you today. This is available immediately.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Then we'll have that information.

John, do you have a question?

• 1600

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, CA): Before that, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in response to the minister's statement that there are others involved, all we asked for was the department's legal opinion regarding the Marshall decision, the opinion they're acting on, the basis for their actions—nothing more.

The Chair: What my letter asked for, John, is the legal opinion or opinions, whether produced by officials of the Department of Justice or otherwise. That's basically what it said.

In fairness to the minister, the minister responded. He is consulting with other departments, and that information will be forthcoming.

Mr. Stoffer has a point of order.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just spoke to the presenters here, and what they wanted to hand us is unfortunately in English only. So we have to get the permission of the chair in order to present it to the committee for our French-speaking colleagues.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Can I just comment?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: This was a request by Mr. Cummins, and that's why it's addressed to him. He had made the request, and we said this would be available to him. We certainly will provide it to the committee in translated form if the chair requests, but this was a response specifically to Mr. John Cummins' request.

The Chair: Okay.

Are we going to get to questioning here eventually? Mr. Cummins, on point of order.

Mr. John Cummins: On a point of order again, for clarification, if the minister's letter to me of March 28 is what he's referring to, it is not a response to the request for the treaties that apply to each of the bands in the Maritimes. In fact, it's a provincial court trial decision that he gave me, not the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia judgment that is described in his letter. It includes only two of these treaties from 1760. So it's not what was requested.

The Chair: I'm going to move to regular questioning. We have the minister here for about an hour and a half that is remaining.

Mr. Cummins, you have the initial ten minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move off that legal opinion, but I would like to get back to it if time permits.

I'd like to work through an example so that we'll have an understanding of your thinking with regard to the application of the Marshall decision, and in particular with Lennox Island. For the benefit of the committee, what access has been granted to the Lennox Island Band under the AFS?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: What access has been provided under the AFS?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. Do you have any idea what access the band had under the AFS prior to Marshall?

The Chair: Mr. Minister or Mr. Chamut?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'll have to ask Mr. Chamut to respond to that. It's too detailed a question for me to respond to.

Pat, can you respond to that?

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Unfortunately I have advise that I think it's too detailed for me to respond to. I do recall that under the AFS we did have a food fishery that was authorized for Lennox Island. In addition, there were licences that were transferred to them periodically in order to enhance their ability to participate in the commercial fishery. Obviously that is something we can develop out of our records, but I do not have that detailed information in front of me.

The Chair: Okay. We can expect that to be provided at a later date.

I believe it was three licences, John, but I'm not 100% sure.

Mr. John Cummins: In response to Marshall, you granted the band an additional 12 lobster licences, plus 30 tonnes of snow crab, which is equivalent to one inshore licence. How did you arrive at that number?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, we're dealing with 34 first nations there. Mr. MacKenzie sat down last year and negotiated agreements with them.

Lennox Island is actually one of the examples where everything went very well. We had a very smooth transition. If you read some of the articles from the journalists in that area, they've written that this is a good example of how you can have a smooth transition. We signed an agreement, we had good cooperation from the communities there, and certainly the program is very successful.

I don't have the details here, but every agreement that was signed is on the website. So any public can go onto the website and get the details of those agreements, what licences were provided, and what work was done. That is available on the Internet, but I certainly don't have the details yet.

• 1605

Mr. John Cummins: We understand that.

To get back to point, you're obliged by the Marshall decision to engage the Lennox Island Band in negotiations based on a treaty right arising from a 1760-61 treaty. Is that correct? That's what Marshall obliged you to do, did it not, to negotiate? That's the position you take.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The Marshall decision clearly recognizes the peace and friendship treaty of 1760 and clearly states that there is a right to fish, hunt, and gather. We are following the Marshall decision.

Mr. John Cummins: But you're obliged by Marshall...

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, give the minister the opportunity to respond.

Mr. John Cummins: We're on track, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Well, we'll keep him on track—that's my job, not yours.

Mr. John Cummins: Then do it.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We're following the Marshall decision, which recognized the treaty and said that within the treaty there's a right to fish, hunt, and gather towards a moderate livelihood.

Mr. John Cummins: Can you produce the treaty?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We've got this in a letter to you. You have a letter of March 28, where we gave all the information as provided under the peace and friendship treaty.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, if you can provide a treaty, I think it would be a feat fitting Houdini, because my understanding is that there were no treaties signed with natives in P.E.I. So how can you apply the Marshall decision to a band that did not sign a treaty?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Clearly the courts have referred to those who are the descendants of the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people, and we have identified those first nations that are directly descended from those that signed the treaty. This is something the courts have recognized, and these are the descendants from the original signatories of the treaty. That's why they are identified as one of the first nations that are beneficiaries of that treaty.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, the court has tied the benefits it allowed to the signing of treaties. My information is there was no treaty signed in P.E.I., there were no specific treaties signed with southern Nova Scotia natives, from Cape Sable to Annapolis, where St. Mary's Bay is located, and in fact, there were no specific treaties signed with Quebec natives. So how can you engage in discussions based on Marshall if in fact there were no treaties signed with natives in those areas?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: They may not exist specifically, but the treaty that was signed was with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people, and the people who are the beneficiaries of that are the ones directly linked to the original signatories. You could argue that, in your view, the Lennox Island Band are not direct beneficiaries of those treaties. I would beg to differ with your view.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, Minister—

The Chair: Hold on, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Minister, have you finished?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I don't agree with your view. In the view of the department and the government, they are the beneficiaries of the original signatories and linked to the original signatories of that treaty.

Mr. John Cummins: I think, Minister, you're turning yourself in and out to justify government policy, or to attribute government policy to the decision of the Supreme Court. Consider, if you will, the Miramichi natives. The Miramichi natives signed a 1760-61 treaty. My understanding is that they broke that peace treaty and sided with the Americans during the American revolution. They later signed a treaty in 1779, but the Supreme Court does not discuss a relationship with the 1779 treaties. It does with the 1760-61 treaties, which were broken by the Miramichi natives. Yet, again, you're entering into negotiations and claiming those negotiations are based on a requirement from Marshall. How can that be?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: It can be because there was a treaty signed, called the peace and friendship treaty. You've come to the conclusion that was broken, but I certainly don't have any evidence that any treaty was broken. But the fact of the matter is, in 1760 and 1761—

Mr. John Cummins: There's historical evidence, Minister.

The Chair: John, can you give the minister time to respond? You're just taking away from your own time.

• 1610

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The fact of the matter is there's a treaty signed and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that treaty and has said under the Marshall decision that the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people have a right to fish and gather. I'm sure that evidence will have been looked at by the court. We have to follow the court ruling, and we're following the Marshall decision as stated by the Supreme Court.

The Chair: Last question this round, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not going to get into the next chunk right away, but let me just come back to what you've said. You're trying to suggest a linkage between the court and Marshall when it's convenient, and when it's not, you say it doesn't matter. You say “descendants” and that includes everybody. How are people to take some satisfaction that their affairs are being well handled when you're not prepared to take ownership of your policy, but want to blame it on the Supreme Court of Canada?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, Mr. Cummins, the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land, and whether we want to or not, we have to abide by the law of the land. The Supreme Court clearly has recognized that treaty, and the first nations we have recognized are collective descendants of the original signatories of that treaty. That's the basis on which we've recognized them, and they're the ones who are the benefactors of that treaty.

So the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. We all have to make sure we abide by it, and that's what we're recognizing—we're respecting the Marshall ruling.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Minister and good day.

