FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

0835

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.))

Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. John Adams (Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

0840

0845

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Patrick Chamut

0850

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

0855

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

0900

Mr. Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Thibault

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

0905

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

0910

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. John Adams

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Robert Thibault

0915

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

0920

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. Georges Farrah

0925

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

0930

Mr. John Adams

Mr. Cummins

Mr. John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Thibault

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Robert Thibault

0935

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. John Adams

0940

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

0945

Mr. John Cummins

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

The Chair

0950

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

0955

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1000

The Chair

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko

The Chair

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

The Chair

1005

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. John Adams

1010

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. John Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John Adams

1015

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1020

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

The Chair

1025

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Adams

Mr. Cummins

Mr. John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. John Adams

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

1030

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 052

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0835)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We do not have a quorum yet, but we will hear evidence, and hopefully, a quorum will be here before very long.

This morning, pursuant to an order dated February 28, we'll deal with the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, and with votes 1, 5, and 10.

Appearing are the Minister, the Honourable Robert Thibault, and departmental staff. I'll have either Pat or Minister Thibault introduce the staff. Welcome, Minister. I know you have some opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions. We understand that your time's limited. Go ahead.

Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): I'd like to first thank you and the committee, through you, Chair, for organizing the schedule in a way that would meet with mine, starting this early in the morning.

It's a pleasure to be here today to discuss my department's main estimates for the coming fiscal year and to answer any questions you may have. Before we get into those more detailed discussions, I'd like to outline some of my department's key priorities as we carry out our mandate into the next year, but before I do that, perhaps I'll ask officials to introduce themselves to members.

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Donna Petrachenko, Assistant Deputy Minister for corporate services.

Mr. John Adams (Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): John Adams, commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Ruth Dantzer, associate deputy minister.

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Pat Chamut, ADM for fisheries management.

The Chair: Welcome all.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Managing and conserving Canada's fisheries remains a core commitment for my department. Through responsible conservation-based harvesting strategies, we want to ensure that future generations of Canadians will benefit from the fisheries resource.

As you know, we're finding ways to improve our fisheries policy. On the east coast the Atlantic fisheries policy review is nearing completion. Working with provinces and stakeholders, we're developing a new policy framework that will give us a clear direction and a strong set of principles to guide decision-making into the future. On the west coast the “New Directions” series of policy initiatives and stakeholder consultations is helping us to develop a new policy framework for Pacific fisheries, particularly for salmon.

[Translation]

We're also busy on the international fisheries front, dealing with the problem of foreign overfishing. We recently closed our ports to the Faroese and Estonian fishing fleets. We're also pleased that the Russian authorities have responded to Canada's concerns in a serious fashion and revoked the Olga's licence to fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area for the rest of the year.

These examples prove, however, that NAFO needs to be strengthened.

My officials and I are now working with our provincial and industry partners to prepare our case for NAFO's annual meeting this September.

[English]

Of course, we can't talk about managing our fisheries without a few words on Marshall. While this file hasn't always been easy, we are making progress. Since the longer-term process was announced in February 2001, we've signed agreements with 29 of the 34 first nations affected by the decision. Detailed information on the agreements signed during the first year of the Marshall program are now available on our website, in addition to summaries of the fishing agreements during the 2001-2002 season.

As you know, I recently appointed Mr. Brian McGuigan as our new federal fisheries negotiator, to build on the solid groundwork laid by Mr. James MacKenzie over the past few years. While the target for signing long-term fisheries agreements with first nations will continue to be March 31, 2004, I've decided to extend the delivery of the program in fisheries access to first nations by an extra two years to March 31, 2006. This will allow us to better implement training and mentoring programs and give first nations the opportunity to make the most out of the access being provided to them. There are already a number of training and mentoring initiatives in place in Atlantic Canada, with non-aboriginal fishers teaching aboriginal fishers the ropes. So far over 400 aboriginal people have been trained in various areas. In the time ahead we'll be looking at improving these programs and building even more bridges between these communities in the years to come.

But I'm not going to sugar-coat the fact that there are more serious challenges to be faced. For instance, there are some concerns about the food fisheries being abused. I take these concerns very seriously, and I'll do whatever is in my power to ensure that food fishery access is not abused.

