FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 15, 2001

• 1004

[English]

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

Basically, the purpose of today's meeting is to go through the report of the steering committee on what we propose the committee should do for the foreseeable future. Maybe I'll go through the list, and then we can come back and deal with each item.

• 1005

This is past history now, but the subcommittee had agreed that we invite the Auditor General for March 13. That didn't happen because, as I indicated to you the other day, the key individual in the Auditor General's department is sick and will be out of circulation for some time.

The next item is that the chair present a letter to the House leaders for the approval of the whole committee to the effect that Bill C-10 be referred to this committee for consideration.

It was agreed that the chair write a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the effect that the Bastien report be submitted to the committee forthwith. That happened. We in fact have received a response saying it is not available as yet but will be made available to us in the near future.

It was agreed that the committee invite the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development to appear on March 15, 2001, which is today. He was unavailable. He will be invited as soon as his report and the proposed regulations become public.

It was agreed that Mr. Cummins prepare a proposal for the committee that would allow it to tie the committee's examination of departmental management practices to the Marshall decision.

It was further agreed by the subcommittee that the committee invite both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appear at 9 a.m. on March 20, 2001, concerning the Marshall decision.

It was also agreed that the chair present a plan for the committee to visit eastern Canada for five days between April 29 and May 12, 2001, to hear evidence on the Oceans Act, to visit sites where oil and gas exploration affects fisheries, and to hear evidence on the practice of aquaculture. We'll table that later.

The next item is that the chair present a plan for the committee to visit Norway and Scotland for 10 days between May 27 and June 6, 2001, to visit sites and consult on aquaculture practices.

It was also agreed that the committee hear witnesses on the Pacific Salmon Treaty on a date to be determined and that the committee hear witnesses on the Nisga'a implementation of their treaty with the Government of Canada vis-à-vis the Marshall decision on a date to be determined.

It was agreed that the committee hear witnesses on the Atlantic fisheries policy review on a date to be determined and that the committee hear witnesses on the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet management practices and search and rescue capabilities vis-à-vis IATA on a date to be determined.

That's basically what we discussed.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I have a point of order. Could we have some documentation? I don't know what the situation is, but we have nothing, we have no documents in French.

[English]

The Chair: She has it.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Could we have them at the beginning of the meeting, because otherwise, we can't follow.

[English]

It's too fast.

The Chair: I thought you had it.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much. I was the second one to arrive and I had nothing.

[English]

The Chair: This is a report of the steering committee to the full committee. It's the full committee's decision as to what we do. Each of these items is opened for discussion, and we'll go through them one at a time.

The first one is a moot point at this point. As I explained to the committee the other day, the person who did the report on aquaculture had surgery and therefore is unavailable for some time. I suggest we still do it as soon as the individuals are available.

• 1010

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): As you're aware, the Auditor General is leaving fairly soon, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the chair to write him a letter thanking him for his work on studies of the fisheries throughout his term in office. He did an awful lot of critical reviews of west coast salmon, aquaculture, and east coast fish, and it was awfully decent of him to have taken a critical look at fisheries management in the country. If the committee could write him a letter thanking him for his efforts, I think that would be a nice gesture.

The Chair: Are you making that a motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir. It's a nice thing to do.

An hon. member: Could he repeat the motion?

The Chair: Would you repeat the motion, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Basically, it's that the committee write a letter to the Auditor General thanking him for his work on fisheries studies throughout his term in office. I think he did a very good job for the country. I think the committee should write him a letter thanking him and his staff for their efforts.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mark that down as a victory.

The Chair: The second item is that the subcommittee—

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): With regard to the Auditor General, Mr. Chairman, I think it's critical we hear from him soon. I understand that the individual who headed up the investigation on aquaculture may be unavailable, but certainly he must have a deputy. I think it's important that the Auditor General and somebody at the senior level who participated in that aquaculture study appear before the committee. I will not support travelling to carry out further investigations on aquaculture until we hear from these guys, because I think he has done the definitive study.

The Chair: Andrew, I think you've talked to the Auditor General's office and maybe Mike did as well. In any event, the Auditor General himself, as you know, is retiring. His office certainly feels that in order to do justice in answering questions on the study they've done, they need the key guy who did that study to be here. It's not his fault he's not available. He has had surgery.