I would like to be very clear: in 1760-1761, two treaties were signed between the government of Nova Scotia, the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet. Based on that, the Marshall ruling recognized these two treaties. Does the Supreme Court decision mean that you now have to negotiate agreements for commercial fishing rights only with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet or with all first nations? Does it apply only to the Maliseet and the Mi'kmaq, or to all Aboriginal nations?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The decision of the Supreme Court directly relates to the treaty you have referred to with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people. So we have to deal with the collective descendants. We wouldn't be dealing with every person who may be a descendant, but only the collective groups that remain as collectives, and that's why it's the first nations that are descendants and are still collectives, so that we're dealing with them as a group. That's why the licence we provide is on a communal basis, because that licence is not provided on a individual basis.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Who determines the legitimacy of a community group that says it descends from the Mi'kmaq who were in Nova Scotia? Who determines that legitimacy?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: That's a very good question.

• 1615

Right now we're dealing directly with the chiefs of each of the first nations, and certainly we rely on them to determine who is part of their collective first nation group. But there may be others who feel they're being left out. I think this is something we need to look at, because the native councils feel they should be beneficiaries of it. But they have to show a link with the collective group.

Right now, however, we're dealing with the first nations, and it's up to them to determine who their collective groups represent. But there may be others who feel that they too should benefit. At some time in the future we need to determine that, but at this time we're looking at those groups that are the direct descendants and are the collective of the original signatories.

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That is not very clear. You meet with the chiefs who decide whether they are descendants or not. It is their decision. You say in your written statement that it applies to people in the Maritimes and the Gaspé Region. What do you do, for example, with the North Shore and Lower North Shore Montagnais?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Maybe I'll ask Jack. He can be more specific on that issue for you.

The Chair: Mr. Stagg.

Mr. Jack Stagg (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): From the Supreme Court decision, the collectives or the communities we viewed as descendants from the original treaties in 1760 and 1761 are primarily those communities we see as status Indian communities, mainly in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and four communities in Quebec.

We were told from a legal point of view, you don't have to be a status Indian person to be a beneficiary or a descendant from the original treaty signatories. There may be first nations people outside, or non-first nations people, or non-status people outside, who may be beneficiaries as well. But we're dealing primarily with the communities as collectives as treaty beneficiaries.

Those communities are reasonably well defined. They're more than self-identified. In fact, in most cases status Indian people are registered in Ottawa, and the communities are reasonably well defined. The community members themselves know who the communities are. They know who the members of the communities are. And from the status Indian list we have here in Ottawa we know generally the size of those communities officially.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stagg.

One last question, Madam Tremblay. No?

Mr. Roy, a very short one.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): That does not really provide a full answer to Ms. Tremblay's question. Basically, the question about the Marshall ruling goes further than that: could it be extended to other communities, such as the community in the Lower North Shore? Could it apply to the Montagnais? Will this happen one day? Basically, if the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet are entitled to it under whatever principle, will the right to have a fishing licence be denied to other Aboriginal peoples?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stagg.

Mr. Jack Stagg: Originally the treaties of peace and friendship were assigned with Maliseet and Mi'kmaq people, not Montagnais. The treaties upon which the Supreme Court of Canada's decision turned were those specific treaties in 1760 and 1761. They were signed by Maliseet and Mi'kmaq people.

The Chair: Was it not Passamaquoddy as well?

Mr. Jack Stagg: I'm sorry, it was Passamaquoddy as well, who now are as communities primarily registered in part of the United States.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Assadourian.

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

Welcome to the witness chair, Mr. Minister.

Before I ask my question, I'd like to acknowledge Ovide Mercredi's presence here as an adviser to the Indian aboriginal community. Maybe we could suggest that next time, in the near future, he could also come as a witness to express his point of view on this issue.

• 1620

I want to ask a question of the minister now. Mr. Minister, on page 1 of your statement you say a total of 30 out of 34 communities signed fisheries agreements. You go on to say that as a direct result there has recently been a higher degree of aboriginal participation in commercial fisheries than ever before, with an improvement in the economic and social conditions of the first nations. Can you elaborate on the benefit that the first nations received as a consequence of signing these agreements in 30 out of 34 communities?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me say that the Government of Canada last year spent $160 million to provide access, training, equipment, gears, and all that for the first nations. As a result of that, the first nations increased their landed value of $21 million and provided an income of $14 million to aboriginal communities.

So this was a huge commitment by the federal government, and we had agreements. So we built the foundation, Mr. Chairman, because the access which we provided last year, and the equipment that was given, are still there with the first nations, so they'll have that access. So we built the foundation last year in getting the first nations into participating.

Among the most important parts of that program were the training, the mentoring, and the capacity-building, so that first nations can be successful in the long term. We didn't just provide access, because access is fine, but we have to ensure they have the skills, the training, and all those things that will make them successful.

So I think that was a very good program to build the foundation, which we want to build on now. So it provided a tremendous amount of benefit to our first nations. Many of those first nations have huge unemployment—80% unemployment—and tremendous social problems. So I think we've come a long way in the first year, but we still have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is this temporary, or is it going to be continued for the foreseeable future? That's the main thing.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Okay. Well, the access that we provided last year will be provided again, in terms of the fishing opportunity. As for the equipment that was provided last year, they'll still have and maintain it. What the new agreements want to do is build on what we've done last year.

So we've already built the foundation. Now we want to build on that. That's why this year's negotiations are going on. So that's why this year is quite different from last year—because we've already built the strong foundation.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But I want to know if you make an agreement with the natives, or with aboriginals, is there a time limit for three years, or is it unlimited? That's what I want to know. If it's going to improve now, and in five years it's going to be the same thing, then I think you should take a look at that to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes. First of all, the access that was provided last year will be provided again. But we'll continue to provide more access this year, whether they signed agreements or not.

Now, if they don't sign an agreement, the opportunity they'll be missing out on is the additional opportunities in terms of additional boats, equipment, training, and infrastructure, which is important. Those are negotiated with each individual first nation, depending on their needs and what they feel is important to them for them to be successful.

So this access will continue on a communal basis. It's not on an individual, but on a community, basis. So we'll be building on it, and they'll get more and more access, and this will be done in a transition, so they can fully participate in the fishery.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Duncan, or Mr. Lunney, are you giving your time to Mr. Cummins? Yes?

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you very much.

I'd like to note just a point of information, Mr. Chairman, to clarify a point—that is, these treaties were signed with individual native communities. There's not a single treaty; there are probably 15 or 20 of them. The collective, then—the beneficiaries—should be the descendants of those who signed those treaties. As Mr. Stagg said, the communities are fairly well defined. So I just want to make that point, so that there's no misapprehension or misunderstanding here.

Now, with regard to the Indian Brook Band, Mr. Minister, what is the traditional territory of the Indian Brook Band?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Once again, you're asking me a very specific question on a band. I'll see if Pat or... Pat, can you comment on that?

The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Indian Brook Band, or the Shubenacadie Band, is actually a community that was formed fairly recently. I think it was established in about 1930. I think at this point it would be very difficult for me to say exactly what their traditional territory might be. In fact, part of my reluctance is that I think this is beginning to bear upon a court case that is currently being argued in Nova Scotia. I'm somewhat reluctant to get engaged in a discussion about a matter that will be before the courts fairly actively in the next little while.

• 1625

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chamut, in Marshall two the court said in paragraph 17 that the exercise of treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community. How then do you justify allowing the Indian Brook Band to fish in LFA 34, I believe it is, in the Yarmouth area and St. Mary's Bay? How do you rationalize that, given the instructions of the court?

