FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 4, 2001

• 0912

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order. I am confident the other members will be along shortly.

This morning the order of the day is to get an overview of the Atlantic fisheries policy review and the independent panel on access criteria. I would propose we proceed by first having Mr. Sprout go over the Atlantic fisheries policy review for about 45 to 50 minutes, then we'll turn to Arthur Kroeger, who is chair of the independent panel on access criteria. They both interrelate.

Paul, before you start, there was concern by some committee members about meeting today. I want to clear up the matter and have it on the record. We had a steering committee meeting on September 25, where we agreed to a number of issues and the schedule. Then, as everyone knows, committees had to be reinstituted and were shut down as a result. A notice went out that should not have, stating today's meeting, so another notice from the clerk was sent that said to ignore the first notice.

A letter also went out. I'll quote it so we're clear:

Procedure prevents me from issuing a notice before you have elected a Chair, but I presume the Committee will continue to follow the plan it adopted on September 25. Because of the schedule of the officials at DFO, the agenda for October 4 is changed to Atlantic fisheries policy and access criteria.

It was sent, and the formal notice went out yesterday. It's on the record and clear. I know Mr. Cummins was concerned about it when I talked to him on the phone last night.

With that behind us, Paul, you can introduce the people with you and we'll get into it.

Mr. Paul Sprout (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to introduce two colleagues who are accompanying me this morning. Michelle Doucet is with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and has responsibility for the independent panel on access criteria that you'll be hearing about in more detail later this morning. Catrina Tapley is the director of the Atlantic fisheries policy review and has participated actively in this program.

Committee members, I'm going to make a presentation today from a deck that will have been handed out this morning. My remarks are to provide you with some background on the Atlantic fisheries policy review. I will also talk about the independent panel on access criteria.

• 0915

I'd like to start off first with explaining why we were doing a policy review and what it's about. I'll then move on to tell you about the progress we've made and the consultation process we're following. I'd like to conclude by telling you about what we've heard so far and our next steps.

We talk about the review. Simply, the review is a collaborative process for identifying a vision, objectives, and principles for managing the Atlantic fishery over a period of time. It's divided into two phases, phase one and phase two. Phase one is what I'm reporting on today. Phase one tries to answer the following questions: What are we trying to achieve in fisheries management in Atlantic Canada over the long term? What are our objectives and what are our principles?

Phase two asks different questions. Given the direction outlined in phase one, how do we achieve that direction? How do we implement it? Phase two is about designing the strategies and the operational policies to achieve the vision outlined in phase one.

The Chair: Could I interrupt for a second? There are some people now on the committee who weren't on it previously. There was a document sent out in the beginning when you started your policy review. You've sent us a summary that has gone to all the offices, but I'm not sure if new members of the committee received the original one. If they haven't, we'll get it for them.

Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Sprout: We'll talk a little bit about why a policy review is required.

The first point I'd like to make is that the last policy review was done over 20 years ago. Since that time, there have been a lot of changes in the fishery, many of which you will be familiar with. We've had very significant changes in stocks. We had, for example, the stock collapse in 1992 of northern cod. We've also had very significant increases in stocks, particularly with shellfish in the last few years. We're all aware of the increased aboriginal participation now occurring.

You also may be aware of the significant changes that have occurred in the fishery over the last decade. In the last ten years we have adopted a number of ITQ programs, individual transferable quota programs. These are changes that have happened in the last five to ten years.

As well, there have been a number of new resource users. Increasingly, recreational fishermen are concerned about having access to the resource, as are aquaculture fishermen and eco-tourists. Other resource users are concerned about having access to the resource and being part of the decision process.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is broadening its focus. We adopted the Oceans Act. This act talks about moving toward an integrated approach in dealing with ocean use, looking at fishery use, as well as oil and gas and other uses of the ocean, and doing it in a more coordinated and integrated manner.

Third, we have public opinion. Increasingly, the public is concerned about resource conservation. The polling indicates consistently that conservation is one of the number one priorities when it comes to environmental issues. The public is increasingly skeptical of so-called expert opinion. They want more input in the decision-making process. They want more opportunity and more transparency in the decisions.

Finally, in reviews undertaken by the Auditor General and supported by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, these groups have suggested and advised the department that it needs to be clear about its vision and needs to have a policy framework that outlines its objectives.

We talk about the process that we have been following in the Atlantic fisheries policy review. We actually started public meetings in June of 1999. At that time, we visited all the provinces, including the Maritimes, Newfoundland, Quebec, and the Nunavut territory. We conducted public meetings in each of these areas. At the public meetings, we asked people whether they thought a policy review was important and relevant, how it might be conducted, and to outline initially their issues or concerns.

• 0920

The advice we got was that a policy review was timely and in fact overdue, that there were significant changes in the fishery, and that it was time we brought the management and the objectives up to date to take these changes into context.

We were also advised that marine conservation remains an outstanding concern. At the same time, people made an argument for a consistent Atlantic-wide approach in policy principles, but they also argued that we needed regional specificity or flexibility to take area differences into special consideration.

The challenge of the policy review is to find something that's consistent, that makes sense across Atlantic Canada but at the same time is flexible enough to account for the differences that are relevant.

Fourthly, there was concern in the public discussions about the department's core activities, particularly enforcement and science. People were concerned about the effort spent in this area and felt that it needed to be augmented.

Finally, and without exception, in all the meetings we attended in the first round of discussions, people raised issues around access and allocation and around fairness and transparency in the decision-making process.

In going forward, we established an external advisory board. This is a group of commercial fishermen, industry leaders, recreational fishermen, first nations and others that provided advice to the department on the preparation of a discussion document that was subsequently finalized and broadly distributed. This is the document you would have received earlier this year—January or February—and I believe another copy has been distributed this morning.

This document outlines a proposal for a vision, objectives, and principles for the Atlantic fishery that affords a basis for public discussions. Fifteen thousand copies of it were distributed throughout Atlantic Canada, and 65,000 brochures summarizing this document were distributed to all registered fishermen in Atlantic Canada.

I'd like to move to the document itself. This document is 70-some pages in English and slightly more pages in French. I'd like to summarize it in two slides. It's obviously going to be a summary.

There are three major objectives, and there are four policy themes that amplify these objectives. The three objectives are conservation, orderly management, and shared stewardship.

Under “conservation” we're saying we need to place a priority on conservation and sustainability, but that this objective cannot be accomplished without the input of others—fishermen and others affected by conservation decisions.

“Orderly management” says we need to start making efforts to address uncertainty when it comes to access and allocation regimes. Where we can we need to make allocation decisions last longer, and where we are able we need to have a more transparent decision-making process when these decisions are made.

Finally, under “shared stewardship” what we are encouraging is the movement to something that involves a more participatory decision-making arrangement and involves the fishing participants and licence holders more actively in the decision process, sharing tasks where the capacity and the interest exist to do that.

These objectives are amplified by four policy themes outlined on page seven. A session document goes into some detail on these themes, and I'm providing the highest possible summary at this point. But essentially the four themes are conservation, economic and social viability, access and allocation, and governance. As I indicated, they illustrate or expand on the objectives that I just spoke to.

Under “conservation” we provide a definition. We also talk about the components of conservation.

Under “economic and social viability” we talk about the objective of fleets and licence holders having more flexibility to make their own decisions within constraints. One constraint, for example, would be conservation. Another constraint might be that you can't adversely affect a fleet outside your own area, and so on.

Under “access and allocation” we lay out a process in the discussion document for encouraging more stability and less uncertainty in these arrangements and more transparency in how the decisions are taken.

• 0925

And finally, under “governance” we describe co-management arrangements in which the industry, the licensed participants, and the department share in decision-making so that tasks can be shared among us and there's more input from fishermen on outcomes.

Slide eight talks about the consultations we've had to date since the release of the discussion document. The document was released in January of this year, and we began public consultations in March and continued through April. We had 19 public meetings throughout the Atlantic, Quebec, and Nunavut. At the same time, we met with the provinces and the territory in bilateral meetings. Finally, we had discussions with opinion leaders, leaders of the commercial industry, and others concerning the discussion document.

In each of the public meetings we followed a standard format. We started off with a process discussion much like the one we are having today. We then reviewed the document. Then there were round table discussions on each of the policy themes. The meetings lasted anywhere from two and a half hours to eight to nine hours, and there was thorough discussion on every consideration brought up by the people who attended the public meetings, which were open for anyone who wished to attend.

We've received 181 written submissions to the Atlantic fishery policy review. These were submissions received during the public meetings or sent in after them up until May of this year.