Mr. John Cummins: I certainly understand that, but I'm sure he has a deputy.

The Chair: I think if you're going to get proper answers, you need the one who was in charge to be here. We already made a request to hear him at the earliest possible time after his recovery. I really don't see, John, what more we can do than that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): The intent is good when you take into consideration when it's available, and we'd be happy to do it on the very first occasion. But to just say we have to do it now, as he said, it's impossible to do. But the intent should be expressed in support that—

The Chair: We can ask if somebody else is available, but I don't see any point in bringing a witness from the Auditor General's office before us who really can't answer the questions.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm sure it wasn't a one-man investigation. I'm just saying that the Auditor General is still here for a little while, and I'm sure that he and probably the second in command on that particular investigation would be able to respond to concerns. I think that document is a critical piece of evidence. I think it's the report we should have written, actually, but that's another story.

• 1015

The Chair: Okay, then would it be agreeable that we approach the Auditor General's office again to see if there is any way somebody else could handle it? If it's found that they think they can't, it would have to be postponed until the other individual is available. They know if they can answer the questions or not.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Also, Mr. Cummins mentioned that it should be before the east coast hearings. I don't think it should be tied into them. If the gentleman is not available, as you say, we could come back and perhaps ask better questions of the witnesses than prior to going to the east coast. Efforts should be made to make sure someone from the Auditor General's office comes and testifies here to answer the questions, but one should not be tied into the other.

The Chair: What was the date they thought he might be available?

The Clerk of the Committee: The Auditor General?

The Chair: No, the guy who is having the operation.

The Clerk: It would be April at the earliest.

The Chair: That's not far away.

We'll have another discussion with them, John, and I'll report back. I personally don't see any sense in having somebody from the Auditor General's department here if they can't answer the questions. Maybe the second in command can, but it was certainly the view of the people we talked to that they really needed the key guy here.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm patient, so six weeks is fine by me. But if people look at that document carefully, they might be revisiting whether or not we should even continue with this study in aquaculture, because I think the concerns the Auditor General raises and the warning flags he puts up are ones on which we should actively determine whether or not some action has been taken by the government. I think that's the obligation we have.

The Chair: You wouldn't be suggesting to me that you'd accept the view of the Auditor General without double checking, John?

Mr. John Cummins: I think the Auditor General's report reflects the concerns I've had and the concerns that have been expressed to me. Yes, I find it an outstanding report, and one I'd buy into wholeheartedly.

The Chair: All right, then, we will check further and see what's possible there.

The second point on the report is that the chair present a letter to House leaders, for the approval of the whole committee, to the effect that Bill C-10 be referred to this committee for consideration. That was talked about the other day. There were implications in Bill C-10 on fisheries, so the subcommittee suggested that we draft a letter.

Is that the position of the full committee? Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The third one is there for your information. We already did write a letter.

Andrew, do you have the response to that letter?

The Clerk: That has been circulated.

The Chair: Committee members have their response back from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on that letter. Is there any discussion on it?

Basically the letter from the minister states that the report, until it's made public, will not be made available to the committee.

A voice: Will that be in a short time?

The Chair: Yes, they think it will be available before too long. It was the regulatory review and the regulations.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, why is that? You've been around a long time. Why the delay there? What can be in it that would bring the government down or something? It's just nonsense.

The Chair: The reason given to us was mainly translation.

• 1020

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Oh, please, that's nonsense. We have more money here in Ottawa. We heard that excuse a couple of years ago on something, that we couldn't get something done because of translation. It's just nonsense.

The Chair: Anyway, it's there for your information. That's the response back. I will talk to the minister to say that we want that rapidly, and if translation is the problem, put the people in place to get it done, because we need that for review as well.

The next one is asking Mr. Bastien to come before the committee. The point of view there was that it would be best when his report is made public, and we accepted that for the time being, right or wrong.

Is there any point of view on that? As soon as the report is public, we will have him. That was the agreement.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, the next one relates mainly to you. Do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. John Cummins: No. I think the issue is simple enough, that the minister come before committee with the information we requested of him last fall, that being his legal interpretation of the Marshall decision, complete with these so-called treaties that the current negotiations are the basis for, and explain to us federal obligations arising from the Marshall decision. I think it's pretty straightforward, really.