The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is no question that the large majority of the access that's been provided to first nations in fact applies to fishing in a local area. But we're also very cognizant of the fact that if you take all of the first nation access and put it into a local area, you could in fact have local impacts.

I think that part of what we're trying to do is avoid that kind of disruptive effect in particular areas. As a result, we are looking at providing access in areas that you might regard as non-traditional, because we feel that it does assist in meeting our obligation to provide first nations with access to the fishery in order to earn a moderate livelihood.

It also does avoid some of the local disruption and local impact that can be extremely problematic in terms of relationships between first nations and non-aboriginal communities. So we think it's simply a prudent and reasonable approach to try to ensure that we meet our obligations while minimizing the disruptions to others.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, that simply doesn't add up. The treaties were local, according to the court, and the reciprocal benefits were local. There's no suggestion there that if the local fishery's fully subscribed, then you move elsewhere.

In particular now, the issues of quota and the giving of that quota to other bands can have some different effects. For example, I'm told that the natives have been given quota that had previously been fished by Digby County fishermen—that being the quota from D.B. Kenney—and that now the natives themselves are not fishing the quota but leasing it to others, not necessarily those from Digby County, to fish.

How does the court oblige the minister to allow this? His interpretation has been that he's trying to increase employment in the native community, but here we have a clear case where native fishermen are not participating in the fishery. The band itself is simply collecting a royalty payment while others fish it. How does the court direct you to that end?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, Mr. Chairman, our objective is to provide the skills and training for aboriginals so they can go out and harvest and fish. And this is the case. We do not support a royalty fishery, but we do support having non-aboriginal fishermen out training the aboriginal communities, ensuring that they have the skills so they can be successful in the long term.

So if Mr. Cummins has examples of royalty fishing, we want to know. There may be some exceptional—

Mr. John Cummins: I just gave you one, Minister, and in fact your people have been instructed to look the other way when boats have gone out to harvest native quota without natives aboard.

The Chair: You're out of order, John. I believe this question was—

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me be very clear on this issue. We do not support royalty fisheries.

Mr. John Cummins: You've been allowing it.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We will take enforcement action where there are royalty fisheries. The intent is to ensure, though, that they have the skills. But we want to make sure that we bring non-aboriginal commercial fishermen to aboriginals so that they can develop the skills and the training to be successful in the long term. Where there's a situation, where there's abuse of this, we'll certainly want to know about it and take enforcement action, because our objective is to provide the training so they can be successful in the long term.

• 1630

Certainly we can look at any situations you inform us about. There may be some exceptional situations, but I think you're wrong. Generally that's not the case, and we don't support it.

The Chair: John, your point—

Mr. John Cummins: I'll tell you, Minister, back in 1981—

The Chair: Order. Your point has been made. I take it that the minister will look into this specific situation and get back to us.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes.

The Chair: I have Mr. Farrah on the list, then Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine —Pabok, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good day Mr. Minister and good day to your officials.

I would like to begin by raising the question of the impact on white communities of the policies you have developed as a result of the Marshall ruling. It is clearly not easy to apply because as a result of the ruling that was to provide Aboriginal peoples with greater access to fishing—and we agree on that, there were, so to speak, two solutions: either give them additional resources to provide them with access, but there are no additional resources, or give them access to the quotas already set out, given that there are not enough resources to issue additional licences.

Clearly, the consequence of that on white fishermen is that... For example, there is a very concrete case at home. This week, a licence was purchased by a native band. This does not create a problem for us, but the five fishermen who were on that boat are now out of work because the licence was granted to the Maria reserve and the boat was sold on the North Shore.

There was therefore a dual impact. On the one hand, the fishing vessel deckhands are out of work and on the other hand, naturally, fewer resources are brought to our community in terms of jobs for plant workers. The situation is obviously not easy for you either, but you spoke of a mandate given to Mr. Gilles Thériault with respect to the impact on non-Aboriginal people. Do you have a plan that is to be put forward to ensure that the negative impact on white communities is reduced? It is not necessary to create an injustice to atone for another. I agree that Aboriginal people should have access to the fishery; the ruling is there and you have to take it into account, but the white communities on which this decision is having negative impacts must not be lost sight of.

So I would like to hear what you have to say on that. What is your point of view or what are your future plans with respect to the white communities affected by the sale of these licences?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is correct, in a fully prescribed fishery, the only way you're going to bring in new interest is through a buy-back program. This is something the industry recommended, something the committee here recommended as well. That's the advice we took from the committee, to go up and buy the licence on a voluntary basis.

We've done that in other areas to reduce the fishery as well, the capacity. For example, in British Columbia we reduced the capacity by 50%. Whenever we do that, the fishermen themselves get bought out, but the deck hands and some of the crew get affected by it. What we're trying to do... I know the provincial government, for example, in New Brunswick, the federal government, have created a committee to look at how they can deal with this, either through retraining programs or providing other opportunities. We are also providing opportunities for some of those people by involving them in the training program and in a mentoring program, to help the first nations community get the skills they need to be successful. So we're engaging them as well, and that's why we have Mr. Thériault and we're working with the union to see how we can deal with that, and there are government programs that deal with it.

Your second point concerned the processing plants. In our mandate we do not finance processing plants, we're not involved in funding them. So basically the existing processing plants will be the ones purchasing it, unless there are changes in the future years. My understanding is there really hasn't been any disruption in the last year to the processing plants. In fact, many of them have developed a relationship with the aboriginal communities, and that has worked extremely well, for example, in the Magdalen Islands, which you know about. The processing plants there have worked well. They have a good relationship, and from the people I've heard from there, it's worked extremely well.

• 1635

So I don't think there will be any disruption of processing plants. We're trying to work through federal agencies and provincial agencies to see what can be done with some of the displaced workers. This is a concern that members of Parliament have brought to my attention. We're seeing what can be done through existing government programs.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah, do you have a very short question, or are you okay? A very short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Another problem stemming from that is that there was a bidding war for the licences because of the considerable amounts of money freed up. We know that trap net licences are negotiated at $1,800 per tonne, while there are licences that are sold at $1 million or $1.5 million. That is a lot of money and it also means that young non-Aboriginals who would like to fish say to themselves that they cannot possibly compete with the government to buy licences given that there are no additional resources. Do you not find that this is a form of unfair competition? It has a very negative impact on the non-Aboriginal community, even though of course there is still the Marshall ruling that leads to a number of obligations and no one is against allowing Aboriginal communities from having access to the fishery.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'm sorry, I lost part of the interpretation because we have a technical problem, but I think I understand your question is about the price of licences.

In the long term, like everything else—whether it's in the real estate business, whether it's in the stock market—the fundamentals will determine the long-term price of a licence, which is based on income. Although there might be some artificial increase now, our objective is to buy licences at the market price; we're not interested in inflating the prices. We have given clear instructions to buy licences at market price. But in the longer term, the licence price will be determined by the fundamentals of the income that can be produced through those licences. Eventually that will be reflected in the longer term, although in the shorter term there may be some artificial increase. But we have made every effort to buy at market value and that's what the emphasis has been.

Because this year we have a three-year period for which to buy access, I think there will not be as much pressure on getting licences as there was in the last year.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen and Minister, for coming.

Sir, you had indicated that the Marshall decision applies to the descendants, I believe, of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people. Right now, though, the Marshall decision is only being applied to on-reserve aboriginals. The aboriginal people who are off reserve are also descendants of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people, yet they're not included in the Marshall decision and now they are before the courts, I understand.