In some isolated situations it's come to our attention that licences provided to aboriginal communities are being fished by people who are not part of the aboriginal community. We are now working with aboriginal communities and the fishing industry to address this issue.

Relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in certain areas remain fragile, but we're seeing signs of improvement. We've facilitated some grassroots initiatives to ease relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. The latest is the community relations panel for Miramichi Bay. We appointed Roger Augustine and Justice Guy-André Richard to review the state of relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in the area and to recommend solutions. I recently received their report, and I'm considering their recommendations now. Initiatives like these are positive signs that aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities can cooperate for the good of the Atlantic fishery in the years to come.

[Translation]

Co-operation is also the key behind another of the department's core responsibilities, namely protecting and developing our oceans economy.

Ocean industries generate some $20 billion each year, and employ nearly 145,000 Canadians. Traditional activities like fishing and shipping are now being joined by a range of new ones, like aquaculture, tourism and oil and gas development.

Canadians are looking to us to help them develop these industries, and find ways for our economy to prosper for them. But they're also looking to us to develop these industries responsibly.

Striking this balance is one of the goals behind our Oceans Act. I am pleased to note that in your report of October 2001, this Committee concluded that the Act is fundamentally sound and that no major amendments were called for.

In fact, the Act is bringing some fundamental changes in how our oceans are managed. So far, we've moved forward on 21 integrated management pilot initiatives that involve a wide variety of stakeholders and all levels of government in the decision-making process for our oceans.

Over the coming year, we'll see further action in improving how we manage our oceans, as we continue to implement the Oceans Act and develop Canada's Oceans Strategy - a plan to build on the lessons we've learned over the last five years, and to bring about even more important changes in how we manage and protect our oceans.

¾ (0840)

[English]

Aquaculture is a good example of the balance that's needed. The five-year, $75 million program for sustainable aquaculture announced in 2000 gave the industry the tools it needed to grow, while striving to ensure that environmental obligations are complied with. Today we're building on this base with an action plan and comprehensive policy framework for aquaculture aimed at increasing the public's confidence in aquaculture and enhancing the sector's ability to compete internationally. Over the coming year we'll continue to build on our momentum and guide this promising young sector to further success.

We'll be focusing our efforts on providing the core services my department provides to Canadians. As you may know, we're currently in the midst of a departmental assessment to find ways to address a range of program integrity issues and help restore financial stability over the longer term. The assessment focuses on DFO program areas like the Canadian Coast Guard, science, and small craft harbours.

To keep delivering the coast guard's mandate into the future and in the face of growing expectations, we're taking a hard look at how we deliver our programs and services, to ensure that they are delivered within our current fiscal means. The assessment gives us the opportunity to make sure the coast guard is doing only the right things in the right way, and it will allow us to put forward a plan for long-term sustainability.

Science is another key program for DFO. All the decisions we make as a department need to be based on the best scientific advice available. The departmental assessment will ensure that DFO's science program has the tools it needs to continue providing this advice.

DFO is committed to keeping harbours critical to the fishing industry open, safe, and in good repair. Budget 2001 included $100 million over five years for our small craft harbours program, the single largest allocation to this program in over a decade. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee for their report on this matter.

Of course, down the road the departmental assessment will give us the tools and information we need to build a solid business case for additional support in the years to come. This will ensure that my department continues to deliver its services to Canadians in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Honourable members, these are just a few of the areas my department will be busy with over the coming year. I am proud of the high level of service we provide to Canadians. I'll be looking to this committee to continue recommending ways the department can keep providing the excellent service Canadians have come to expect from DFO.

And now my officials and I will be happy to answer your questions.

¾ (0845)

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

Before I turn to Mr. Cummins, if you will recall, we sent you a letter with a fairly strenuous list of questions on the Marshall decision and the aboriginal fishing strategy. The clerk reported to us yesterday that the department felt it didn't have enough time to answer those fully as yet. I gather that's still the position. When can we expect something?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I've had discussions with officials, and within 30 days it should be available. It's a very comprehensive list and it requires a lot of work by a lot of people. We'll have it as quickly as possible.