The Chair: I imagine the committee will—

Mr. John Cummins: It's not what he's doing but his interpretation of the federal obligations arising from the decision. He has the legal opinion from the justice department, I'm sure. We asked for that a long time ago. I think it only reasonable to expect it. It hasn't come.

I can give you the dates on that, but you can check the record yourself. The request was first made in September. Then, on October 4, we had a committee meeting, and you said at that time that you were going to get it.

The Chair: Basically you're asking that the minister come forward with his interpretation of the decision.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: But hasn't he basically been saying that since last spring?

Mr. John Cummins: He has been giving us government policy, but all we're asking for is this legal opinion. He's suggesting certain things, and we're saying back it up—show us what your opinion is.

The Chair: We will give him a heads-up that you'll be asking for that.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I think that it is important to have the government's opinion but also a legal opinion. If we were to hear the news a year from now, a written legal opinion in both official languages would be very important for the members of the committee. It would also be important to acquaint ourselves with it.

There's nothing to hide, because we have to respect Aboriginal fishing rights, as the Marshall decision says. But this concerns the whole issue of fisheries, be it in Abitibi, James Bay, Nunavik or elsewhere in Canada. I'm very curious to see the content of this legal opinion the government or legal services would obtain.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, I would remind the committee that if indeed the minister or the commissioner of aquaculture comes before us, those be in the rooms where that can be televised, if possible.

The Chair: Okay. Note that, Andrew.

On the legal decision, on Mr. Cummins' point, I will ask the minister to come with that in hand, if it's possible.

Mr. John Cummins: I think that's the issue. I'm not interested now in what he's doing; we all know what he's doing, but we want to know why he had to do what he's doing. What's the justification for it? That's the matter we want to discuss.

The Chair: We will ask him to be prepared for that, and he'll have to answer to it.

• 1025

On the next point, we've already made preliminary requests for that particular date to the ministers. I do know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has certainly said he'd be willing to come. I don't know about the coordination of the two as yet.

Is the committee agreed with that recommendation?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: You have before you, on the next point, a—

Mr. John Cummins: One other point: somewhere along the line, we should have the minister in here for the main estimates.

The Chair: Yes, that's right. Okay, that's straightforward and agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: You're asking for a completely separate meeting, at a separate time, on estimates? Not a problem.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We'll throw in the Marshall decision at the same time.

The Chair: I can't imagine you doing that.

Mr. John Cummins: No, they're separate.

The Chair: You have before you a proposal on travel cost estimates for public hearings on the east coast.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as a new member, I'm not sure I understand. Somebody checks off MPs' points. When committees travel, do we use up the points out of our budgets? I'm curious how that works.

The Chair: No. Deputy ministers and senior bureaucrats sure as hell don't take from their personal points to travel—so the committee shouldn't either. No.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: So when it says MPs—

The Chair: Say if Mr. Cummins were coming to Halifax, he'd probably use his points to get to Halifax instead of coming to Ottawa. That's fine. But in terms of committee travel, no, we don't use our points.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, any questions on that? The hearings are from Sunday May 6 to Friday May 11. It's open for discussion. We had proposed to start off in Halifax and hold hearings there, or in that area, for three days. On day one, May 7, we would hold hearings on aquaculture, and on day two, on the oil and gas situation—a lot of inshore fishermen are concerned about inshore oil and gas exploration. That would also accommodate our need for the statutory review on the Oceans Act.

And on day three, we would deal with questions about the coast guard in Halifax. Maybe we would ask representatives from the Charlottetown and Saint John coast guard bases to come in and lay their concerns before us, as well.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Excuse me, where are you reading that? We don't have that.

The Chair: I'm just reading that from my own notes. What you have here is the cost of the trip.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay, all right.

The Chair: Sarkis, I'm just explaining how the agenda would operate, okay?

Then we would move to Charlottetown, visit the site there, and meet with the Atlantic Veterinary College, which is doing a lot of work in aquaculture—nutrition, feeding, drugs, and so on.

From there, we would go to Quebec. I believe you're still working on that, Georges, but it would be Îles-de-la-Madeleine—

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Yes, that's fine, Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The Chair: —to do a site visit there, and then return.