If, as you said earlier, this decision applies to the descendants, then wouldn't it also apply to “off-reserve natives”?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: No. The way we've interpreted this is the descendants to a collective group. So we are dealing with the collectives of those descendants linked to the original signatories. Now, if someone can show they are linked to a first nation group—through whatever requirements there are under the Indian Act, and there may be some individuals out there who are off reserve who can show that link—it is something we'll have to consider. But basically what we're doing now is dealing with the collectives, because they're the ones that are linked—the collectives—to it.

If someone can show that he or she is in fact part of that collective and has not left that group, then we have an obligation to have a process to consider that. I think that's a process that the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for off-reserve natives, has to look at. But they have to be linked to that collective; it's just not open-ended so anybody who's a descendant is a beneficiary of that treaty. He or she has to be linked and associated with the collective group.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mr. Nault's department is now doing audits on various bands across the country. One of them is Burnt Church, for various reasons. D.B. Kenney Fisheries and other enterprises are being transferred over to aboriginal communities in order for them to ascertain the business side of the fishing industry. Will there be any audits done by DFO in the future to ascertain whether taxpayers' dollars are indeed being allocated wisely, and that there are no concerns that need to be addressed? Are you entertaining plans for any future audits?

• 1640

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, audits are done for all government programs involving federal funds. Yes, we will be ensuring that taxpayer funds are spent wisely. But in this case, it's actually the federal government that is buying the licence and providing the equipment. So it's not as if we're giving them a cheque and they're spending the money. I think the situation is quite different.

But in all cases where government funds are spent, there are audits when we feel they are necessary.

The Chair: Your last question, Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Stagg, in our last discussion we talked about enforcement—especially the Burnt Church situation. You had identified 165,000 pounds of lobsters as illegal, and you were having difficulty ascertaining, and trying to apprehend, the people who were purchasing those lobsters.

The chair asked the minister a question today about the lack of enforcement against illegal poaching—not just by aboriginal people but by non-aboriginal people too. Burnt Church was a great diversion for any non-aboriginal person who wanted to cheat on harvesting any kind of a resource. When the season opens up, a situation like Burnt Church might occur again—a situation where you have a tremendous amount of enforcement in one area, thus leaving other areas more or less unprotected.

In that case, are you prepared to ensure, to the best of the department's ability, that this time you have the resources and manpower available to stop people using that diversion to poach lobsters or anything else? Will you be able to tell these people that we heard a few weeks ago on Prince Edward Island that their fears would be put to rest?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me answer the general question first of all, and then maybe Jack can deal with the specifics.

The matter of enforcement was brought forward to me when I first became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The committee asked that something be done. As a result of the representations here and elsewhere, I went to my colleagues on cabinet. In the last budget I was able to secure $41 million of new funding over three years. This was for enforcement—to provide additional officers and new equipment, and to look at new technologies and new ways of doing things. And in the last year, the number of charges for poaching and illegal fishing has actually gone up by 50% to 60%.

There are other areas where we can do more. One is penalties. I've asked my department to look at the penalties for people caught fishing illegally. I also asked them to look at whether there are other ways—whether, as minister, I have any discretionary power to remove people's licences or take other action for stronger enforcement.

In regard to your specific question, in the Burnt Church situation, yes, we did use resources and staff from other areas. We also used existing officers, and provided overtime periods so that we could utilize their time as well. We're very cognizant of the need to have enforcement.

Last year, just dealing with Indian Brook and Burnt Church, we spent close to $13 million on enforcement action. I'd rather spend that money helping aboriginal communities, with training and other things, than on enforcement.

We're cognizant of the need, and we have to make sure we respond—so we don't leave other areas open for people to see opportunities for fishing illegally or poaching. We have to cover those. We're going to ensure that we have sufficient resources, and that we're prepared to deal with this.

Do you want to add to that, Jack?

Mr. Jack Stagg: No, that's fine.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.

I'm looking at your statement on the middle of page 4, Mr. Minister, and I find this hard to believe. In that statement, you said: “While we would prefer negotiated agreements, communal licences will be issued to first nations without”—and you underlined this word without—“them being asked to sign for them”.

• 1645

I want to pick up on that comment and pick up on comments made by some of the other members here, specifically where it concerns the aboriginals not fishing their licences. That is a reality. It's been mentioned by members here. It's a fact. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, that's been brought to your attention. But I think it's important that we bring it to your attention again, because it is happening. It's happening at an alarming rate.

The other point I want to pick up on, again, is the fair market price of a licence. You are, with the deep pockets your department and the aboriginal affairs department have, driving the prices of those licences way beyond the ability of families to buy into the fishing business. That's happening and it's happening in every part of the country. It has nothing to do with short term or long term. It's basically an inflated price simply because of the price that you can afford to pay for those licences as a department. It is keeping a lot of non-native fishermen, younger fishermen, out of the business, and family businesses in some cases.

The other concern I have relates to that old ancient piece of philosophy or wisdom that says “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll feed himself for a lifetime.” I believe you're on the wrong path here, to a degree, because I think it's just too easy for some of the native groups to get into the fishery in terms of purchasing vessels and purchasing gear and infrastructure like wharves.

I might point out, Mr. Minister, that this is one of the things that's fostering poor relations between natives and non-natives. For example, I've written you on this issue in my own riding—

The Chair: If you don't soon get to your question, he won't have time to respond.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I will, Mr. Chairman.

I've written you about Maces Bay, where the non-native fishermen's wharf is falling in the water. You look at examples where you bought native licences. You're building them wharves. I suggest that you have to take a very serious look at this and the impact you're having in the fostering of poor relations between the native and non-native communities.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to leave it at that and wait for the minister to respond, if you give him the time.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, please respond as briefly as you can. There are about four questions there.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much. Mr. Thompson has very good questions and I want to address them.

First of all, one of the most important parts of the program is the training, the skills and the capacity building, because if the first nations communities are not successful, then we're going to have an even bigger problem in the years ahead. That's why it's our intention to make sure we provide all the tools for them to be successful in the fishery. It's not only vessels and other equipment that are important, but the training is very important, the capacity building part of our program.

That's why I've encouraged them to sign agreements so they have access to the training part of the program, because it's so important for them to be professional, and thereby be successful in the long term.

In terms of the market value of the licence, in a fully prescribed fishery, if we want to bring in new entrants we don't have a lot of other choices than to buy licences. We just don't have any other choices.

I'm sure that none of you would want us to put new entrants into a fully prescribed fishery, because this is something the committee was against. This very committee advised me that if you want to have new entrants, it must be through a licence buy-back. We're making every effort to buy those at market value.

In some areas there's a greater flexibility, because where you have a large number of licences you have more people who want to get out and retire. It gives an opportunity to older fishermen who want to get out of the fishery. There are some areas where there aren't as many licences available.

So the problem is different according to the area. In some areas there are a lot of accessible licences for which the prices aren't affected. In certain areas, even in the private sector, the prices have inflated.

But our objective is to pay market value. In the long term, the market price of a licence is going to be based in the fundamentals, what kind of income you get for it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: With respect to wharves falling into the water, could you elaborate on that?

The Chair: A clarification only.

• 1650

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I want to get to the other question, the one on the wharf situation, as well.