The Chair: We understand that there isn't much we haven't asked in that letter.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thank you for appearing here this morning, Minister.

I'd like first to go to some questions about the Pacific region. It seems that in the fiscal year ending March 31 there was an $11 million surplus in the Pacific region. Is that correct?

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko: For the fiscal year ending 2001-2002 we're closing the books now, and the Pacific region is coming in just a little over budget, probably about $10,000 over their approved budget.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you anticipating a budget cut for the Pacific region this year?

Mr. Robert Thibault: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we're doing an assessment across the department of our requirements in each region and each service, and we'll be allocating the resources accordingly. I think what's important to note is that we'll be making sure we're providing the services that are necessary. There's a lot of additional demand on the west coast for our services because of the Province's stance on aquaculture and the assessments that are needed. That's one area that requires a lot of our work.

Mr. John Cummins: With the Pacific region budget, on the fisheries management side, what percentage or what dollar figure is allocated to managing aboriginal fisheries?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know that we have those figures broken down specifically. A lot of our people do management conservation and protection in all the sectors. We do have some partnerships with native communities where, under guarded programs and the like, those figures would be little easier to isolate.

Pat.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: As the minister has said, it's very difficult to put a precise figure on how much is employed in managing aboriginal fisheries, because of the variety of components involved. The one figure I can give you is an amount of about $18 million that is dedicated to the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which is a program, as you know, whereby we provide funding to first nations to assist them in various types of fisheries management activities. So it would allow them to work with us on things like habitat, stream enhancement, assessment of stock abundance, and it provides for funding guardians. That's a dedicated fund of money that's provided to assist in the co-management arrangements with first nations.

In addition to that, there's also money that may go to some first nation communities under the salmon enhancement program to augment their capacity to run small hatcheries and stream enhancement projects. There is also money in our conservation and enforcement program to ensure that we are monitoring and enforcing in aboriginal fisheries.

¾ (0850)

Mr. John Cummins: Is it correct that Ms. Petrachenko has been appointed to head the Pacific Salmon Commission, Canadian section?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. John Cummins: What would the professional qualifications of Ms. Petrachenko be to head that? Does she have training in biology and fisheries management?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Ms. Petrachenko is quite qualified. She has extensive experience and will do a fantastic job for us. If it's of value to you, we could supply her qualifications.

Mr. John Cummins: It would be.

The non-government members of the Canadian caucus of the Fraser panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission on July 8, 2001, made a presentation to the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, then Minister of Fisheries, in which they expressed some concerns about senior management of the Pacific region, which has, of course, reference to Ms. Petrachenko. They said:

Of even greater concern to us is our belief that the current senior management is not capable of fully developing and implementing your new policies.... The unfortunate truth is that the current management style is causing dismantling of the expertise you have. We continue to witness the exodus of caring, capable fisheries managers and the complete intimidation and loss of morale of those who remain. On a daily basis we see the stifling of independent thought, imagination ,and initiative so needed to make informed risk aversion management decisions. Those who attempt to do their jobs are relegated to roles of little influence. Those who replace them are overly controlled and inexperienced in fisheries management. Of special concern to us is the recent attempt to replace the chair of the Canadian section of the Fraser panel. This person clearly has not had the confidence of senior managers, and is thus in an untenable position to coordinate the Canadian section of the Fraser panel.

And it goes on--

The Chair: I don't want to interrupt, but is this germane to the estimates?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, I think it is, because--

The Chair: I don't want us to get into a personal attack on an individual when we're trying to deal with estimates and where the department is going.

Mr. John Cummins: What it has to do with is management of the fisheries resource, and as you're quite aware, Mr. Chair, mismanagement of the resource in the year 2001 probably cost the economy of British Columbia $30 million, not to mention the lost income to fishermen who never had a chance to put a net in the water, who paid licence fees, paid for improvements on their vessels, and then were not given the opportunity to fish.

I'd like to know why this particular person has been given this responsibility, given that the non-governmental members of this Fraser panel had so little confidence in her abilities.