We have summarized the input we received at the public meetings in a document called “What We Heard”. This document has been distributed to the committee, and you have received additional copies this morning. It summarizes each of the 19 public meetings.

On slide 9 we talk about what we've heard in the public process to date. First of all, here are the overall impressions. Generally, there's been very strong support for the process we followed. People were very appreciative of the openness and the transparency of the policy review. They were pleased to come to the meetings and have an opportunity to express themselves, and they felt the department listened carefully to their views. There was support for the discussion document itself. Most people felt it was properly organized and comprehensive, dealt with the issues, and posed questions in a reasonable way. There was very good media interest conerning the Atlantic fishery policy review. They reported on each meeting, and the coverage was generally quite balanced.

Besides areas where people had consensus, there are also areas of divergence. We highlight some of these.

Many of the inshore fishermen want emphasis placed on the “owner-operator” and on “fleet separation”. The owner-operator is a policy where the licence holder is the fisherman. There are a number of exceptions in Atlantic Canada to this. Fleet separation is a policy which doesn't permit companies to own licences. Both of these policies apply to vessels less than 65 feet in length.

There was very strong support throughout all of the public meetings for increased transparency in the movement to a more rules-based system when it came to access and allocation decisions. But there was divergence on one key point.

The discussion document lays out a proposal. It suggests that when it comes to the commercial share, if there's a dispute—for example between mobile-gear and fixed-gear fishermen—about how to divide their share up, the industry itself should increasingly try to make those decisions and come to a consensus. If they fail, an arm's-length process of mediation or arbitration—whatever makes sense to that fleet—should decide, not the department and not the minister.

That suggestion was laid out in the policy proposal. In the discussions in the public meetings there were two schools of thought. One school said we agree with this approach and we need to move there as rapidly as we can. The other school said we do not agree: we like the current process and the status quo; we like the minister and the department making the decisions and we don't want to change.

• 0930

Finally, there is strong support for an increased role of licence holders in decision-making, and the issue is how that might be done, and in some cases, how the capacity might be built into the fleets and the organizations to allow them to assume more responsibility. This then raises issues of training, and so forth.

In slide 11 I outline the four major areas we will be considering as we finalize our policy framework. These have emerged from the public discussions and are posed in terms of questions we are considering.

In the socio-economic area, we have to deal with the issue of how we deal with the divergence between the various views on owner-operator and fleet separation, which I've just spoken to.

On access and allocation, we're going to have to grapple with the issue of what the role of the department should be when it comes to these issues and how we reflect the advice of the independent panel on access criteria, which is under way now, into the policy review.

On governance issues, the question that arises is how to give voice to others who feel that they're not part of the process, who feel that the process is dominated by commercial interests and that recreational, aquaculture, eco-tourism, and communities do not have input.

Finally, how do we validate the public opinion that we heard in the public process? How do we ensure that the public recognizes that we came and we listened?

I'd like to turn briefly to the independent panel on access criteria as background. As the chair indicated in his opening remarks, you'll be listening to the chair of the IPAC later this morning, but I'd like to set the stage briefly for Mr. Kroeger's discussions.

Following on the northern shrimp decision last year, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, after consulting with his provincial and territorial colleagues, formed the independent panel on access criteria. This panel was asked to look at access issues, not in current arrangements but at potential advice for future decisions where new access might be considered, in fisheries where the resource is increasing in abundance or the value is increasing.

This panel was formed because a number of people—the provinces, industry, and others—felt that the objectives, principles, and so forth, around access decisions were not clear. There were extensive discussions with the provinces and the territory on the terms of reference of the panel and on the membership.

The mandate of the panel is outlined on page 13. It is tasked with the following activities. One, as I've indicated, is to develop the criteria to guide decision-making. So what kinds of criteria should we consider in looking at new access arrangements—adjacency, fairness, equity, economic viability, and so forth? How should these be ranked or weighted? What should be the process for making these decisions? And finally, in carrying out this study, the panel is required to consult with the provinces and the territory and with the cross-section of resource users.

As I've already noted, the panel's tasks do not include looking at arrangements that are already in place for access. Rather, they're focused on providing future guidance that could be considered by the department.

The membership of the panel is as follows: the chair is Arthur Kroeger, and he is supported by Martha Jackman, Gordon Munro, David Newhouse, and Paul LeBlond.

I'm very pleased to introduce Arthur today. As I indicated earlier and the chair confirmed in his opening remarks, Arthur will be speaking to the committee later this morning.

In terms of the process that IPAC is following, I outline that on slide 15. The IPAC panel was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the end of June of this year. The panel began consultations in August, and they planned on four rounds of consultations. They are expected to complete their consultations by the end of October.

• 0935

In the process of doing their consultations, the panel has prepared a questionnaire, which they've distributed to over 220 stakeholder groups and organizations in Atlantic Canada. That questionnaire poses questions to assist the panel in completing their terms of reference.

To date, the panel has completed over 62 meetings with stakeholder groups and individuals, and we expect a report from the panel sometime this fall.

Finally, I talk about next steps on slide 16. At this point we are planning to meet with the Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquatic Ministers. The date has not been set. That's why there's a question mark. It may occur in November, but at this point it has not been confirmed. We plan to provide an update of the Atlantic fishery policy review, and at the same time, an update or progress report on IPAC.

As I've indicated, we expect the IPAC to have completed its report and provide it to the minister this fall. We are going to have a couple more meetings on the Atlantic fishery policy framework. We plan to meet with the external advisory board that I spoke of earlier, which was formed initially in this process. We will also be meeting with the provinces as we prepare the final policy framework.

We expect to finalize the policy framework in December or January, late this year or early next year, and then we'll be moving into phase two, starting to put into place the strategies to achieve the vision and objectives outlined in phase one.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

We have time for some questions before we turn to Mr. Kroeger.

Mr. Lunney, do you want to start, or shall we go to Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Okay.

Mr. Sprout, let's go back to something you mentioned under co-management on page 7. When you refer to co-management, we've run into some problems there, obviously, with the aboriginal fishery. It appears that natives want to manage their own fisheries, versus an integrated fishery. What do you mean by “co-management”? Can you expand on that for us?

Mr. Paul Sprout: When we describe co-management, we talk about co-management being done on a fleet level. So the fleet that is harvesting a species or series of species would be organized in a way such that we could interact with them. We would agree on tasks that they could actually carry out that we would share.

For example, tasks might be participating in stock assessment, in designing fishing plants, in doing monitoring, and so forth. We would expect that we would work with both non-natives and natives in carrying out these tasks, and we would work in a structure that would encourage both natives and non-natives to work collaboratively and cooperatively. That's what we mean by co-management.

Mr. James Lunney: We've certainly seen some examples where that hasn't happened, and we hope to find some more cooperative solutions and real integration so that the rules are the same for everybody.

On page 10 of your comments, you referred to a formula for decision-making where there's conflict between different gear types. I found that interesting, because I know on the west coast we've certainly had problems with fisheries management with conflicts between gillnetters, trawlers, and seiners. When you have such differences in the numbers and the type of resource they can scoop in.... The seiners moving in can scoop up basically the whole resource in no time, or very limited time, compared to the other gear types. I thought I heard a comment to the effect that you'd hope they'd be able to solve this themselves.

Mr. Paul Sprout: You're right. We actually don't expect them to solve it themselves.

I am familiar with the west coast. We had to do a lot of work to move that to a point where they were better able to try to work with it.

In the discussion document, we lay out a three-step process to try to move from where we are now to something in the future where they could have more capacity to solve it themselves. We think the first step is to deal with the current arrangements, where allocations are already in place, to discuss whether you want to fix them for a longer period of time as initial guidance.

• 0940

The second step is to set up a mechanism where not everything is open for dispute, only some things. It would be those fewer things the industry would concentrate on trying to solve, but they would be guided by some principles. So it wouldn't be a wide-open field. Many arrangements would be more or less fixed and in place. Exceptions would be guided by principles. The notion is that under those circumstances, we think they would be in a better position to actually grapple with the problems.

In British Columbia, as you may be aware, we had to take steps, first of all, with the objectives, then separate between the seiners and gillnetters in terms of shares, and then try to encourage them to work together. It was only after doing those first two steps that it was possible to have the geared groups get into the same room and talk about trying to agree on allocation.

Mr. James Lunney: I have a final question in terms of adjacency. I wonder if that came up in the discussions somewhere here. That has been a problem, certainly for the people living next to the resource and traditionally having access to it. When we bring in players from farther away, it does cause conflict. I think we've seen that with the shrimp fishery off Newfoundland recently, and so on.