In the last year, I've been out all over Atlantic Canada announcing new money to deal with wharves. Am I able to deal with all the wharves that have problems there? No. The demand is ten times more than what I can fulfil. But if you look at the recent announcements, we've spent tens of millions of dollars in the east coast on wharves to look at those ones that are extremely important. There will still be some out there that need repair work, and we can deal with it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: They must be in Liberal ridings, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: No, there are a lot of ridings... One is the riding of one of your own members, who I can name here. I can provide that for you.

I also want to say in terms of the fishing licences that our objective is to make sure that if the aboriginal community is provided with licences they will fish them. If there are areas where they're not fishing them, I want to know about it, because that's against the principle we're working for. We're not in favour of royalty fisheries. But there are cases where commercial fishermen are working with aboriginal fishermen, joining with them to give them the training so they can fully benefit.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes. Then we have three we're going to take from this side.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you've said that you've been providing access to the fishery consistent with the Marshall decision. I'd like to know how the Marshall decision compels you to provide fishing access to the Tobique Band, which is located about 200 miles from salt water. How do you justify, how do you rationalize, providing them fishing access to Grand Manan?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Pat, can you answer that specific question?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Cummins is referring to a particular situation with one band in New Brunswick, which has been provided access to harvest sea urchins, I believe, in Grand Manan. I think the process we followed throughout all of these discussions with bands is to sit down and to work with them to try to identify what their aspirations would be with respect to access to the fishery. We have made every effort to try to accommodate that in order to meet their aspirations and to provide them with a successful integration into the commercial fishery.

In the instance you referred to, in the negotiation this proved to be something that the first nation was interested in pursuing. We felt that it was a useful opportunity and it was agreed to as one of the phase one agreements with this particular first nation. We think it does help discharge our obligation to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to earn a moderate livelihood from access to the fishery.

Mr. John Cummins: I think the issue here, Minister, is that you're operating based on the aspirations of natives, not on what you're required to do by the treaties. The treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local. In paragraph 17, Marshall two, it says the exercise of the treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community. Do you have a legal opinion that directs you to go beyond a plain reading of the Marshall decision with regard to this adjacency principle? Yes or no?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me tell you that the Marshall decision clearly says there's a commercial right to fish, hunt and gather towards a moderate livelihood.

One other clear message from the courts is sit down and negotiate, and don't keep coming back to the courts. They indicated that we as a government should sit down with them and negotiate. To me, negotiating a settlement is much better than going to court and having winners and losers. That's what we're doing, we're following in that direction. I think it's extremely important. We could be in the courts all the time. We could spend millions of dollars going to court and not resolving things. I think it's important for the government to sit down to try to resolve these issues with the first nations instead of going back and forth to the courts all the time spending millions of dollars—

Mr. John Cummins: We've heard that before, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: —on lawyers and wasting everyone's time, instead of working towards improving the lives of aboriginal people.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, last question.

Mr. John Cummins: What we're trying to determine, Minister, is where you're going with this and what your obligations are. That's the reason we ask you to provide us with a legal interpretation. You haven't done that.

The Lennox Island Band currently has a greater number of boats than you would expect, given their percentage of the population in P.E.I. So what's your overall objective here when it comes to percentage? It's talked about in the Marshall decision, but I can't find any consistency here.

• 1655

I'd like to know what percentage of the fishery you intend to transfer to natives. Are you going to consider the local impact when you talk about that, or is this percentage going to be Maritimes-wide?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: One of the reasons we have Mr. Gilles Thériault is to look at and meet regularly with the commercial sector, get their input, and pass that on so that we take into consideration the non-aboriginal interests and so that when we negotiate these agreements, there is a smooth transition.

One other thing that's very important in order for the first nations and those communities to benefit is that you have to have community harmony. Community harmony is very much linked to economic prosperity. So it's very important to bring communities together, and it's very important for us to recognize that so that we minimize the impact.

You asked earlier today, why are you letting Indian Brook fish farther out? In some cases we don't want to have a huge disruption in a local area. We want to make sure we take those things into consideration. You can't on the one hand say stick to the local area, because that's exactly what it says, and then on the other hand ask, are you dealing with a disruption that may happen? My answer is yes, that's what we're doing, and that's why we want to make sure—

Mr. John Cummins: Freeze their local, and if the fish aren't there, they're not there.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: —we take all those things into consideration. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: No, you want your—

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, your time is up.

Have you completed your answer, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: I have about seven people on my list who I want to get in before we close. Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome the minister and his officials.

Minister, in the fourth paragraph on page two of your statement you say that you understand the concerns expressed about crew members being displaced when licence holders retire their licences. As you're well aware, in the overall licence buyout program in Atlantic Canada, the same problem has occurred in that the crew members are left out in the cold. The owner of the enterprise gets paid, but the crew members are left with no employment and no prospects of getting back into the fishery anywhere. In light of the fact that you say you understand the concerns, is your department looking at the plight of crew members who have been affected by Marshall, including the crew members in the Atlantic region who have been victims of a licence buyout?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me say that I have a first-hand understanding of this because in British Columbia we reduced the fishing capacity by 50%, and the same problem occurred there, where many of the crew members and deckhands were no longer employed. There are existing government programs, and we're trying to see if they can access those. I do not have a mandate as the fisheries minister, but there are programs in HRDC. There are also programs in the provinces. For example, in New Brunswick they have $90 million under the labour training program, which we transferred to New Brunswick. The local fisheries minister has brought the provincial and federal governments together and is working with them. In our meeting last week he said he has had very good meetings. They are trying to work on this issue to see what we can do with some of the displaced workers. So we're trying to access the existing programs.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question for the minister. You emphasized in a big way the necessity to train aboriginals and to help them develop skills in order to get them involved in the fishery. Is anyone monitoring the training and skill development of aboriginal fishers? It seems to me that the way you learn to fish is you have to get out on the vessel, get wet, set the traps, pull the traps, and all this stuff. I'm just wondering if the situation is that someone is getting paid a fee for consultant work or other things without actually developing the skills of aboriginal fishers. My belief is that you have to get out and fish in order to develop that skill. How do you train someone to fish if you don't get them out on the water? There are observations and insinuations, of course, that royalties are being paid for other people to fish the vessel. How does your department ensure that training and skill development is taking place?

• 1700

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: There are many different training components. We've signed up with the training institutions in the area to get the in-class training that exists. Also, we bring people right onto the reserves. For example, right now at Big Cove training is going on on how to repair nets. As well, we work with the Maritime Fishermen's Union, and we ask them, do you have union members who want to come and work on the boats and help them? We're getting the non-aboriginals and the aboriginals on the boats to work together to get those skills. There are a variety of skills. You need fishing skills and skills to ensure that you're properly maintaining your boat and your nets. All of these skills are extremely important in order for them to be successful. We're doing this in a variety of ways, including tapping into the existing educational institutions that are there and asking the union members and individual commercial fishermen to be part of it.

We want to monitor this closely to ensure this is actually happening, because it's a very important part of the program, Our staff will be monitoring it to make sure that the training programs are being done properly and that the skills are being developed, so that they can be successful in the long term.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Minister, I would like to return to the first part of the question raised earlier by Messrs. Matthews and Thompson. It has to do with what we find on page 2 of your presentation. You say that the provincial and federal governments understand these repercussions and provide a wide range of programs and services to help those who are unemployed, etc.

As it happens, I live in a region that has been affected and I see no link, no program...

[Editor's note: Technical Difficulties]

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Roy, just hold on a minute. The technicians are looking at it back there. We want the minister to be able to understand the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: What I mean by my question is: in Quebec at the moment, particularly in the Gaspé district about which we were speaking a short time ago, we have not seen at all...

[English]

The Chair: The problem must be in the booth.