Mr. Robert Thibault: We always appreciate views expressed by intervenors such as you mentioned, but in the end, we make the decisions using the best people we can find to do those tasks. I'm completely confident in the abilities of Ms. Petrachenko.

Mr. John Cummins: These same people expressed their non-confidence in her, and now she is going to be sitting as their boss. How is that going to improve management of the fishery in British Columbia this year?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'll keep my same answer. I'm completely confident. I believe her ability to work with all concerned is very good and she'll do a great job for us.

Mr. John Cummins: But what you don't seem to be understanding is that after this letter was received, Mr. Dhaliwal removed that particular person from her position. He demonstrated a lack of confidence in her to complete that function, and now you put her in charge.

¾ (0855)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I can't agree with you on that point. There's use of our personnel. People go from one position to another depending on the needs we have in different areas. Ms. Petrachenko is doing a very important and very competent job for us now, and I'm sure she'll continue to do that into the future.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Cummins, you have three minutes left.

Mr. John Cummins: You have expressed your support in the past for things that are, if you will, as far as concerns the department's interpretation of the Marshall decision. You seem to be neglecting or ignoring, I think, the clarification decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Marshall case, where it made very clear that the decision was one concerning a small commercial fishery in eels and not of the scope you suggest. More recently, reports in Nova Scotia have made it very clear that the Marshall decision is not all-encompassing. They noted that as many as 14 of the 24 bands showed no evidence of signing a treaty in 1760. They also noted that the treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local. The exercise of the treaty will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community. We now have the Quebec government recognizing that treaties were not signed by Mi'kmaq and other natives resident in Quebec. Are you reviewing the incorrect position that your government has taken on this issue?

Mr. Robert Thibault: First, I disagree with the premise of your question. It is my understanding, after wide consultations I've been having since the decision came down, that while the case was on an eels matter, the justices did indicate that there was a question of general application for moderate livelihoods on hunting, fishing, and gathering and that--not having the text with me, I can't quote the exact line--it was in the best interest of all concerned to negotiate rather than have all those matters decided by the court. That's the position this government has taken after wide consultation with the industry, a lot of people with very good legal expertise, and we've gone into negotiating a position of moderate livelihood, to the benefit of all concerned.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll now turn to Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister and members of your team, for coming here this morning. I'd like to focus specifically on the Main Estimates and the budget for small craft harbours.

Recently, you responded to the Standing Committee's Fifth Report. I have here your response which is dated early May. While the budget for small craft harbours has increased by $20 million, what concerns me about the Main Estimates is that further to the Fisheries Committee's cross-country hearings, it's become clear that infrastructures are in a deplorable state of repair. In virtually every region of the country, a variety of infrastructures are totally inadequate, and in some cases, even unsafe.

We were also struck by the small craft harbours program under which corporations are set up to manage harbour infrastructures. However, many of these corporations have told us repeatedly that they lacked the resources to do their work properly. We put the same question last year to your predecessor, who told us that he would look into ways of helping corporations that manage small craft harbours, and maybe even provide them with some financial assistance, if possible. We haven't had any kind of response since we last met with the minister. The circumstances of that meeting were similar, namely consideration by the committee of departmental estimates.

I'd appreciate an answer to the following question: over the past year, has the department given any thought to providing financial assistance to corporations that manage small craft harbours to help them operate more efficiently and carry out their mandate?

¿ (0900)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I think this can be accomplished indirectly, rather than directly. I would hesitate to provide funding directly to harbour authorities for the operation of the harbours as such. I would prefer to see adequate resources allocated and a long-term, sustainable plan for maintaining, expanding and in some cases, rebuilding harbours today and in the future.

Harbour authorities would benefit by collecting user fees which they could then use for administration purposes. I think it's more motivating when funding comes from user fees, rather than from direct taxation measures. It's a more democratic approach, one that fosters a sense of belonging.

One area in which some shortcomings have been noted - and hence the additional allocation of $100 million - is the funding of maintenance and repairs to small craft harbours. I congratulate you and the committee for your support on this matter. As Fisheries Minister and as the representative of a fishery region, I devoted considerable attention to this issue last year.