Can you talk about and expand on adjacency, and how you see that factoring into these equations?

Mr. Paul Sprout: Fortunately, I can toss this one to Arthur, because this is one of the criteria he'll be struggling with. But I can add the following remarks.

In my experience, adjacency very much depends on where you live. If you live in Newfoundland, adjacency means the resource immediately off your doorstep. If you live in Labrador, that's what it means as well. But if you look at how the fishery is actually managed, for many of the stocks that are harvested, individuals who are harvesting them have to travel to those locations.

What we find is that people tend to rationalize adjacency based on what they do now, so the challenge of the independent panel on access criteria is to try to look at this issue and see if they can arrive at a definition that is practical and understandable, given the fact that we have arrangements already in place in Atlantic Canada. The challenge would be to determine whether we can approach this in a consistent way, or whether there has to be some flexibility. That remains the challenge of the panel and what it is they've been consulting on.

I'm not in a position to pre-empt what they might conclude with, other than to say my experience is that it's very much in the eyes of the beholder how that's defined.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

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

I have several very specific questions. First of all, I believe that on page 6—the pages are not all numbered—on the topic of conservation, you say that priority must be given to conservation and the sustainability of resources; obviously, we would have to agree with such a goal.

In your consultations, did you discuss what was happening on the international front at some point? We know that the fishery in the Atlantic sector is very dependent on what happens outside of the 200-mile zone and sometimes even what happens within it. That is my first question.

I feel this is important, particularly in the area around Newfoundland where, obviously, fish are not static, but migratory. What is left of this resource basically, when the fish arrive in our waters? Canada can have the very best conservation and resource protection policies in the Atlantic, but if there is a problem at the international level and almost no fish are coming here, I don't think Canada can meet its goals.

Secondly, you said that people were happy, that is that the people expressed their satisfaction regarding the transparency of the process you have launched. I did look over the document. But the greatest concern of people, of the stakeholders is always the following: what actions will be taken following this consultation? You have, of course, formed a committee that we will be hearing about a little later on, but what people want to know in practical terms, is what follow-up there will be.

You also spoke of arbitration. This is the subject of my other question. Perhaps I should not have asked my three questions at the same time, but it doesn't matter. These stakeholders do not seem to agree on arbitration. What do you intend to do? Do you intend to impose some method or other?

• 0945

If the people are divided, if the manufacturers and the owners of fixed and mobile gear are divided, if one party says that the department should make the decision whereas another party says that the stakeholders should come to an agreement amongst themselves, this means that once again, the department will be obliged to settle the matter. This will create dissatisfaction and once again, you will have problems.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sprout.

That's quite a list.

Mr. Paul Sprout: Thank you.

On the international situation, the answer is we have had discussions, particularly in Newfoundland, about the concern over other countries harvesting fish that ultimately migrate back into Canadian waters. It is a concern.

Now, it is true the discussion document and the policy review are focused on domestic fisheries. Nevertheless, this is an issue in Newfoundland. That point has been brought up, and we have passed this on to our international people within the department.

You follow up with another point in which you ask how we can manage the resource if very little of it is left because it's harvested by other countries. That point is well taken for those stocks that are affected by other countries. But it is also true that most of the resource in Canada is within Canadian waters—lobster stocks, other species—and they're harvested exclusively by Canadians. It's these we can actually look toward Canadians on, in terms of how we harvest, conserve, and manage them.

On your point on follow-up in terms of consultations on the AFPR, what we are contemplating is that we will prepare a penultimate draft of the policy framework, and we will then present it to the external advisory board that I spoke of earlier, which is a diverse group. It comprises first nations, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, and others. We'll talk, and get their reaction to this draft. We will be consulting with the provinces and the territory on this draft as well.

In the end, the minister will have to make the decision of approving that draft, and it will be his call. Once that's approved, we turn to phase two. In phase two, there will be another round of public discussions and consultations with the industry as we design strategies to implement that direction.

On your final point on whether or not we would impose arbitration or other aspects to deal with issues where there are disputes, this is in fact a question we are struggling with ourselves. We are trying to seek as much consensus as possible on the policy direction in the future. Our objective is to find a consensus where we can. However, it may not always be possible to find a consensus. In those cases, the minister will ultimately have to make a decision—and it may be a difficult one.

So when it comes to the industry being more involved in decision-making, I do not have an answer yet on whether we will proceed in terms of arbitration, mediation, or any other conflict resolution process. I do know, though, that ultimately the minister will have to make a decision on whether we want to have more co-management in the industry, whether we want the industry to be more involved in decision-making, and if so, how.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Just spinning off that, is your intention eventually to introduce a new fisheries act based on these discussions?

Mr. Paul Sprout: At this point in the discussion document, we signal clearly that the current legislation prevents us from doing some things that might be considered in the future. We leave it open that if the future direction is confirmed, it suggests the legislation needs to be revised, and the option's there. But we have not said at this point it's something we will do automatically. We've left it as an open question at this point.

The Chair: One of the areas in which under the current Fisheries Act there's certainly a problem with this is penalties and sanctions related to enforcement, because the courts obviously don't understand the industry and don't penalize appropriately. Has that area been talked about?

Mr. Paul Sprout: Yes, and in public consultations with the industry, the industry is saying to us, look, we'd be prepared to sanction our own members if we had more capacity to do that. We're prepared to be even tougher than you as a department would be. But in order for them to proceed, they would have to do as you were indicating—change the legislation.

• 0950

So at this point we have not committed to changing the legislation. We are suggesting, though, that some of the changes that might be envisioned in the long term would require legislative change, so we're leaving it open at this point. We'll have to see what the final policy frame looks like before considering it. But the sanctions is one example out of a few things that would require change in the legislation, to follow up on.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Paul, for your presentation.

I want to pick up a bit on page 10 of your presentation. You used the word “transparency” about seven or eight times, and “a rules-based system, transparency, fairness”. You're obviously traumatized by the lack of transparency that must exist now. I'm not.

Fishermen are not coming to my office saying “Oh, my God, what we need is transparency”. They come to my office and say “Can you please go and talk to the minister about this problem?” I'm going to be hard-pressed to say “Well, I'd like to, but you know, it's all arm's length”. Mr. Trudeau used to say that arm's length meant quickly out of reach.

I'm wondering what is so bad or so wrong with the lack of transparency now, or the lack of fairness. I'm not hearing that, but obviously you are because you keep going back to the word, like a crutch.

Mr. Paul Sprout: I think there are a couple of things. First of all, in the public consultations, in the 19 public meetings, and in the 181 written submissions we have received, there is a consistent theme that people want more transparency in how decisions are made. I know that some groups do not. Some groups are very satisfied with the status quo. They feel it serves their ends.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: What kinds of groups are they? What categories of the groups are telling you that we need more transparency, and what categories are telling you we don't?

Mr. Paul Sprout: I'm assuming that some of the groups that spoke with you have indicated they're satisfied with these current arrangements. The groups we've met in the public meetings have included inshore fishermen, small-boat and big-boat fishermen, and companies.

These individuals and organizations that have spoken with us and written to us have said they'd like to see the rules of how we make decisions more clearly defined. They'd like to know, when allocation decisions are made, the reasons behind them. They'd like to know, when we make access decisions, what criteria we use to wait. They'd like to know how you decide who gets a licence and who doesn't. So these groups are advising us, in writing and in person, that they want more clarity.

This isn't just in Atlantic Canada; this is a widespread problem. This is also outlined in British Columbia. It's also in the international literature. Again and again, if there's a common theme that comes up in marine resource management it's that people want transparency in the process; they want more input into the outcomes.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

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

Do you think people are confusing what they think is a lack of transparency with the ultimate decision to deny them access?

I hear all kinds of people screaming that they haven't been consulted. They're confusing consultation with affecting the decision. If they get a decision they don't like, suddenly it wasn't transparent, or we didn't consult them. You can consult people all night and all day, and at the end of the day when they get a decision they don't like, they'll still feel they weren't consulted. Is it possible that some of that is underlying this cry for transparency? Is it because in the end they may not get the decision they want?

Mr. Paul Sprout: On this point, I agree. My own experience is that if people don't get the decision they want, they often dispute the outcome. But we're saying we need to be clear about how we make that decision, and about the basis and the rules we use to make that decision.

We're not expecting that if those rules are defined and the criteria are clear, everybody will suddenly agree with the outcomes. We know that people will still have problems with some of these decisions. But at a minimum there should be less ambiguity about how those decisions are taken. They should be more understandable and therefore more acceptable.