I wonder, Mr. Roy, if we can come back to you.

We'll go to Mr. St-Julien and then back to Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: You're doing it out—

The Chair: That's the order, John. I'm trying to be fair, and I want to get everybody on.

Mr. Cummins, you're on for five minutes and that's it. Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you very much.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, who invented the rules of this procedure? This is ridiculous. I've never been in a committee where the time is entirely taken up by the official opposition. Not that I object to the official opposition asking the minister questions, but this is patently unfair. We have an east coast fishery as well as a west coast fishery.

The Chair: I hear your point, Mr. Thompson. We're dealing with the established rules of questioning that were moved—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Who wrote those rules?

The Chair: —and unless I hear otherwise in a motion from the committee at some time, I have to deal with what's on deck.

What's on deck is that we go back on the rotation to the Alliance Party. There's only one of them here, so Mr. Cummins has been asking all the questions for their party.

Mr. Cummins, five minutes is yours. Then we'll get everybody else on who wants to be on.

We will get to you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, assuming there's a right to access, the Marshall decision suggests that it's to be in proportion to population. How are you determining proportionality?

• 1705

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Cummins, what we're doing is sitting down and negotiating with each first nation based on the number of people and the access they require, based on their needs, based on their aspirations, based on the things from which they can benefit. These are things that are done on a band-by-band basis for each first nation. So all those things are taken into consideration, and it'll be done on an incremental basis. That's why we have a three-year program now, so we do it on an incremental basis.

Mr. John Cummins: But the question is: how are you determining that proportionality? If you have a three-year plan in place, what figure are you working to? All I hear from you is talk about the access they require, their needs, and their aspirations. Well, negotiating based on aspirations is not what this is supposed to be about. This is supposed to be about negotiating terms based on the Marshall decision. But you never talk about that—where you can be questioned on it, anyway. When the tough question is put to you, you always say, well, their aspirations, their needs, whatever. What's your figure?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Clearly, the Supreme Court ruling says fish, hunt, and gather towards a moderate livelihood. Mr. Cummins, you yourself and your party have stood up in the House saying what a terrible situation it is on the reserves—they have 80% unemployment on their reserves—with the poverty and the social problems that are on reserve. So I think that we can reasonably assume that the vast majority of the bands have not reached a moderate livelihood. Certainly with most of these bands, we have a long way to go. We're providing access, yes, based on negotiated agreements which are based on a variety of things including population, their needs, and their abilities to access the different types of fisheries; and we're going beyond more than one fishery as well.

Mr. John Cummins: All of what you say just goes to underline the point that we've been trying to make in this committee for probably close to a year—that is, provide us with your legal interpretation of the treaty. Now you're going back, and you're talking about moderate livelihood. So what's your definition? How are you determining it? Does income from other sources contribute to that moderate livelihood? We asked them that, and you're not doing it.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Cummins, as you know, there is a parallel process. The issues I'm working on are to have practical arrangements with the first nations. There is another process that has been started. That's the process on aboriginal rights and treaty rights as led by DIAND, with Mr. Molloy. Some of those that have to be looked at on a long-term basis will be dealt with by DIAND. I know that you'll be having the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development come forward here, and he will have to give you those answers on the long-term issues in terms of the treaty rights, aboriginal rights, and how those are going to be negotiated as well. But those are long-term issues. What I'm doing is making these practical arrangements to provide access and have the first nations participate in the fisheries.

The Chairman: Last question.

Mr. John Cummins: Again, I've just got to underline, Mr. Minister, that you're not providing us with any sense of a guideline. What's on the table? What number are you using when you are deciding proportionality? These are all issues that were mentioned by the court. You're ignoring the local nature of the treaty right.

I think that what this committee needs, what the country has to understand, and what everyone has to understand before we enter another fishing season is just which of our rights are guaranteed by the Marshall decision and what part of your program is simply yours. I think there has to be clarity. If people are going to obey the law, the law must be clear. You're not helping this at all by refusing to provide us with some kind of an interpretation.

The Chair: Final answer, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: What you are getting into, I think, is defining the treaty rights and the aboriginal rights. This is what the long-term process under DIAND is involved in, and that's what they have to negotiate at the table. It's not for me to define what those aboriginal treaty rights are. This is something that will be done on a long-term basis.

• 1710

We're abiding by the Marshall decision, which clearly says that there's a right to fish, hunt, and gather. We're trying to deal with that right in a way that's a smooth transition and in a way that's on an incremental basis. But the larger, broader questions will be answered in the DIAND-led process, where Tom Molloy is the negotiator.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I just want to indicate to committee members where we're at. This will be the order: Mr. Steckle, Mr. Roy, Mr. St-Julien, Mr. Stoffer, Mr. LeBlanc, and Mr. Thompson. That will complete it.

John, if there are any complaints from the Canadian Alliance, you had 28 minutes thus far.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, earlier this afternoon my colleague Mr. Stoffer asked the question in terms of how much money had been spent on the aboriginal fisheries enforcement. I think he was told $30 million for Burnt Church. It was $13 million, I'm sorry.

How much has been spent in carrying out the enforcement of aboriginal fisheries in the year 2000-2001? Do you know what the total amount of dollars spent on the aboriginal fisheries enforcement was?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We don't actually have numbers because enforcement is done for everyone, whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal. Where there's illegal fishing, there's enforcement taking place.

The $13 million was specifically related to the Marshall decision in terms of Burnt Church and Indian Brook, but we do not keep records in terms of certain groups because enforcement is enforcement, and we take enforcement action where there are non-aboriginals as well as aboriginals.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I guess the concept of having enough officers is always a big question. It's come to the attention of the committee from time to time that, even though the fisheries people seem not to have enough officers to enforce properly, there seems also to be, perhaps, an unwillingness of the RCMP to engage in enforcement of onshore activities. Would you like to comment about that, or is that something too sensitive to talk about at this committee?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, first of all, it's our responsibility to enforce the Fisheries Act, and our officers are there to do that. Of course, to keep the peace is the responsibility of the RCMP, and on some occasions we need to make sure that they're there to keep the peace, but our job is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act. In terms of what the RCMP do, only the Solicitor General or the Commissioner of the RCMP can respond to that. I certainly can't, but I can assure you that we'll have appropriate resources to make sure that we can enforce the Fisheries Act, and we'll continue to do that.

I know, Mr. Steckle, that you may not have been here, but I also stated that last year I announced $41 million of new money over three years for improving our enforcement—the equipment, improving technology, and also increasing front-line officers to make sure we have more people on the water. I'm also looking at how we can increase the penalties for those people that are caught fishing illegally or poaching so that we can be a lot tougher, and we're reviewing what other measures we can take because this is a serious matter. We have to protect our fish resources for all Canadians.

The Chair: A short one, Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Last year, 30 out of 34 groups had come to an agreement. When do you see us being able to move from yearly agreements to long-term agreements? I think that's important. I don't think we want to see ourselves going yearly to the table to negotiate agreements. How soon do you anticipate that would happen?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, you're correct in that we had 30 out of 34. Now we'd like to have long-term agreements to create better stability, both for the first nations and the non-aboriginals. I think it's in everybody's interest that we have a three-year agreement. We're trying to do that. Our negotiator is out there talking to first nations.

There is legal advice being provided to the first nations that if they sign an agreement, somehow there's a disadvantage to them in their long-term negotiations on their aboriginal treaty rights, which I think is wrong. They signed agreements last year. It didn't in any way put them at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, they're getting this type of legal advice.