In my opinion, we also need to reassess the points system. That's what departmental officials are now in the process of doing. The system works well, but it could be adjusted to better meet needs. We also need to look to the long term. The points system was introduced to rationalize the industry. This process is well advanced and we must continue to look to the future.

I'd like to praise the efforts that have been made to set up these harbour authorities. They manage money more responsibly and accomplish far more with the available resources than if the funds were centrally administered by DFO.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I understand what you're saying, but what you need to understand is that the revenues collected by these authorities, even if they are derived from user fees, can vary considerably from one year to the next.

Consider, for example, the Cap-Chat harbour. Revenues earned can be higher one year than they are the next. DFO is not in any way flexible. It continues to provide the same level of funding even though the corporation's revenues may drop dramatically and the harbour's operations may be threatened. We've come to this realization.

I'd like to know if the department is prepared in future to show sufficient flexibility and sit down with these corporations and make the necessary adjustments, should their revenues decline.

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'm prepared to take that matter under advisement. I'm not familiar with the situation at the harbour you mentioned, but some authorities may find themselves in this situation.

Still, I would prefer that the harbour authority not be funded directly and that it continue to represent the interests of harbour users. I don't want to see a federally-funded bureaucracy in place. My preference would be to see federal funds used for the construction, maintenance and renovation of these harbours.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have one last quick question. Do you anticipate more funds in the budget for improvements to existing infrastructures?

Mr. Robert Thibault: That would be my first choice. It remains to be seen whether additional funds will be approved.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, then Mr. Lunney.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): To follow Mr. Roy's point, small craft harbours are certainly a big component of what's important to the fishermen in my constituency. In past years the process has been driven more by centralization and rationalization, and the point system seemed to be driven by that as well, the scoring system. Do you anticipate a change in how we profile the wharves and how we invest in the particular wharves, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I've asked staff to have a review of that. We want to have consultation as much as possible with the harbour authorities. I don't think we'll make a 100% direct change, but I think we can make some modifications to look to the future. I visited the port of Twillingate a few weeks ago, for example. That's an area where the fleet has completely changed to larger vessels. Their needs are not at all similar to what they would have been 20 years ago. We see that all along the south shore and the west coast of Nova Scotia, the areas I know best. I'm sure there are other areas throughout the country. We have to look at what the future is.

The rationalization isn't necessarily complete, but I'd like that rationalization not to be because of the point system, but looking at what those communities are going to be needing in the future. I'd like to be driven by reason and by consultations with the communities rather than by federal policy.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: A second, totally disconnected point is not really pertinent as a line item in the estimates, but there's a recommendation from the committee to look at the regulations and restraints on the length, the sizing of boats and the cubic capacity for the inshore fleet holding groundfish licences. Are we anticipating a move on this in this coming year?

Mr. Robert Thibault: As you know, I would have liked to make a quick decision on that, but after discussions with officials and travelling around the country, it's come to mind that it's a lot more complex. There's no one solution that fits all. We're having a review of it currently. There are areas where there is still a competitive industry with an inshore quota where vessel size can lead to competition for the resources and give problems, everybody becoming non-sustainable in fishing. There are other areas where there is an inshore fleet, an inshore quota, quotas per boat, where we could do that without impact. So we're having discussions, and the best example would be two fleets in Newfoundland right now, where I've had preliminary discussions with Mr. McCurdy of their union and told him what I'd like to do with some of the fishermen.