That's the idea behind the transparency. It's not necessarily to assume that people will actually agree. We still expect that people will dispute the decisions, in many cases, but behind that dispute they'll understand how we arrived at that particular decision, what process was used, the criteria that was used, and that they will be more understandable.

The Chair: Last question, Dominic.

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

You don't think they understand the criteria now. You don't think there's any transparency now. You think it's all ambiguous now. I don't get that sense.

• 0955

In a nutshell, this is what I worry about. You said at the beginning there's some concern about so-called experts. I think fishermen like the fact that members of Parliament and the minister are not usually experts. They're people who, in theory, have to go back and ask those fishermen on the wharf for their support four years later.

Every time you put a layer between the minister and those fishermen, you're inviting a problem. It's elementary public administration. I would have thought that if you were making decisions that affected the livelihood of individuals and communities, there would be as much public accountability as possible, and the political process would be as transparent as you could get. You don't sense that, do you?

Mr. Paul Sprout: That's not what we're being told. In the public meetings people are saying they want a more transparent process. It's their view that many of the decisions go into what they describe as a black box; that the outcomes are produced and they don't understand the reasons behind them. This is a consistent theme in the public meetings.

The other point I would add is you remarked that you felt there was a lot of transparency in the access decisions. When we were in the maritimes, in Labrador and Newfoundland they were struggling with the northern shrimp decision. They didn't understand how, if adjacency was a criterion, other parties that didn't live off Labrador could have access to that resource. When we explained our process to them, it became clear that they weren't aware of the rules. They didn't understand how adjacency was defined; it was not clear.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Ms. Tapley or Ms. Doucet, any time you want to add anything, just yell.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Sprout and your group, thank you for your presentation.

I just want to say, sir, in your presentation you never once said the word “aboriginal”, in terms of the original consultation period. When I was there—I believe I may have been the first speaker you had in that presentation—the aboriginal community, first nations, was right next to us in another meeting room, and they had announced that day they were going to boycott the sessions. Can you advise the committee whether they came back to the sessions? If they didn't, what will bring them into the process, sort of on an equal footing, and include their discussions?

Mr. Paul Sprout: I think you were the very first speaker of the very first meeting.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There you go. We set the tone for all this.

Mr. Paul Sprout: Mr. Stoffer is correct. The very first meeting occurred in Dartmouth, and the Atlantic chiefs, at that point, decided they would boycott the public process. They issued a statement to that effect. It turned out that in the end the first nations did come to meetings in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Labrador, and Nunavut. They did not show up in other parts of the Maritimes.

They were also involved in the preparation of the discussion document, through the external advisory board. So members of the APC were involved in the preparation of the discussion document and did participate in the external advisory board. As well, we've approached them on a bilateral basis. We've invited all first nations to speak directly with individuals of the department, who are familiar with this process, on the Atlantic fishery policy review.

Finally, we made a number of attempts after the public discussions to meet with them, and continue to do so. They will be invited to the external advisory board when we meet with them, as we start to finalize the draft. So we still have other options, and we're pursuing them to meet with first nations.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. I noticed on page 10 you talked about the inshore fishermen wanting the owner-operator fleet separation policies. I encourage you to maintain that type of policy.

You also mentioned that you may be looking at—you didn't confirm it—finally settling the dispute between the fleets on the allocation, or there was discussion about allowing it to go to an arbitrator or a third party. I would vehemently disagree with that. The Constitution and the Fisheries Act state that DFO's main mandate is the protection of fish and fish habitat. The final decision on anything needs to rest with the minister's department. Any weakening of that will give everyone the perception that you're downloading it.

• 1000

In the unanimous all-party committee report we did back in 1998, the east coast report, we suggested that instead of this monolith we have on 200 Kent Street, which is how most fishermen think of it.... Mr. LeBlanc talked about transparency and the inability to get what you want. They feel there are a thousand bureaucrats in DFO, and nobody's fishing for lobsters in the Rideau Canal. They told us in 1998, we want those people on the wharfs, we want them in Sydney, we need them in Acadie—Bathurst, we need them in Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, we need them in Newfoundland, we need them down on the south shore of Nova Scotia. We want the decision-makers where we fish, we don't want them in Ottawa. That's what they're saying. I'd like your views on that. Did you hear that throughout the process in your consultations?

Mr. Paul Sprout: On the first point, arbitration, I understand this. Your concerns reflect many of the opinions we heard in the public meetings. When the discussion document proposed an alternative dispute process that might not be the minister, but could include arbitration or mediation, whatever made sense, it was with the understanding that conservation and principles like that will be absolutely preserved and protected, and that any decision, if it were to go that route, would have to make sure that objective was achieved, otherwise it would not be valid. That said, there's no consensus on this, as I indicated.

On the point of Kent Street, the distribution of resources, and so forth, the general comments we heard in the public meetings were that people wanted more effort put into enforcement and science. That was a really clear message, and it was pretty consistent across all the public meetings.

The other thing we heard was that people generally wanted the regions to have more flexibility to make decisions and less reliance on having to turn to Ottawa in all situations. The policy framework will help do that, because the policy framework will provide guidelines and principles that in turn become the basis for people making decisions in the department in the regions. That's why it is important that this initiative conclude with principles and objectives, so we can actually follow up on what the public is telling us, which is that they want more local decision-making.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: For my last question, Mr. Chair, since you had this consultation process, we've heard the news of FPI and Clearwater getting together, and many fishermen are fearful of that, because they feel that as on the west coast, where Jim Patterson has large control of the salmon stocks, either John Risley or someone on the board of directors will have a greater influence in the decision-making and access to the resources that you say we catch within our 200-mile limit.

In your second round of negotiations, will this be one of the key elements you'll be discussing, the perception of control by the fishermen? Because many of them are saying, at least to us in our office, that it doesn't matter what we say, because the industry has the ear of DFO anyway.

Mr. Paul Sprout: Yes, we are focused on the harvesting side in this exercise. The objective the policy proposal laid out in the discussion document, yet to be approved in the final framework, is for fishermen to be more involved in decision-making. Our objective is to pursue that type of direction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine- Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day.

Obviously, one of the major problems here—and I think you are aware of it—is access to and sharing of the resource.

You said earlier that one can read in several places in the report that people do not find this transparent enough. This is following up somewhat on what my colleague Dominic LeBlanc said. Some feel that the minister may perhaps be exercising too much discretion in making decisions. That seems to be the gist of it. I would like to hear your comments on this.

You said that the system may in fact not be transparent enough, but regarding the substance of the matter, do you think that the only problem with the present system, in terms of accessibility and sharing of the resource, is transparency? Do you think people would be more accepting of the system were it more transparent, or do you think it has to be changed somewhat?

The problem we are faced with is that we could have an independent panel make decisions regarding the sharing of the resources, but in the end, in our parliamentary system, we cannot forget that the minister is accountable. Therefore, the decisions may be made by the panel, but ultimately, if the panel makes a decision the people are not happy with, they will criticize the government and the minister.

• 1005

Therefore, given that we are elected representatives and given that the system must be transparent... We agree that we should not make decisions on the sly or secretly just because we are elected representatives. This is my question. Do you feel that the system is fair, but not sufficiently transparent, or should it be changed and made more transparent while maintaining a balance between objective decisions and (ministerial) accountability?

[English]

Mr. Paul Sprout: That's a very good question. To answer it most simply, I think it needs a more fundamental change. I think the problem isn't just transparency, as you've pointed out. I think there are other problems.

I'd like to make a distinction between access and allocation. Access is who gets a fishing licence, allocation is how much that fishing licence fishes. What the discussion document proposes is that when it comes to access decisions, the minister would continue to be the ultimate authority. For allocation, where you're not talking about new licence-holders or new access, where you're talking about how to share the catch, the discussion document proposes that the industry should increasingly assume more responsibility, where they can. It also talks about moving this slowly. We can't go there rapidly, it will take time.

But I think you're correct, we need a more fundamental change. We think we also have to define conservation better. We also think we have to bring people more into task-sharing, such as doing stock assessment, feeling more a part of the decision process. We also think we have to define the role of the department more clearly, how we can help deal with social and economic objectives. So in total, we would agree with you. We think this issue is not just about transparency; there are deeper-seated problems we have to tackle.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: People are happy with the existing system when the decision goes their way. That is the bottom line. If we feel that we have won, the system is good, it is transparent. If we feel that we did not get enough, the system is bad.