• 1715

We've clearly stated in the agreement that signing an agreement will not in any way extinguish treaty or aboriginal rights. We've also said that these agreements are signed without prejudice to both parties to deal with that issue. I hope they will sign agreements, because then we can tailor the benefits to their needs and make sure they do have the skills and training to take advantage of it. So we're in that situation now. I hope they'll come forward and do that. I might read to you something that says:

For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement precludes a party from taking a position in future negotiations that is different from the terms of this agreement; and this agreement is not, and shall not be interpreted to be, an extinguishment of a treaty or aboriginal right.

This is trying to deal with their concerns. They didn't want to be put in a disadvantaged position by signing this agreement, as their lawyer has advised them, which is, I think, not good legal advice.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that extra information.

Mr. Roy, will we try this again?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Does it work?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No.

[English]

Just take your speech on page two—sixth paragraph—and he wants to ask you a question about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: My question is the following...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Stop the interpretation. There is a technical problem. We will translate it ourselves.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You say that the provincial and federal governments understand the repercussions on people, that the provincial and federal governments are taking action, have programs, etc.

As Mr. Matthews asked the same question, or almost the same question, just a little while ago, I can say that in Quebec, this is false. I can say that in Gaspé, I have not seen anyone who has lost his job—because there are fishermen who are losing their jobs; another one called me today—who has received the offer of a program or any kind of assistance. There has been absolutely no assistance. That is my question.

[English]

The Chair: Do you care to translate this, Dominic, or do you have it, Minister? I apologize to Mr. Roy for the interpretation.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'm sorry; I didn't get it. Maybe someone can interpret it for me.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Minister, his question was a follow-up to Mr. Matthews' question about some of the people who would be displaced as a result of licences being transferred.

In his riding, for example, there are situations where people lose their jobs in a fishing enterprise and don't have any programs to benefit from. The provincial or the federal government haven't come together in order to provide some retraining or some support to these people. Mr. Roy is wondering what the government's doing to recognize that people are displaced.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I would add more than that. I would add that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is shifting its primary responsibility on to other departments, and these other departments are doing nothing.

[English]

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: He also wants to see if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would take primary responsibility and discharge its obligations to look after these people directly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy, and that's Dominic's question too. That makes it easier.

Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc.

[English]

Just to follow up, I know this issue was brought to my attention by my Liberal members and by the fisheries minister in New Brunswick. The only thing I can suggest to the honourable member is that he bring together the human resource departments, federal as well as provincial government, and their training programs and see if they can deal with the individual.

Some of course will find other employment, because in this industry there is a turnover. In fact, I understand there is, on an ongoing basis, a 10% turnover that happens in the industry as a normal part of the licence training program. So some of them will secure other employment. Some don't, and they should try to work through some of the existing government programs. You know, as well, that the federal government transferred to the provincial government many of the labour training programs that we have as a federal government as well.

• 1720

So there are resources available provincially and federally. I would encourage you to try to bring those together and meet with the people who are in a displaced situation to see what can be done.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I don't think we have any technical problems on this side. Come over to this side and we will lend you...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The problem is in the interpreters booth, the channel that is interpreting into English.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: For a long time, the treaties, in a way...

[Editor's note: Technical Difficulties]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: How come this cannot be dealt with? We don't have the advantage of the anglophones. They have been trying to solve the problem for two hours. It would be better to stop the meeting.

The treaties have for a long time served as an honourable way of settling differences among the peoples. The nations and the governments...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There is no translation.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe, Mr. St-Julien, someone can interpret.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: No.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Minister, I would encourage your department to enact the toughest penalties possible, similar to those for anyone who poaches an animal in a national park. If it means taking the boat, the licence, and fining them, do whatever it takes. We need to protect the resource, especially after a $4.2 billion export that we're all proud of and we need to protect.

Also on the aboriginal enforcements, I would definitely encourage you to get as many, if possible, aboriginal people to be part of the enforcement process. And if you're going to fix his wharf, if you can dredge the harbour in Jeddore, we'd like that as well—

The Chair: That's not the topic of conversation today today, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just for the record, our committee recommended a transfer of the licences. We didn't recommend the transfer of boats and gear. That was something the department had done. We had just recommended the licence transfer, not the entire enterprise.

Sir, you've said here on page five, fourth paragraph, “Once again we are not operating under any deadline”. If that's the case, why would aboriginal groups even bother to sign? If they have access to the resource, there's no rush for them to move on. They could just drag this out for as long as they wish, technically. So if you're not operating on any deadline, what's the department's goal to finally reach a conclusive settlement to this?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, first of all, I thank you for the input on the penalties, which we're reviewing. Also, we do have a program to include aboriginal communities as enforcement officers and we're working with the aboriginal community again to see how we can improve and enhance that program.

In terms of licence transfers, in a lot of cases people won't sell a licence itself because they'll say “What am I going to do with the boat?” So you have to buy the enterprise. You have no choice. Where we can just buy licences, we will, but in a lot of cases you have to buy the whole enterprise. You can't just buy licence and access; it's not possible.

In terms of the agreements, throughout last year we had agreements at different parts of the year because fishing is done at different times. Some don't start fishing until October or November. Others start fishing in May and June. So there are different times. That's why I said there's no one deadline by which we said everything has to be done.

Last year at this time, I believe we had about three or four agreements signed. Our preference is to do it through agreements. We think it's in the best interests of everybody. It's stable. Everybody knows what it is and we can work with the individual first nations to deal with what they feel is important for them. If that doesn't happen, we'll do the same as we did last year. We will provide them access through communal licence and they'll have access.

Remember, they already have access from last year, so we're not starting from ground zero. They already have access, so they'll be out fishing anyway. It's just that we'll have to provide incremental additions to them even if they don't sign agreements. But we prefer to have signed agreements so they can also access all the other stuff that's important. This includes training, mentoring, skills they need, as well as equipment and tool that help them to be successful.

• 1725

So we will provide access, and every effort will be made to sign agreements, but if some feel they are going to be at a disadvantage in negotiating in the longer term in the DIAND process, and they feel that by signing an agreement they are somehow being disadvantaged, even though I don't agree with that, I'll respect the choice they make.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And the four bands that didn't sign last year?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We provided the four bands that didn't sign last year with access. They got access last year. We provided them with tags and a communal licence to go out and fish. Where they didn't get an opportunity was for all the additional access we provided.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Minister, congratulations on the way you've handled a very difficult situation. I know that in my own constituency the commercial fishermen are pleased with the tone you've taken consistently in this file and they're particularly pleased that you're the first minister in a long time to take on the issue of the food fishery.

I know in my riding the food fishery has, fishermen tell me, sometimes been used as a disguised commercial fishery. I know that you've reduced greatly some of the catches or some of the allocations to first nations for food fishery, but I'm wondering if you have any additional plans. For example, charging some of the plant owners who process some of the illegal lobster has been well received in my riding, and I believe it's the right public policy. It encourages aboriginals to participate in a commercial fishery and not use the food fishery as a back-door way. I'm wondering what the department is going to do to try to control what has become in some areas, I think, a disguised commercial fishery. And the commercial fishermen react very badly to this.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc.

I want to say, and I've said this publicly before, a food fishery shall be a legitimate and real food fishery, not a disguised commercial fishery. And we will enforce that. I'm also very happy that the provinces have said they will remove the licences of those processors that are involved in buying illegal fisheries. We're going to be taking a very strong stand because we will ensure that we abide by the law under Sparrow to provide food fisheries, but it shall be a real food fishery and a legitimate food fishery. We're going to ensure that we take appropriate action. We'll need the support of the provinces and we're working with them. We'll ensure that we enforce the law.