• 1030

Mr. John Cummins: I lost you after Halifax. You're there for three days, then where do you go?

The Chair: Okay, let's go through this. On May 6 we arrive in Halifax. On May 7, which is the Monday, we're in Halifax doing aquaculture hearings. May 8, oil and gas—you could call it an Oceans Act study, and we would invite the inshore fishermen concerned about oil and gas exploration in the inshore.

On May 9 we would deal with the coast guard question in Halifax. On May 10 we would do a site visit of an aquaculture operation and meet with the scientific community at AVC, who are dealing with aquaculture. They're world-renowned now.

Mr. John Cummins: That's on P.E.I.

The Chair: On P.E.I. On the night of May 10 or the morning of May 11, we would view the sites on Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Then we would fly over Newfoundland and come back to Ottawa.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have to raise a point of protest. Back a while ago, I'm not sure just when it was, we were scheduled to visit Newfoundland, but we didn't get there, for obvious reasons. I'm just disappointed that the committee has chosen not to go there now, because we were scheduled and we should go. There is aquaculture development there, and there is oil and gas. Believe it or not, Newfoundland has an oil and gas industry.

The Chair: They're trying to get more of Nova Scotia's share.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes. But I wanted to put that on the record, because I thought we should go there.

The Chair: We can amend that, Bill. One of the difficulties for the subcommittee was that Lawrence was unable to be there one day, so we didn't get into Newfoundland.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, I'd like to support Bill's initiative. In Newfoundland they have something called “the cod growout”, where they capture small cod and actually grow them out. That's a little different from other aquaculture sites, and it would be interesting to see how that operates. Newfoundland is one of the few areas that does that.

The Chair: I'm putting forward what the subcommittee documented and tried to schedule. It's open for amendment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Move an amendment, Bill.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to go on the record saying that we were scheduled to go.

The Chair: Okay. I have Mr. Steckle, then Mr. Assadourian, and then Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I also support Mr. Matthews' view that we should go to Newfoundland. I know there was an occasion when we were to go there, after a vote back at the House, but we never did get out there. We need to do it, and we're there out east anyway, so let's do it.

The Chair: Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I also would like to support our colleague Mr. Matthews' proposal. I think we should do it. Maybe we could cut off one day from Nova Scotia and fly there. As Paul mentioned, we had agreed last time to go there, but somehow we could not make it. But we have to make sure we do—otherwise they become separatists too, you know.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, I missed you earlier—did you still want to...?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Later. I wanted to talk about the budget because I had forgotten something, but I will wait. It is important to go to Newfoundland because we often forget this region, but I support...

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Three out of the five days are to be spent on this aquaculture business. Given the nature of the Auditor General's report, and the fact that Bastien has also reported to the government, I think we should wait. I think we should look at those reports to determine whether or not it's a good use of our time to spend it on aquaculture.

• 1035

I think there are some huge issues that are happening on the east coast now, including this Atlantic fisheries policy review, which is driven by Marshall and is going to have serious implications for the management of the fishery. The government is moving rapidly into co-management with native people based primarily on politics and nothing more. I think that issue would probably take precedence. If we did look very carefully at what the Auditor General said and at what Mr. Bastien is saying, I think we would push this aquaculture away for now.

The Chair: Okay, we have two different points of view. One is whether we're really indeed going to do aquaculture. In the other, we're talking about travel. So we better determine what we're going to do first.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just as a slight correction, the Atlantic policy review is not just driven by Marshall. It's also driven by oil and gas concerns, aquaculture concerns, and everything else. Marshall is one aspect of the review, but that review is many other things as well.

I tend to support John in lots of things with regard to the fishery, but one thing fishermen like to do is to see us. They actually want to see us and be able to talk to us in order to allow their concerns to be addressed before a full committee. That has worked very well in the past, and I think it's imperative upon us. When we have an opportunity to go before fishermen and their families in their communities, it gives them a sense that maybe Parliament or elected officials can hear their concerns and move them forward within the confines of the House of Commons. So I think it is imperative upon us to go to the regions of the country to see them.

Mr. John Cummins: I couldn't agree more. All I'm saying is that I think it's the wrong issue to be going for. I think that bigger issue, the Atlantic fisheries policy review, is the issue you should be talking about.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We'll probably get caught up to that as well.