The question I wanted to ask involves fishermen's groups, the duly established organizations. I have also heard from small fishermen who do not have access to the resource, who lived through the moratorium. They say that they are not well represented because the main lobby groups there are organized groups, fishermen who have lucrative fisheries, who have the means to pay for lobbyists and consultants. Is this something you have noticed during your consultations? Have you been told that amongst the fishermen, there may be some lobby groups that are stronger than others, at the expense of objectivity?

[English]

Mr. Paul Sprout: Yes, we have. Small groups that are not well organized or have very small membership are concerned that their views don't get properly factored into decisions. They're concerned that the larger organizations, whether that's larger fishermen organizations or companies, dominate and have undue influence. So that is a concern that is raised. One of the challenges we're struggling with is how we can factor in the input, in a reasonable way, from as many groups as possible, but not create a structure that's so inefficient and unwieldy that we can't actually design fishing plans any more, because we spend all our time consulting. We have to find a balance between those two end points. But yes, that has been brought up.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Farrah.

There are two questioners left, Mr. Hearn and Mr. Lunney, in the second round.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to have about two weeks on some of this stuff. What I'll do is throw out all my points up front, and then whatever time he has left—

The Chair: Loyola, we can spend a little longer on this if you want to. If you want to have two rounds of questions, that's possible.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I think it's extremely important, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go first on Mr. Farrah's comments on this outside the 200-mile limit matter. I think that's crucial.

There are the nose, the tail, and especially now the Flemish Cap, in relation to the shrimp fishery, where the stocks are being raped. A lot of the smaller shrimp—and they tell me shrimp are getting smaller generally—are now being put into the same market as Newfoundland's peeled shrimp. Of course, we fit the 20% tariff, the other countries don't, and we're being beaten with our fish in our markets.

• 1010

The decision-making process again I would recommend should stay with DFO. There's too much coming together within the industry. You have a lot of power players. The words “manipulation” and “collusion” are being thrown around. In fact, there's even an investigation in Newfoundland. The big boys are the ones who share the pot. If they have more control and more say and the smaller fellow is left out completely, I'd be against it.

There is some question about the entrance of aboriginals. It seems that any aboriginal individual who wants to get into the fishery gets in, whereas people who live in fishing communities find it very hard under present regulations to break into the fishery.

Finally, I am completely astounded by the lack of fishermen at the hearings. I'm just looking at Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, which is the province most affected. You had a number of meetings. In Port au Choix, no fishermen; in Port aux Basques, no fishermen; in Grand Falls, two who are non-core; in Clarenville, no fishermen; in St. John's, one, and it happened to be somebody I encouraged to go. I know you'll say that the union was at a meeting or two. The big question, not only from me but from the fishermen, is does the union represent the fishermen or itself? I'm amazed that people didn't show up, with all these people being so drastically affected. I'm not sure whether it's because their views are here, they've just given up, or they were told to stay home. It really bothers me.

The Chair: Mr. Sprout, starting from the top.

Mr. Paul Sprout: First of all, I should clarify. What you might be referring to are the people who gave presentations in Port au Choix, Port aux Basques, and so forth, not the actual audience itself. Those aren't identified. In all of those locations there were fishermen present. But what you are referring to are the people who actually made the presentations. So in all meetings across the entire Atlantic regions fishermen attended, and that included Newfoundland. We had good representation in Newfoundland from fishermen, and they spoke a lot.

You've made several points, which I won't speak to specifically but I'd like to acknowledge, particularly the 200-mile issue, the access to fish, and concerns about other countries fishing. With regard to the issues around decision-making, you're recommending it stay with the department. You've made references to aboriginals. Many of these points were raised in public meetings in Newfoundland.

There are mixed views on that. Some individuals who spoke with us felt that decision-making, at least when it came to allocation, not access, should be shared more with commercial fishermen, and we're very supportive of that. But it wasn't unanimous. There were views very similar to the ones you've just passed on.

The Chair: What about the question on aboriginals?

Mr. Paul Sprout: Maybe you could clarify what you'd like me to respond to in that particular question.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Basically, Mr. Chairman, it seems that in certain areas, such as Burnt Church and we see it happening in Newfoundland now, there's more interest in the aboriginal community about getting involved. It seems that there is no stopping them getting quotas in relation to boats. Boats are being bought. Licences are being bought and given to them, while the people who have been fishing all their lives don't have the same access or opportunity.

It's causing a tremendous amount of concern. We're not affected too much in Newfoundland because there are very small aboriginal communities there, but I can see it becoming a major problem in other areas if it seems that one group is getting unfair treatment over the other. If it's all open, fair, and transparent, I don't think we'll have a problem. But that's not the way it seems to be coming down.

The only way I could get into the fishery tomorrow would be to hope I could get a berth from someone else for a while, even though I grew up in a fishing community, lived there all my life, and fished all my life until I got involved in education and politics. But that's typical in fishing communities. Now I'd have to have at least $150,000 to buy out a licence, whereas if I were an aboriginal, it seems the licence is given to me and probably the boat is given to me.

So I think it's unfair. If that is the case and it keeps moving that way, you're going to have a tremendous amount of resentment at the local fishing community level.

The Chair: Is there anything you want to add, Paul?

Mr. Paul Sprout: I can clarify the approach. I recognize that in some cases there will be resentment about new entrants coming into the fishery, particularly from those who feel they don't have the access they would like to have. So I acknowledge that is an issue.

• 1015

I know, though, as you're aware, that we are responding to a Supreme Court decision. We're trying to do it in a way that's as graceful and respectful of other people's opinions as possible. We're trying to minimize the disruptive effect. We're trying to do it by seeking the advice of non-aboriginals on what licences could be considered for natives, in addition to negotiating directly with natives. We're trying to minimize the impacts in the local areas by having a more diversified approach so that natives have both licences in local areas and possibly from others. We're trying to involve the non-natives in the licence retirement programs, in terms of seeking their advice on how we conduct it.

All of these things are designed to try to alleviate the resentment and to encourage more cooperation and collaboration. But I appreciate the point you've raised about your constituents.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I'd like to pick up where Mr. Hearn left off. I'm looking at the access and allocation principles. The five principles are outlined on page 29 of the management discussion document. It says:

Aboriginal fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes will continue to have priority after conservation requirements.

I heard reference just a moment ago to the Supreme Court decision, but we know that the Marshall case involved eels. It was very specific. Is it the intention of the department to continue to develop a fisheries for aboriginals for every fish that's fished in the sea, even where there's no historical fishery? That's my first question.

Mr. Paul Sprout: I'd like to distinguish between Marshall and Sparrow. The principle you referred to in the discussion document comes from Sparrow. The Sparrow decision in 1990 said that first nations' access to food, social, and ceremonial would be second after conservation. That has been a policy of the department for a decade or more, so this principle outlined in the discussion document simply reflects that practice.

The Marshall decision indicated that first nation beneficiaries should have an opportunity to make a moderate livelihood. This is not a Sparrow decision. This is a different decision. What the department is doing is trying to negotiate with first nations and provide them with access to fisheries in response to the Marshall decision. Typically, what we're trying to do is negotiate arrangements that provide access in local areas. But as I indicated in my response to another member, we are trying to spread out that impact in the local areas by providing access in some species outside the local areas so that it's not as directed, and we try to minimize that influence.

There is no commitment on our part necessarily to provide them with access to all species and all areas. It's what we can negotiate and agree to with first nations that we think is reasonable and plausible. We could go through the licensing retirement program, but at this point essentially it's access to various species, such as lobster and snow crab.

Mr. James Lunney: Moving on to another issue, at the bottom of the list it says:

DFO should develop clear criteria to enable marine recreational and aquaculture entry into fisheries, consistent with best use.

Could you develop “best use” for us? Where are you headed with that?

Mr. Paul Sprout: “Best use” gets back to the issue I explained earlier between access and allocation. Access is who gets a fishing licence. So that says, is it commercial access, recreational access, or ecotourism? Access answers the question: who gets access to the resource? In the public meetings and in the discussion document we laid out the notion that the recreational fishery is a legitimate user of the resource, that they should have access to the resource. So what is proposed is that we need to lay out the criteria under which they would have access. How would recreational fishermen have access to the resource? What species? Are they compelled to follow the same conservation principles and standards that commercial fishermen are compelled to follow? This is what we mean by access.

• 1020

Best use gets at the issue of how do you decide whether this should go to commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen, or to eco-tourists, or to aboriginals. That's the issue of best use. We grapple with it based on the law, Supreme Court decisions, policy advice, and input we receive from people affected by these outcomes.

The Chair: James, please make this the last question if you can.