I think that although there may have been abuses in the past, it's in the interest of the first nations to also move into the commercial fishery, because obviously they don't get the same prices when they are involved in the food fishery. They will be better off to have that as a real food fishery, but move on to the commercial fishery, where they can really earn a livelihood and earn an income.

So it's something we're focused on and certainly we want to make sure that the integrity of the food fishery is protected.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're welcome.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Minister, I want to make a few comments again. And by the way, Mr. Minister, you were in my riding last week, and I appreciate you going down there, although I couldn't join you.

Most of the fishermen in the area I represent are not rich, as you well know. They work hard and they have an attachment to the fishery. They love the water and they love what they do. They want to continue supporting their families. They are committed to conservation and they do support the treaty process, by the way, for the most part. I'm almost amazed that they're as accepting of change as they are.

Mr. Minister, when we're talking about people who are, because of the licensing buyout... And I want to correct a statement you made in terms of the voluntary buyout. I believe the fisheries committee supported that, but I do not believe they supported the idea of all the infrastructure—including vessels, in some cases homes, and the wharves, and the whole nine yards—that went with this, because I believe that truly was a decision made by the department, not by those involved in the industry.

• 1730

I go back to the idea that there has to be a buy-in and a sense of attachment, and it only can come when you use your own two hands—you get wet, you get dirty, you get cold, and you work to support your family. I believe that's where the process has come off the rails.

In terms of those people who become disenfranchised and dismissed, in other words those boathands and deckhands and others... You did mention the 10% turnover in the industry, but the difference when you're looking at provincial governments in relation to those people... This is where I feel you're letting them down and you're attempting to help one group of people at the expense of another, because there are no specific programs by the federal government to deal with that, as there would be, for example, when you're dealing with the natives. You have programs you've designed, programs you've paid for, programs that you administer and programs that you evaluate.

So if there's one message I think you could consider, it's doing this, so we have a specific program and and we don't have to pass it over to the province to deal with. But with that being said—

The Chair: You have five seconds, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm going to conclude here in a minute.

That being said, the... You're causing me to lose my train of thought there. That's a trick the chairman often employs.

The Chair: It's a good speech, quite a good speech.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Anyway, to get to the point, Mr. Minister, the point is I believe that we have to show some hope and some promise to those non-natives, and I mentioned these wharves and infrastructure that is being neglected by the department.

My feeling is it's going to be hard for those people to look to the department and the minister with any degree of generosity when they see their own infrastructure collapsing. And it's not just happening in my riding; it's happening around the country.

Mr. Minister, if there's any message I think you can take back it's that while we want cooperation, we want a generosity by the department, this generosity has to be exhibited to those non-native fishermen who I think have dealt you a pretty fair hand over the years.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

There is a question in there, I think, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.

I know there were a number of questions there, and I want to maybe focus on a couple.

One is that our objective is to make sure that the aboriginal people are going to be successful in the fishery. So if we tell them here's access, you can go fish, but if you don't have a boat, if you don't have a trap, if you don't have the skills, we don't care, that's up to you, I don't think in the long term they're going to be successful and we're going to make a real difference.

So, yes, we've provided access, but we went beyond that and we went beyond it because we want them to be successful in the long term. We want to give them the tools. As you said, you want to give them the tools so they can fish, and that way in the long term they'll be successful. So our objective is to go beyond just the access because we want them to be successful in the long term.

Number two, in terms of the wharves, yes, we have a program in the Small Craft Harbours Directorate where we assess every wharf that comes in based on safety requirements. There's a merit system set up and they would fix those based on safety. I'm sure that all those members here—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Minister, on a point here, I want to make—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson; you took a lot of your time in your speech.

Mr. Minister, I have two short questions.

In Malpeque Bay, Prince Edward Island, which is—

Mr. Greg Thompson: It has to be your riding.

The Chair: I'm the MP there. But Lennox Island is next to Malpeque Bay.

One of the difficulties in Malpeque Bay... it is the most sensitive bay in Prince Edward Island. Some will say that's where the lobster industry really gets its start in terms of the reproduction of lobsters. So it's a very sensitive bay.

• 1735

I understand that lobster licences are being bought in other harbours and being transferred into that bay. There's a very grave concern in terms of the impact of transferring those licences into that bay. Does the department, or do you as minister, have any position on that as yet? Is there any research that is being done or that can be done in terms of the sensitivity of that bay, and whether lobster fishing should take place at all in the commercial sense in Malpeque Bay?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, you're correct, in that I believe we have purchased two licences from Alberton, but those two licences will be fished in Alberton and not in Malpeque Bay. We're not interested in putting more pressure on Malpeque Bay, so we're not interested in taking a licence bought in Alberton and putting it in Malpeque Bay.

The licences that are in Malpeque Bay were purchased in Malpeque Bay and therefore do not put pressure on the resource. That's the way we're going to work. So we won't be moving those licences to Malpeque Bay.

I think that's a good question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We'll leave it at that. We are a little over time at a couple of others, but we'll leave it at that.

On behalf of the committee, Mr. Minister, we've had a lot of questions today, and I'd like to thank you and your colleagues, Mr. Stagg and Mr. Chamut, for coming. I think we've had a good hearing.

I might point out as well that we will be inviting you back on estimates in the not too distant future, and we would appreciate a quick response in that area as well.

Just so we're clear, I believe there were a couple of undertakings agreed to. One, you would get back to us on the point that John raised and a couple of others raised on whether the law is being abided by in terms of having aboriginals on boats. The second was you will be coming back to us with a letter on the legal documentation.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of my colleagues from the House for their excellent questions.

The Chair: I will take one point of order. It was brought to my attention earlier. What's your point, John?

Mr. John Cummins: Actually, it's two quick ones. The first one would be on the estimates. If the minister doesn't come immediately after the break, the committee is deemed to have reported on estimates as of May 31. If we go on that trip first, then we'll miss that opportunity.

The Chair: We will hear from the minister before it's deemed to be dealt with.

Mr. John Cummins: Just as a clarification on what we had requested of the minister on the treaties, the letter of March 28, which the minister sent to me and which I copied to you, has a list of ongoing negotiations. I think what we need then would be the treaty that applies in each instance. That's what we want.

The other point that I think is worth noting is with regard to the legal opinion. That is, Mr. Chairman, that asking for a legal opinion is not without precedent. Committees have done that many times in the past. Let me just give you a few instances that you could relay to the minister.

The Chair: I think, Mr. Cummins, we'd better hear a response first from the minister on our request on legal documentation. If the minister's response doesn't deal as you think it should, then at that time we'd entertain a point of order on that point, but I think we need to give the minister the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, time is going on, and I think these were asked for last fall.

The Chair: As I understand it, the letter is being drafted now, right? It's being interpreted. So we will have that letter this week.

Mr. John Cummins: What we need is the legal opinion, not a letter from the minister saying that it doesn't exist, or that he's got a problem, such as we received today. That's not addressing the issue.

The Chair: I think, Mr. Cummins, we'll have to see the letter. We'll have it this week, I've been assured of that.

Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes.

The Chair: We'll have the letter this week. If you still have a point of order to raise on that question, we'll hear it at the first committee meeting we have after the break. Is that fair?

Mr. John Cummins: No. I think this issue should be pursued now.

The Chair: That's my ruling.

Thank you again, Mr. Minister.

The meeting is adjourned.