In the long term what I would consider achieving is that we make the inshore permanent in areas like the crab fleet, but with a system that permits self-rationalization, and that would be done first, so that not everybody over-invests, so that nobody is sustainable in the future, but as the stock goes up and down, one fisher or one enterprise might buy another and combine. And there could be a similar sort of thing for those fishing far off shore. If we permit all those people to get bigger boats now, at one time or another they're not going to be sustainable, so we have to make sure there's a system that permits self-rationalization as the industry changes, but not force it. Those decisions have started. We're looking at fleet separation throughout the country to get some action.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: My fishermen respect the right and the need for the native community to be engaged in the fishery, they understand that, and I commend the department for signing deals with 29 of 34 bands, but the talk on the wharf is, where is the end? This is finite now, we've dealt with the Marshall enquiry, we've dealt with the decision, and now there's a little bit of stability within our industry and we can take it from here. Is there a finish line here?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We've signed some short-term and long-term agreements with a lot of the native communities. We still have some to negotiate. We have made commitments for resources we haven't met yet, but we've done a large part of it. In the interest of negotiations, to protect taxpayers' interest as we purchase capacity, we can't give figures of exactly how much we'll do, because it has an effect on the price. We've been doing all this in consultation with the communities with a view to how we would buy into voluntary retirements, and I know it still has some difficult effects on communities. As my solicitor used to tell me, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but none the cat really likes. So it's difficult to meet our requirements to provide capacity. The traditional fishing communities request that we do it through voluntary retirement and in a way that has no effect on the value of licences or transfers, because it is voluntary. Some areas are more affected than others, depending on where those retirements have happened.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Lunney.

¿ (0910)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move to the question of MCTS and the funding question there regarding ab initio training and so on. When we visted the west coast stations, the east coast as well, but particularly the Pacific region, there was a lot of stress because of the underfunding for training. With the estimates, Minister, can you let us know where we're at with this? Have steps been taken to correct the funding deficits there and ensure that training will take place at an adequate level?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I'll let the commissioner give the details, but we are ensuring that we have the resources needed for the tasks we have to do. We're modernizing our equipment, we going to digital, a similar sort of modern technology as has been applied on the east coast will go to the west coast. We have no doubt that's a core service we have to provide, and we'll be making sure the resources are available.

Mr. James Lunney: I have two specific questions then. When we visited the Prince Rupert station, there was a lot of stress about broken-down equipment and transmitters that weren't working and the stress that put on staff, with the stack of forms they had, requests for repair of equipment. It was quite alarming, and there's a threat to navigation and concern for staff themselves when problems happen out there. They had to report to people that navigational aids weren't working and so on. Have steps been taken to correct that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know that I'd agree that there was so much difficulty. There are labour negotiations and labour-management issues that sometimes come into those discussions. The way our systems are set up, one area backs up the other, it's an integrated approach, but we are modernizing all our equipment.

Mr. James Lunney: When we visited the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney back in March, we learned that the ab initio training program for the Pacific region had been cancelled, again because of insufficient funding to get staff from there to the college for adequate training. Have steps been taken to correct that?

Mr. John Adams: The Pacific region itself has initiated a very ambitious, aggressive change initiative intended to address that very issue. You're absolutely right, they have run into difficulties over the last three years with respect to funding initial training for their MCTS officers. We're hopeful that this initiative will address that issue, because it cannot be prolonged over the long term. I would argue that the immediate impact is manageable, but it is not sustainable over the long term, and they will initiate the necessary changes to reallocate funding to ensure that training occurs in the future.

Mr. James Lunney: I'm sure that'll be a big relief.

The Chair: To interject here for a second, Mr. Lunney, when you talk to the MCTS people on the ground--and we were at a lot of the sites out there--the fact is that somebody can hardly get sick, they're so tight on personnel. We've written a letter to the minister. The minister's aware of that issue. It is extremely important from, I think, a morale point of view, as well as a regular working environment point of view, to deal with the question, and quickly. We were concerned.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you for reinforcing that, Mr. Chair. It's certainly a major concern there.

I have two quick questions related to issues on the west coast, and the first is the hake fishery. Communities are waiting to hear about the allocation. I understand the resource is down in respect of the total allowable catch, and the allocation is extremely important to the processors and people waiting to know if they're going to be able to work this year. So could the minister please let us know whether he has announced that decision or it is pending?

The second one is to do with the rock cod fishery, with that fishery being totally shut down and people being concerned whether it's going to open at all and what, if anything, is going to be done to compensate fishermen who so far haven't been allowed to start the fishery.