Mr. James Lunney: My comment is that we've certainly seen some problems on the west coast with the Port Alberni Inlet. The commercial fishery there finally had a good salmon run, bringing all kinds of sports fishermen back to the area—an area that's been economically depressed for some time. It was finally beginning to get some life, and right in the middle of that—“not for conservation”. The ministry slammed the door on sport fishery at 12 o'clock on a Friday night, and on Vancouver Island people had to drag their gear across on the ferry and spend a couple of hundred dollars on ferry fees. The ministry just slammed the door; it was not for conservation.

I was trying to juggle these figures. The effect of this on the community is overwhelming. The sports industry in that instance was bringing in maybe $100 a fish, compared to maybe $10 a fish for some of the commercial interests, and the effect and impact on that community is just devastating. I wanted to make that comment.

For my last question I'd like to come back to the advisory group you mentioned here at the beginning, the external advisory board for stakeholders. Is it still active, and could you tell us more about who its members are? What groups are represented? Are the commercial fishermen and the traditional stakeholders represented adequately in this group?

Mr. Paul Sprout: I can respond to the Port Alberni situation by pointing out some history. This is an example of an access issue. As you may recall, historically the sport fishery in Port Alberni did not catch sockeye. It is actually a recent phenomenon. But this is an example where the department, after considering the advice of the recreational fishermen, felt that it would be good economic use if a small amount of sockeye was set aside for their use. In fact that has developed an important recreational fishery in Port Alberni.

Now, admittedly this year, as you've noted, it was disrupted. But it is true that this is a recent fishery, a fishery dealing with best use, and one that allowed recreational access. We think it's really maximized the economic value of a fishery.

As for your questions, the external advisory board is still operational. This group was established shortly after the public meetings in June of 1999. We met with them when we prepared the discussion document.

In the public discussions I referred to that took place in March and April of this year, we were advised that many people felt this group should meet again to have a chance to look at the penultimate draft of the policy framework—to have one more opportunity to look at it before the department took the draft to the minister.

Our intentions are to meet with this group. We have sent them copies of the “What We Heard” document. We're trying to keep them informed of what we're doing at this point in time, and our plans are to meet with them later this year, before we finalize the policy framework.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

On the B.C. fishery for a minute, why was it disrupted?

Mr. Paul Sprout: I have a different understanding of it from that of the honourable member. I understand that the sockeye in Port Alberni Inlet migrate into the inlet. There was an assessment made at the time they were coming into the inlet where it was determined that the stock was actually not sufficient to allow recreational fishing, or any fishing. So the fishery was closed. Then after the stock migrated in, another assessment was done where it was determined that in fact the stock could support some fishing, so the fishery was subsequently reopened.

There was a gap between it being assessed and closed and then reopened, and this was very disruptive to the recreational fishermen, because the recreational fishery needs the continuity to work. It's very hard to start and then close that fishery on short notice, and it was disruptive as a consequence.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. James Lunney: May I comment?

The Chair: Let's hear your comment, because we have to move on.

Mr. James Lunney: Sports fisheries have to advertise in advance. Their clients come from California and from Europe and from all over, and if they can't have access to some kind of a sustained period, it's just turmoil. There was public consultation afterwards and the people who were turned away were just in an uproar. Some of them said they will never come back.

The way it's been managed makes me wonder whether the ministry is actually trying to take the sports fishery out as a stakeholder in this industry. People were very outraged by the impact on the community and on those who had come in to fish.

• 1025

As a footnote, I was scheduled to take the leader of the opposition out fishing during that period, and we had to wonder whether Mr. Dhaliwal heard that this was on the agenda and shut it down just to snub us.

The Chair: He didn't want him to fall over and get hurt—that was the real reason, James.

Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Peter, what's on your mind? We have to move on.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are we going to have a second round, or are we done here?

The Chair: Okay, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Some environmental groups have advised me that while this consultation is going on—while Madam MacNeil of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is having her review—decisions to protect areas could be delayed. For areas like The Gully, for example, and the Cabot Block just off of Cape Breton, some people are saying that the consultation process, while appreciated, is delaying decisions that need to be made now.

Is this a fair criticism, or does it come out of left field?

Mr. Paul Sprout: It is out of left field.

We're proceeding as rapidly as we can. If there's any delay at all, it's really in trying to deal with the overwhelming responses and sift through them. There may be some delay in our own system of dealing with these responses as we try to seek as much consensus on decisions as we can.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Here's my last question.

Although it was mentioned in some of your briefings, we haven't yet looked at the coast guard. What's the feeling you've been picking up on throughout the country—from Nunavut right on down—about the direction of the coast guard and what its mandate should be in the near future? What are you hearing?

Mr. Paul Sprout: The issue of the coast guard was not raised frequently in the public process. It was raised in some parts of Atlantic Canada, mostly in the context of providing enforcement platforms associated with the carrying out of enforcement work. At-sea safety and vessel replacement problems were more particularly issues in Newfoundland. But broadly, there was no discussion on the long-term direction of the coast guard.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: It's a very short question, Mr. Chairman.

On protection, there was a time when you'd see all the little salmon head out to sea and people would be wondering how many would make it back to the rivers. Now when you see them go up the river you're wondering how many will make it back to the sea. Because this past year—certainly in Newfoundland, and from the correspondence we've had, also in B.C.—there's been a complete lack of protection services. Some rivers had absolutely no guardians and the minimum time was spent on others. And poachers had a field day.

So what's the use of trying to build up an industry on one hand, if we're not going to look after it or protect it? Is it all in vain? This year was the worst I've ever seen.

The Chair: Mr. Sprout, you mentioned enforcement yourself several times.

Mr. Paul Sprout: Well, enforcement is an issue for sure. It is a concern being raised by many people across the public meetings. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has actually increased the conservation protection budget across Atlantic Canada, and there are more enforcement officers today than there were in the last few years.

There is an issue, though. Without question, people have raised this issue in various locations, whether it's in parts of Newfoundland or, most recently, in P.E.I. The department will respond to this issue with the resources that we have, although they have been augmented, as the minister has said. And where these issues are being brought to our attention, we try to factor them into our planning process and respond to them to the best of our abilities.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be brief.

I listened to my colleagues Mr. Farrah and Mr. LeBlanc earlier. I do not share their opinion. I believe the process has to be transparent. Perhaps we should make a distinction between transparency and understanding. I think the problem may be there.

The main comments that we hear concern stock assessments; this is the case for me as a member. People do not understand how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans assesses the stocks. They say that the department prevents them from fishing in such and such a zone even if the crab is plentiful. My question is the following: how can we make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stock assessment process more transparent? This is a scientific, long-term process. How can we make it more understandable and more transparent? I should ask how we can make the process more easily understood, and not necessarily how it can be made more transparent. It is more a matter of knowing how to make it better understood.

• 1030

[English]

Mr. Paul Sprout: I think your remarks are very well taken. I agree with you that understanding is as important as transparency, and that transparency implies better understanding.

On the point of assessment of stocks, this is a concern that's been raised in the public meetings. We think we can get at improving the transparency or understanding of how stocks are assessed by involving fishermen more actively in stock assessment. We actually have examples in Atlantic Canada where we contract with fishermen and use their vessels, with them skippering the boat, to go out and do surveys and collect information, which we then analyse to estimate the stocks. So we have examples where the fishermen actually collect the data and help us assess the population. We think we need to take that kind of example and expand it in Atlantic Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

I guess we'll conclude this portion.

I might underline the fact—I think you can sense it from the committee, and certainly fishermen have mentioned it to me, as well—that since the beginning of the Atlantic policy review and the document that came out, there is certainly a suspicion, as you're well aware, as to whether the process is one designed to come up with what DFO wants rather than what the industry may want. There's a concern that DFO may be leading in the direction they want as conclusions.

I just raise that. I'm not saying it's true. But I can certainly underline the fact that many of us get that feedback from fishermen. I would hope it's not the case and that at the end ofthe day we have a policy direction in which everybody from DFO and the industry and fishermen are onside. But I point it out because I think you are already aware that concern is out there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Sprout, Ms. Doucet, and Ms. Tapley.

We now have Mr. Arthur Kroeger, of the independent panel on access criteria.

As Mr. Kroeger is coming forward, committee members, I think everyone is aware Mr. Kroeger has had a long service at many different departments as deputy minister and otherwise within the public service. I think the request to Mr. Kroeger from the committee was basically just to give us a snapshot of what's happening on the access panel. If committee members have any input they want to give, then they may do so. The purpose was not basically to tell everything that the access panel has heard to date; it was to give a snapshot of the process and where they're at. If committee members want to raise some points, then they can.