Mr. John Cummins: We shouldn't spend three out of five days on aquaculture when the definitive report for the time being has been written.

The Chair: Well, two of those days—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The Auditor General wrote a great report.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, what's the government doing to follow up on that?

The Chair: You'll certainly have the opportunity to question the minister on that. My argument in terms of the need for the aquaculture study is that we started it some time ago and we don't want to waste all the work. The only way you're going to understand the industry is see it firsthand. I don't just take what the Auditor General says at face value either.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to contradict my colleague, but according to me certain priorities have already been defined and aquaculture was one of them, that is that we were to finish the study that had already been undertaken.

That is what I meant to say. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Is there any other discussion over here? No? Then, first of all, let's determine if we're going to travel on aquaculture. If we are, then how are we going to do it?

Bill, if you're looking at trying to fit Newfoundland in, give us a proposal. It doesn't have to be exactly the way it is here. What we were trying to do was tie it down to a fairly tight timeframe.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I know.

The Chair: We can add a day or whatever and come back with a new budget. That's not a problem. How do you want to proceed?

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is a budget item I'd like to get back to later, and I don't want us to forget. Let's finish up and I will come back to it later.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I will.

On the proposed travel, am I hearing some amendment?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: It's agreed that we try to fit in Newfoundland?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: How about working in Bermuda for the bluefin tuna article?

The Chair: Okay, we're agreed on Newfoundland.

An hon. member: I'll even agree to go to Bermuda first.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Okay, we'll have to come back with a new budget, right, Andrew?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Then we'll have to.... I guess we can't deal with it by motion unless we have the budget to accompany it, so we'll come back with a new budget on that and we'll talk to you specifically about trying—

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, we did have a proposal before, for a day or part of a day.

The Chair: The thing was that we had already visited Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, and Maine. You weren't able to accompany us at that time.

• 1040

I believe, Mr. Cummins, that you were there, or was it Mr. Duncan—or both of you?

Mr. John Cummins: Both.

The Chair: We then did an area in Nova Scotia, and we figured Newfoundland was proposed at the time, but we weren't able to complete the study due to the election.

Okay, we'll come back to you on that.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I checked the expense estimates in the budget. I find them bizarre.

For coffee, tea and juice, $600 per day for five days, I hope that at that price, cereal, milk, and biscuits are provided, because it doesn't look good. Six hundred dollars a day for coffee... This should be identified in some other way, because $3,000 for coffee over five days seems bizarre to me. We have to know what this covers exactly.

[English]

An hon. member: There are sandwiches too.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I hope that the sugar is included.

[English]

The Chair: It's probably good maple sugar from Quebec.

Andrew will answer that question.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Six hundred dollars a day, that should be changed.

The Clerk: I do apologize, but there are other incidental costs that are taken into account. We included materiel that would be used for public hearings, such as photocopy machines.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: This will have to be indicated, please, sir. Because as it is described here, it seems strange.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll do that when we come back with a new budget in any event, since we've agreed to include Newfoundland.

On the next proposal—and we'll need a motion on whether to proceed further on this one or not—you have a paper before you proposing that the chair present a plan for the committee to visit Norway and Scotland for ten days, between May 27 and June 6. You have basically a rough outline on that paper there. I've talked to some people who are familiar with Norwegian and Scottish aquaculture, and these are the indications of where the best places to visit would be in order to make the best use of our time.

On the sheet, it says Sunday, May 26, but that's to take into consideration the time difference. On Sunday, we'd arrive in Glasgow and take a train to Fort William. There's a lot of aquaculture in that area of Scotland. We would do site visits in Fort William on the 28th. On Tuesday there would be some site visits, and in the evening we would meet with the rural affairs committee in Scotland. On Wednesday we'd move to Aberdeen to do a site visit. There is a fisheries research centre there that we would visit. On Thursday we would visit that research institute, and then move to Bergen, Norway.

In Bergen we would meet with some of their governmental representatives, their committee, if possible, on Friday. On Saturday we would do some site visits by travelling by bus. On Sunday we would fly to Stokmarknes. I'm told by the aquaculture industry in Canada that this area of Norway has the warm-water currents and that its aquaculture sites are similar to Canada's. Although it is above the Arctic Circle, the water is warm. We would do site visits there on Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday we'd depart to come back to Ottawa.