Mr. Robert Thibault: On both those issues, we hope to be making announcements very shortly. We've had extensive consultations in the case of the rockfish with all concerned, all the people who are harvesting or sport fishing in that area. We're quite concerned about the decline, especially in the inshore area. We're looking at a number of measures. We had recommendations for very drastic measures, but there was some reticence from the affected people, so we've had further consultations. We'll be looking at measures such as closed areas that are critical habitat for the preservation and conservation of the rockfish, reductions in catches, reductions in by-catches, reductions even in the sport fishing industry. Doing it on a multi-year basis is something that is being actively considered. In a way, it will have the least negative effect on the communities, but at the same time, our core cause is the preservation and conservation of the stock.

On the hake fishery, it's a similar story. I hope to be making an announcement very soon. We continue to discuss with the Americans. We disagree with the U.S. beliefs on where TAC should be. We think they're putting it too high. We're trying to find a reasonable allocation between the inshore and offshore fleets, with the on-land processing. It's important to the economy of that area, as well as the offshore purchasers who are important to the harvesters for their revenue. For the fishery for years to come, it's good to have competition in the harvesting. All those matters are up for consideration, and hopefully, within the next two weeks we'll be able to make those announcements.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Farrah, Mr. Cummins, and Mr. Efford.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister as well, and welcome my new colleague from Newfoundland here to the fisheries committee, for many months of exciting dialogue, I assume.

Mr. Adams, point blank, this is from the union at the coast guard. Do you have the resources to effectively patrol and protect our fish stocks and our fishermen off the east and west coasts of Canada?

Second, Mr. Minister, up in northern British Columbia, on the Taku River, there's a possible mine site being developed, and there are three major spawning rivers for various salmon species. The people up there and the State of Alaska are very concerned about the migrating stocks of salmon. Could you please advise what actions you're taking in order to protect the Fisheries Act?

Mr. MacKay of the Tories is not here, so I'll ask the question on behalf of Canso. What is the government doing to assist those people with the devastation of stock?

Finally, the co-operative fishermen in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, are talking about setting up a processing plant to help get their products to market a lot faster. What is the government doing to assist them in developing that processing plant, in conjunction with the FFMC?

Mr. Robert Thibault: As for the resources to protect the fishery, yes, we have them. We do business in a different way from the past. There's a lot more higher technology being used. I had a chance to fly with our contractor, Provincial Airlines, to look over the east coast. They do air surveillance, as does the military for us with the Aurora aircraft. All that information comes to a central data point. We use military patrols when they're out in the areas we're concerned with. We have fisheries officers on those vessels, as well as on our own fleet, but especially the DFO fleet. The security is a question for Transport Canada. We support them, as we do Revenue Canada, the RCMP, and National Defence. Marine safety is our main concern.

The question about Canso is a very difficult one. There are no miracle solutions for Canso. We've been actively participating with them, looking at every potential area where we might be able to work with them to develop an entrepreneurial spirit within Canso in different fisheries. We have scientific fisheries going with them, with the Canso trawlermen's co-operative. We're looking at changing the opening times on crab, for example, at their request, so that they can have a bit more advantage on the processing side. We look at every element we can, but it's difficult for me to make a decision, even impossible. It's not in the best interest of anybody to take resources away from another community. So that becomes quite tight.

As concerns the processing plant in Prince Albert, it's the first time I've heard of this. Processing is not a federal concern, it is a provincial concern. But with the Fresh Fish Marketing Corporation, I don't know what exactly the elements are there. I can find out and let you know.

As to the Taku mine, currently there is no proposal before us to study, to do the screening on. There had been changes in the proposal, the agreement. When the proposal comes back, we'll do our screening, we'll see if there are elements for us to consider, and most likely there will be. That would require a full environmental assessment or even a panel under Environment. So there is no decision imminent from the department until that information comes to us.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: All right.

Sir, you mentioned the surveillance on the east coast. When we were in Newfoundland, we heard that one coast guard vessel was patrolling the entire coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I beg to differ with you when you say you have the resources to do the job. Today in the Globe and Mail they mention that the cod stocks haven't recovered. The fishermen are saying something completely different, and so are your officials in the region. They're saying the resources are not there to do the job they're asked to do, but you can go to the Halifax harbour right now and you'll see five coast guard vessels tied up. They've been that way the entire winter. Why is that?