Welcome, Mr. Kroeger. The floor is yours.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger (Chair, Independent Panel on Access Criteria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me introduce one member of the panel who is with me this morning. Martha Jackman is the vice-dean in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. David Newhouse, who is the head of native studies at Trent University, had hoped to be with us. He has a number of other commitments in Ottawa today and couldn't spring himself loose. Our two B.C. members, Paul LeBlond and Gordon Munro, are also not able to be here.

I will try to give the committee a sketch of our work thus far.

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we aren't going to be able to say very much about our conclusion on matters of substance, because we're just now beginning the process of trying to draw some of those conclusions. We have some way to go yet. But I would welcome any views that members of the committee want to register with us that we can take into account, as we start actually trying to put together a report.

• 1035

Our timetable, as I think members of the committee know, calls for us to submit a report by the 31st of October. We don't think we can make that deadline, and the department is well aware of it. We aren't going to miss it by a lot. I'm hopeful we will be able to get it in, possibly in the month of November, but certainly as soon as we can, because there is a certain amount of interest in the kinds of questions we've been assigned.

I'm going to ask Gina Sinclair, from the secretariat that has been set up to support us, to distribute several documents to members of the committee. One is a list of seven basic questions that we circulated to all the people we met with and to the 230—I think it is—people we wrote to.

There's also a list of the groups we met with and some other background documents that may be of interest. If members of the committee have questions after they've had a chance to look at those, I hope they'll give me or one of the members of the secretariat a call.

The decision to create a panel of our kind was actually made by federal and provincial ministers in August 2000. There then followed a process of seven governments agreeing on the terms of reference as well as the composition. We actually began our work as a panel at the end of June.

Two of our members, the two from British Columbia, are very knowledgeable about the fishery. Ms. Jackman, David Newhouse, and I are not, so we had to go through quite an educational process. We started with some briefings. The Department of Fisheries gave us seven volumes, each about two to three inches high, and we spent much of the summer working our way through those. We've read the Kirby report; we've read the Cashin report; we've read many documents.

Finally, in the last half of August, we felt we were ready to go out and begin meeting the stakeholders in the industry. So we set off on August 20, flew to Iqaluit, and then worked our way down through Goose Bay, St. John's, Halifax, and Charlottetown, and on through the rest of Atlantic Canada and Quebec City.

We've had several rounds since then and are not quite done. There are still a few groups we need to meet with. The secretariat informs me it looks as if we will have a total of 62 meetings, and we could have had more. We really didn't turn down anybody who asked for a meeting except those who were clearly focused outside our mandate.

The Atlantic fisheries policy review document you've been discussing represents the framework within which we're supposed to be carrying out our work. We are conscious of that. At the same time, the panel is conscious of having been established as an independent body. Its independence has been fully respected by everybody, certainly by the department, and certainly by the minister. We have had good support and good help when we needed it. But we got it when we asked for it; nothing has been pushed on to us.

We have one more round of meetings to hold and that will be with the five provinces and with Nunavut. Those are probably going to take place in the third week of October. Provincial ministers have also expressed an interest in meeting with us. That idea remains to be worked out, because ministers' schedules can be pretty complicated. But we will do our best to be available.

The only comment I think I will make is—I hardly need to say this, I think, to members of this committee—that the Atlantic fishery is an extraordinarily complex subject. I worked in nine departments of government and don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this subject. It is very complicated. Its sociological issues, historical issues, and economic issues are all intermixed. My sense, and I think that of my colleagues, is that there are very few easy answers and even fewer attractive ones.

• 1040

So the one point of substance I would make to the committee is that we are not going to come up with a silver bullet. We'll do our best to provide well-informed and practical advice, but this is not a subject that lends itself, as I hardly need say to this group, to quick solutions.

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

Welcome, Professor Jackman. Is there anything you want to add?

Ms. Martha Jackman (Member, Independent Panel on Access Criteria): No.

The Chair: Yes, Arthur, you're absolutely right, it's one of the most complicated industries going.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have a preliminary remark, but it does not concern you, Mr. Kroeger. It concerns the notice of meeting in French. I have to admit to you that when I saw the title of today's presentation: “Panneau indépendant sur les critères d'accès”, I thought posters were going to be put up in the ocean, posters where we would be able to read the access criteria, because to my mind, a panneau, is a poster. This is not the first time that we have had problems with the French notices of meetings. I would like to see the situation remedied and appropriate terms used. Thank you.

I now have a question for you. You said that you would be consulting the provinces and the territories after this. Will you be using the same kind of consultation format when you consult the provinces and the territories?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: Yes, we will. Our meetings will be in camera. I told the provincial officials as well as those from the Nunavut government that we wanted to have informal, frank and very broad-ranging discussions. The last meetings we will have in mid- October will have that format.

[English]

The Chair: Your concern's been noted on the French, Monsieur Roy. Any other questions?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Sir, thank you very much for your presentation. You're right, it is probably one of the most complicated things to deal with. Even within a two-mile radius of the eastern shore, for example, we have the Chezzetcook harbour and Musquodoboit, and the battles between those loops.

You're absolutely right in your brief on page 2 that the absolute discretion of the minister in terms of other departments is extraordinary. He has unprecedented authority, which a lot of fishermen and their groups don't like. The groups I've spoken to would like to see, through this process, some of that decision-making taken from the minister's office and moved more to the regions, so that instead of decisions coming from Ottawa to the water they'd go from the water to Ottawa. That's what they're asking for. Is that the sense you're getting as you're going around?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: Yes. We've had some very interesting accounts—again it's part of the educational process for those of us who are not familiar with the fishery—of the headway that's been made in establishing local decision-making where the industry really worked things out for themselves and the minister of the department simply ratified.

Ten days ago, for example, we had a meeting with Norma Richardson, who I think might come from Mr. Stoffer's part of Nova Scotia. She described to us a process in which the association she represents was given an allocation, and then the members of the association worked out among themselves how they were going to divide it up and how they were going to manage it. This is increasingly the case in Atlantic Canada, and the department is encouraging it, as does the Atlantic fisheries policy review document.

One of our members referred to the approach the panel has taken as a variation on the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. Where you have a decision-making process that is working well, don't overturn it. What we are really talking about, what we're focusing on, are the areas where attempts to work things out on the ground, sometimes with the help of Department of Fisheries officials, sometimes with industry representatives, fail.

• 1045

Then the question arises, what do you do? And as Paul Sprout indicated, opinions on this divide. Some people like the continued access to the minister and the political process. Others are looking for some kind of—I don't know if I should call it arm's-length process—perhaps a buffer between the dispute on the ground and the minister, perhaps an advisory body.

An analogy that we have sometimes discussed with groups is the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council, which doesn't make the final decision but it's an entity that I believe was created eight years ago and now looks at some of the resource questions and some of the conservation questions, provides advice in public, but the minister still retains the decision. Some groups have said that's a good arrangement. Others have said they don't like it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The other concern coming up, especially in the Bay of Fundy recently, is on the joint decisions between the federal government and the provincial government when it comes to access of waters for aquaculture. For example, in Nova Scotia, in the Northwest Cove area near the Aspotogan Peninsula, there was a huge row where over 90% of that community said no to a finfish farm. They said they didn't want it. The federal government did the environmental assessment, but it was the provincial government that actually had the final say in terms of the lease. And that really pissed a lot of people off.

So there's the issue of the decision-making on that access, because increasingly aquaculture is a growing industry, or at least the industry would like it to be. And that's going to put a lot of pressure on the traditional commercial harvesters as you go along.

I know you said you can't give any substantial answers right now because you're just going through the process. But I caution you that when you hear those approaches you're going to hear the two different sides, but it's imperative that the communities where the access to water will be must have a say on how the future of those areas for riparian rights, etc., are granted. What happened in Northwest Cove was a disaster, and they're very angry and they've taken it to court. And a lot of other communities are saying if it can happen there, it can happen to us.

That's going to damage the aquaculture industry, which I don't think should be damaged in this regard. I think it's a growth industry; it has a lot of potential. But attitudes need to change on both sides.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: The point is registered.

We have touched on the aquaculture industry occasionally, not in as much depth as we should have. And I might add that after this meeting, Martha Jackman and I have a meeting with the Canadian Aquaculture Association. So we'll be hearing from them and we will be hearing from some others before we're done. But thank you for the comment.