So it is a proposal. If you want us to develop it further, we can, and we'll come back with a proposed budget. That's what's proposed at the moment, but we need a motion to deal with it.

Paul.

• 1045

Mr. Paul Steckle: I would move a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed further with a budget for this planned endeavour. It's something we've talked about for a long time. I think it needs to be part of the studies that we do to conclude finally our agricultural report. So I would move that we proceed to the next level.

The Chair: We don't need a seconder, I'm told. Is there any discussion? John.

Mr. John Cummins: As I said before, I think that the Auditor General has done the definitive study for now on this act. But there are some huge management issues happening that will have a more profound impact on the fishery than this does right now. So I'm not particularly excited by this.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Then we will come back with a budget.

The subcommittee proposed that we hear witnesses on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Is that agreed? If so, do you have any idea of when and whom we should invite?

An hon. member: David Anderson.

The Chair: He has had enough of the Pacific Salmon Treaty in his time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, the Pacific Salmon Treaty was done in secret. Nobody really knew much about it until the day it was announced. I think we should invite some fishing representatives—people who feel the brunt and effect of this treaty on the west coast to see what they think this treaty has done, or hasn't done, to improve or destroy their livelihood. We should give them an opportunity to speak. I can give you names of people, for example.

The Chair: Okay. I'll get the names from you afterwards. But are we basically agreed to hear them when we can fit them in?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, agreed.

Mr. John Cummins: That issue was a lot more complex than Peter's making it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is.

Mr. John Cummins: I can get you a list of 12 guys who want to bitch on anything you want. That's easy to do.

It's a complex issue. If you're going to do this properly, you're going to have to talk to people from Alaska. You're going to have to bring in Department of Fisheries scientists, people from Washington State, and so on. It's a huge issue. If you want to just sit and listen to people complain, that's one thing. But if you're going to do something about it, then it's a big topic. It's a huge issue. You should keep that in mind. If you want a session of witnesses, that's fine. But if you really want to come to grips with it, you're taking on a big job.

The Chair: I forget the discussion we had at subcommittee, John, but were we not looking more at an update and where it's at?

Mr. John Cummins: I'm just saying that's the choice.

The Chair: Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I don't think this is going to take place any time very soon. It may take place in September or October when we come back. Let's leave it. We can propose it at that time rather than talk about it now, and then talk about it again in September and October. Do you agree to that?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure. It's not as pressing an issue as—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Because there is no time today. Even if you agree about it, there's no time to do it.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then we could discuss the points that John has so rightfully raised.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes. We can go into detail.

Mr. John Cummins: What might be interesting for the committee is if the Library of Parliament or someone did a brief overview of the treaty and where we're at—just a backgrounder on it. If the committee was provided with that, I think it would be helpful.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Good idea.

The Chair: Okay. We want to request that a backgrounder be provided. Then we can determine at a later day when we will do it. Okay, Alan's listening.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Hey, Peter. You have four out of four today, haven't you?

The Chair: Okay. Next is that the committee hear witness on the Nisga'a implementation of the treaty with the Government of Canada. At full committee the other day, we talked about whether or not we should have the Nisga'a people in to see how that treaty is working relative to the fisheries. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I ask a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Nisga'a is in effect now. Is that right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can we give them one year to see how the operation goes, before we go any further, so they could have some backtrack...?

The Chair: It's been in effect for about a year. Isn't that right?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes. They could assess the effect of the treaty on the population after one year rather than three, four or five months into the treaty. I think it would be premature to start this thing now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's already been almost a year.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But give them time to see what the—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, they're ready. They'll come before us any time.

• 1050

The Chair: I think they've been to town and have met with a number of people outlining what's happened to date. I know they're willing and able to come in with fairly solid documentation. I guess the question to the committee is, do you want to hold a meeting on that or not?

Mr. John Cummins: It's one piece of the puzzle. A couple or three weeks ago there was a preliminary agreement with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, west coast Vancouver Island, that is giving them some sort of management say on fisheries. The Tsawwassen Band in my riding is after the same thing. The Sliammon around Sechelt are after fish and what not. Again, this is just part of a big puzzle—what's going to be the effect on fisheries management, on coastal communities, and so on, if we continue along the same line on these treaties, apportioning to specific groups access to the fishery management rights, and what does it do to the minister's authority, as I say, what does it do to coastal communities? It's a huge problem.