The Chair: Spinning off that, I was going to ask you in my own line of questioning, Mr. Kroeger, if you are looking at access for aquaculture development, if it's part of your mandate. Because we've been doing a study in aquaculture, and there is no question that it has a lot of potential as an industry but it also has a lot of potential for controversy with cottage owners, landowners, recreational water users, and traditional fishermen.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: It doesn't figure prominently in our mandate, and I doubt that we will treat it at great length, but we are going to take a look, as I said a minute ago, at aquaculture and we're also going to have a meeting with the recreational fishers, I believe this week. We certainly want to hear from them and take their needs into account, although the main focus of our exercise is on the commercial fishery.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, one criterion that often seems to be contentious, in Quebec for example, is the criterion of historic shares. This is often brought up, particularly in the context of interprovincial sharing of the resource. Do you believe—and I imagine you have heard of this—that this is a criterion that should be carefully scrutinized?

• 1050

I know we must not jump to conclusions too quickly, that you have to finish your work, but in any case, do you feel that this criterion should be carefully reviewed? You are aware that one of the problems we face regarding the identification of historic shares is that it is often the provinces or the fleets themselves that determine the dates that will apply, according to what best suits their advantage. One province will say that the assessment should take the ten previous years into account because that is to their advantage. This causes a lot of conflict.

As a result, will this criterion be a relatively important one for you? Is this of concern to you, and do you think you will be able to determine very objective and very precise criteria regarding the identification of historic shares?

The Chair: Mr. Kroeger.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: There are perhaps five or six criteria that we always talk about: geographic proximity, historic dependency, fairness perhaps, etc. Everyone talks about it, but there is no agreement on the importance of one criterion or another. Some provinces speak of historic dependency whereas others say that proximity ought to be of the utmost importance.

I doubt whether it is possible to find a single formula. It is a question of reviewing five or six criteria in a particular context. But that is a relatively preliminary comment, because the issue of the importance of one criterion as opposed to another is very complex, very difficult. I would like to ask Ms. Jackman to make an additional comment.

Ms. Martha Jackman: It is definitely true, as Arthur has explained, that people propose a whole range of criteria and then define them according to their own best interest. Even adjacency can be defined as one kilometre, or 200 kilometres. As for historic shares, according to the appropriate period, the issue is raised and historic dependence often comes into it.

Therefore, those who have the impression that the present system is working well for them will say that all that needs to be done is to better define the criteria and that everything will work properly. But as a lawyer, I can tell you that I have built a career on one expression: “fairness”. It isn't possible. What we hope to do is to provide well-founded definitions. But I don't believe it is possible to very precisely define one criterion that will settle all the problems in all situations. It is not possible.

[English]

The Chair: Sorry, I was checking the bell. We'll have somebody check the bell to see what it's ringing for.

A voice: Is there a vote?

The Chair: I'm not aware of one. There may be a quorum call.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we welcome you here, sir. Certainly we're all impressed with the amount of work that was done in a short time by all of you.

One of the concerns we have as we look ahead is what's been happening recently in relation to actual fishermen. My vision of those participating in the industry would be the fisherman or fisherperson who has had an attachment to the fishery, who gets access to the resource through a licence because he or she qualifies, and who is then given an allocation. That way we employ a tremendous number of people. The fishery is still extremely important, especially in Atlantic Canada, as an employer. But that doesn't seem to be the way it is.

• 1055

Many people are getting access to the fishery—licences—outside what I would consider to be the way it should be done. We have people who hold several licences. We have people who hardly would know what colour their boats are who have licences. We have companies, through one method and another, buying up—one way or another, again—a number of licences, controlling not only the resource, but those who actually fish in the boats. And we have allocations being given to groups and agencies that in no way can be said to be clear-cut, bona fide, single-based, owner-operator fishermen. It's become a major worry.

It looks like a tremendous amount of manipulation—I used the word “collusion” before—internally. And what happens in the industry is one thing, but where the department's involved is something else.

Did you run into that? Do you see a more clear-cut way of dealing with those who should be making a living from the fishery, the owner-operators and crew members, rather than companies, business people, who are buying up licences, or even union groups, who on their own are getting allocations and licences to fish outside what I would think would be acceptable categories for people who should participate in the resource?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: It's not a question I think I could say very much about, because so much of it falls under the responsibility of the department.

We are going to be looking at principles for access, but these principles I don't think would extend to whether a company or a particular character should or should not receive a licence. That's come up occasionally in some of our meetings, but not very often. We've read a lot about it, obviously, in the briefings we were given. I think it probably falls a bit outside what we're going to be spending most of our time on, but I realize it's a very important question for the department.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, I have one point.

If a company is given a licence or given access, I have no problem. If it's a major deep-sea resource, crab outside 200 or the shrimp fishery, whatever, many individuals could not afford to buy the boats and so on to prosecute such a fishery. I'm talking about perhaps the 65 mile and under sector, where now many boats, like I say, are owned by others, rather than actually owner-operators, and there are games being played with access to the resource, both inside and outside. So one of these days, somebody is going to have an awful lot of explaining to do. I'm just wondering who's going to clean up the mess.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: It probably won't be us, but we'll keep the comment in mind.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

I have just a couple of questions, and if anybody has any suggestions for the access criteria panel, don't be afraid to raise them, not as a committee, but as an individual.

One of the concerns, Arthur, is that the panel may at the end of the day paint all species with the same brush. I'm hearing that from lobster fishermen in particular, because I do know three years ago there was some department, basically coming out of Kent Street, looking at whether access in the lobster industry should be switched to a quota. The lobster fishery has worked very well under limiting effort. In fact, it's been the most successful fishery going over a period of time. What is your intent there? Are you looking at options in terms of access criteria, or do you even know yet? Or are you looking at saying there's one solution for all?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: One thing that almost everybody has said in the meetings with us is that one size can't fit all. The Atlantic fishery is much too diverse, much too complicated, to come up with a single formula. We have no illusion that we're going to be able to devise a set of criteria—that the problem comes up, you throw it in the machine, turn the crank, and out comes the answer. That can't possibly happen.

One of the difficulties we'll have to wrestle with is on one hand people want uniformity and consistency, and on the other hand they want you to take account of particular circumstances, quite legitimately. We'd certainly have to avoid abstract formulas that you just try to force-fit.

• 1100

Paul Sprout said the same thing, that during the Atlantic fishery's policy review hearings, people kept saying they wanted an Atlantic-wide approach but one that takes account of regional situations. That is a good illustration of squaring the circle.

We have the same problem before us, and all I can say is that we'll do our best to come up with something. But I think I can assure the committee that we're not going to try a force-fit approach in which somehow everything is forced to conform to a single formula.

The Chair: Are you looking at the access specifically related to the aboriginal fishery?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: Yes. The terms of reference make clear that we're not to inject ourselves into a lot of the discussions that are going on, the attempt by Mr. MacKenzie to negotiate agreements with the different Atlantic bands, but we have had meetings with probably six or seven aboriginal groups, some of whom had boycotted the Atlantic fisheries policy review but did decide to come and talk to us.

So we've had a range of views. We've visited the Eskasoni reserve. We've been to Nunavut, and we have met the Labrador Inuit Association, the Conne River Band in Newfoundland, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and so on. We've received quite a lot of advice from them, some very articulate expressions of what their concerns and aspirations are. We will have something to say about it. I think David Newhouse, a member of our panel, will be able to give us a particularly informed perspective of how to approach these questions. I can't predict as yet exactly what we will say, but certainly there will be elements of our report that will deal with aboriginal participation.

The Chair: As my final point before we see if there are any last comments, are you doing any international travel or looking at systems in other places? I was in Iceland a month ago, looking at their system as it relates to both fisheries and aquaculture. Or are you just zeroing in on what's happening within Canada?

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: The answer to your question is no and yes. That is to say, we're not going to do any travelling. All our travel has been on the Atlantic coast, extending up to Baffin Island.

That being said, we have commissioned research on how countries such as New Zealand, Iceland, and European countries handle access issues. We will be getting the results of that research quite soon. It is explicitly part of our terms of reference. We are supposed to look at that, as well as—and this is a particular preoccupation of the Government of Quebec—how access is handled in some other industrial areas. We have commissioned some research on that as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer, you have a last point to add?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As a final point, when I mentioned about aquaculture I failed to mention the burgeoning oil and gas sector as well, especially off the coast of P.E.I, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. We're very concerned about them gaining more ground to cover, and that may interfere with commercial fisheries.

To save you a lot of time, if you wish, the previous committee, from 1997 to 2000, issued I think eight unanimous reports on the fisheries. There is a lot of good information in there, so if you haven't had a chance to read them, get at it.

Mr. Arthur Kroeger: Thank you. Oil and gas is outside our territory, but I've taken on board your point about the reports.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

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

Professor Jackman, we wish you well in completing your work.

The meeting is adjourned.