The Chair: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's even more reason to have an example, whether good or bad, depending on your point of view, for the Nisga'a, who have already made those agreements John is talking about that other bands are now entering—and Mr. Lunney's group, the Heiltsuk, I believe, on the spawn on kelp, a big issue in his area. We already have an agreement in place with Nisga'a on one of the fishing aspects—they've had it in place for a year. And other aboriginal groups on the west coast are now looking at that and saying we want the same type of thing. So let's bring them in, let's have a conversation with them to see how it's going in that respect, and—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: One is enough to figure out what's happened?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no. It's obviously not. There are different aboriginal groups and different concerns, depending on where they are and what resource they're going after. But I think it's—

The Chair: Okay, Peter. We'll schedule them in, if that's agreeable, and then we can make a determination to invite other witnesses as well.

Mr. John Cummins: There's a policy review process in place on the west coast that's similar to this Atlantic fisheries policy review, and what you might want to do is to look at it, under the umbrella of that Pacific fisheries policy review—it would give you an umbrella, if you will, under which to go and examine the issue and gain some understanding, perhaps, of where the government is intending to go on this issue. That might be a better umbrella to study it under, rather than simply focusing on one treaty.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: John, when is that Pacific policy review taking place? Or has it already happened?

Mr. John Cummins: Some of it is ongoing now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Right now, eh?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So it's coinciding with the Atlantic one?

Mr. John Cummins: As I understand it, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is there any way to get an itinerary of where they're going, or an agenda?

Mr. John Cummins: I think that's been published. I don't have it. I have had it, but I don't have it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Wayne, is it possible for the committee to get that?

The Chair: Yes, we can get that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Because they usually ask for written submissions.

The Chair: Okay. We can get that information and put it before the committee.

So for the time being, we will try to schedule Nisga'a at some point in time, and also try to schedule somebody who is doing the Pacific policy review to give us an overview as well.

John.

Mr. John Cummins: That's a better place to start, I would think.

The Chair: Okay. We'll start with the overview, and then do Nisga'a. Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Because we do not have many west coast witnesses down here as yet.

Second page, on the Atlantic fisheries policy review, that is ongoing as well. The dates have already been determined. That's a fairly extensive document. I don't know whether everybody's received a copy. As with the Pacific one, a fairly extensive change of the mandate is possible under that. How do you want to handle it? I think we said we probably couldn't handle it until fall, but.... John, go ahead.

Mr. John Cummins: I think it's the kind of thing that would be helpful, to have somebody come in and give us a briefing, an overview of what the objectives are of both of those policy reviews. It would be a one-day shot, just to set the tone.

• 1055

The Chair: Do you think we could do the two on the one day?

Mr. John Cummins: No. I think we'd be better off having separate days.

The Chair: Separate days.

Mr. John Cummins: It would be one way to start the process, anyway.

The Chair: Okay. Then we'll have to give notice on that. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: This is because the document is there, and there's a lot of stuff in it.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is just to give some information to the committee. I went to the first meeting they had in Halifax on March 12, and there were a tremendous number of fishing groups from throughout Atlantic Canada there, with the exception of the aboriginal groups. They've boycotted the sessions.

The interest level was high in the discussions, which were quite serious and very proactive. A lot of groups are looking at this as maybe the chance to change DFO's way of doing business. They seemed to be upbeat or optimistic but very cautious as well. So it's a pretty interesting concept.

The Chair: Okay. Then we'll have two, one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic to give an overview, and then we'll make some decisions based on those.

On the last one, the Canadian Coast Guard fleet management practices, there was the Auditor General, I believe, who looked into that as well.

Mr. John Cummins: That was a pretty good report. I think we should have somebody from the Auditor General's in to talk on that.

The Chair: We should have them in prior to doing the coast guard on the east coast.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): The coast guard is a concern in our riding, Mr. Chairman, and I refer particularly to the dive search and rescue incident that occurred recently right off Sea Island and the disbanding of the coast guard dive team. It's very important in our area.

Also, I've wondered if there's something we shouldn't be looking into with the marine communications and traffic services of the coast guard, particularly with a lease-cost analysis going on. I know there are very big concerns in my riding about changes and downsizing. A lot of people are very concerned about the lack of money available for training that's going into that program. Could that be included in this area as an item under coast guard?

The Chair: Yes, I think we have to.

How about if we have the Auditor General in first? We may be able to get his input on that one more rapidly. And maybe, Mr. Lunney, if you could—

Mr. James Lunney: It would be a place to start.

The Chair: —you might think of some witnesses we should bring in.

We can do the coast guard on the east coast easily enough.

What I find when you travel is that you've got a whole day. You don't just have two hours, and you can get a lot done. Here in Ottawa you only have two hours, and you can't do a lot.

So I think that if we invite some western witnesses on the coast guard in the west to Ottawa or arrange a teleconference, we can cover that end and then do the Atlantic end and the coast guard if we go to Atlantic Canada. Otherwise, we'll have to do it differently. Is that okay?

Can you think of some witnesses, so I can come back with a schedule?

I have one last point, but before I get to that, is there a motion to adopt the report as amended?

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: As you know, last week we tried to get the department to come forward to speak on enforcement, but they wanted a little more time to prepare.

I think we did have an excellent hearing on Monday with the fishermen, and I would suggest to members who weren't able to be here that they get the minutes, because the fishermen laid out a lot of good stuff.

The department will come forward next week—I'm not sure whether it will be Tuesday or Thursday—and talk about enforcement. We made that request to them last week. They wanted a little time to prepare, so we gave it to them and that will happen next week. Is that agreeable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Is there any other business?

Dominic, you had a point on the gulf fisheries we didn't talk about at the steering committee because I didn't know what to say on it.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Yes. Mr. Chairman, you and I have spoken about it. It's an issue that's fairly regionalized and concerns the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. It's the whole issue of how the department has structured the gulf region.

• 1100

A number of years ago the department was moving jobs and resources to Halifax.

[Translation]

There was a problem with services to francophones. The Commissioner of Official Languages had even produced a report expressing serious concerns about this at one point.

[English]

There's an official languages issue, and I have a sense of the local situation. I've spoken to some colleagues about how it would be useful at some point to look at how the department has implemented the two reports it commissioned on re-establishing a management structure for the Gulf of St. Lawrence separate from that of the Scotia-Fundy or Maritimes region in Halifax. The Gulf of St. Lawrence, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, is largely an inshore fishery. There are a number of linguistic issues. It's a separate ecological system from that of the Bay of Fundy.

I have a sense from some of the officials who work in the gulf region in Moncton that what Minister Anderson announced and what was in the two reports that were brought forward have not in fact been implemented. It may amount to 75%, but what's going to happen is that inshore fishermen in my riding—and in yours too, Mr. Chairman—are going to receive a different level of service from what other regions of the department receive.

I'm a new member. I don't know what the structure is, but I'm going to look into this on my own. I've spoken to the minister about it, and he would be open to having it looked at because he thinks the department hasn't followed through on its own reports and on the decision of the former minister, Mr. Anderson.

Some suggestions from you, Mr. Chairman.... Subcommittees impose a complicated structure, but I would be willing to lead one or work on one. It would require one day of hearings held in Moncton, Halifax, or somewhere. For me and other MPs from the Gulf of St. Lawrence area, it is an important issue because the department has not lived up to its commitments. We're going to have a situation two years from now where department officials say we told you so, and it didn't work.

[Translation]

They are going to provide a whole series of reasons to show that this has been a failure, to once again justify centralizing everything in Halifax.

[English]

With the greatest respect to my friend Peter, Halifax is a long way from Caraquet, Shediac, or some communities in your riding. It's a concern I have, and I'm looking for some direction from you.

The Chair: I wonder if we could do it this way. Dominic, you could provide us with some background information and have an opening session in Ottawa sometime over the next two to three weeks in which we will bring in whoever is responsible for administering that policy. You know who the players are. Have them in here for an initial hearing. We'll see where the problem areas and the questions really lie and then determine how we'll handle them.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Sure. By next week I could—

The Chair: Is that agreeable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

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

The Chair: It's agreed then. We'll do it that way if you can provide some background information.

The meeting is adjourned.