Mr. Robert Thibault: The best way to monitor the fisheries far off coast isn't vessels. It's one important element, to do some boarding. The best way is air surveillance. We have observers on all the ships. We have satellite information. All that high technology tells us where the boats are and what they're doing. Our patrol vessels are important, but we also use the military patrol vessels. There are a lot of ways we do it. We bring all the elements to bear, with an across-government approach, and it's working quite well.

The Chair: We had the opportunity to review the air surveillance on the east coast, at Peter's invitation actually.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

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

I'd like to get back to the Marshall affair. I think that the policy that has been developed over the past few years has been quite successful, as 29 out of 34 agreements have been signed with aboriginal bands.

What is the status of negotiations with bands that do not yet have agreements? Mindful of the fact that peace is always relative in this connection, and that we want things to be done properly, could you give us a status report on the negotiations with the bands with which we have not yet signed agreements?

Mr. Robert Thibault: For some of these bands, it is a choice; they are not necessarily choosing not to negotiate because they are dissatisfied. This would be the case for the Afton and Bear River bands. They are not necessarily willing to negotiate. I have not had any discussions with Acton, but I did speak with the Bear River chief. In the case of Bear River, they are starting to send out signals that indicate that they want some access. We are working wiith them. They want to work with the inshore fishermen in that region and they want to find a homegrown solution rather than having to live with someone else's solution. Indeed, we are more than willing to work with them on that.

Things might be different in Afton. They are small communities that do not traditionally depend on the fishery for their livelihood, except for Bear River, where there has been a ceremonial food fishery that did not pose any problem. They managed it very well and it did not generate any problems with the community. When the Marshall decision came down and there were tensions in the community, they decided to distance themselves from all of that. So they withdrew for a time.

As for Indian Brook, there may be political decisions within their community that have meant that they are not ready to negotiate, either. There are still cases before the courts. I have had some informal discussions with some of their representatives who said that they might not see it in a bad light if their community began negotiations. Thus, I would not be surprised if we were in a position to begin negotiating with Indian Brook in the medium term.

There has been very good progress in Burnt Church. We have had some informal discussions. I would have preferred a process leading up to negotiation. There are also some political issues in Burnt Church and the Chief and his council will have to consult their people in a vote. There are to be elections within 30 days, after which negotiations may resume.

Mr. Georges Farrah: In another connection, concerning navigation on the St. Lawrence, shipowners, or the users of the seaway...Of course, there were the fees brought in by the Coast Guard for dredging, marine services, etc. It is a fact that when fees are imposed, there are always negotiations and a certain amount of discontent as well, which is normal; we can see why. What these people are asking for is whether the department will sit down with them to discuss these fees and arrive at some sort of long-term agreement. These are shipowners who often negotiate 10, 12, or 15-year shipping contracts. They say that if during the life of these contracts, say in four years, fees increase by 35%, while they have a firm 10-year contract, this will mean that they are no longer competitive, and may incur heavy losses. They are not necessarily challenging the fees; they are asking that they be as reasonable as possible.

Is it the department's intention to conclude a long-term agreement with them as quickly as possible, so that they may know what costs they are dealing with when they make bids on long-term contracts, as concerns Coast Guard fees in particular?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Robert Thibault: I had the opportunity of meeting the parties concerned in the Pacific region and those in the central region as well, those in the province of Quebec, if you will, those who use the St. Lawrence Seaway. They all expressed the same concerns. They need a certain level of certainty and they are also concerned with the level of the fees. Naturally, they must compete at the international level. We had launched a process to try to find solutions, but it was too complex. We have begun a second consultation and we expect this round to be over by the end of the calendar year.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, as a reminder or suggestion, if I may, you should look at the position the government took in the Shubenacadie case in the court in Nova Scotia. You should also read the Marshall decision, the appeal decision, for the judge's comments again. I think you'd be surprised at what you read. You'll find that what you're reading is probably not what you're being fed by the department.

I also want, for the benefit of Mr. Farrah as well, to remind you of the briefing note that was prepared for your predecessor, in part by Mr. Chamut, where it remarks that the position of the Government of Quebec remains unchanged; officially, it does not recognize the application of the Marshall decision to aboriginals within the province of Quebec. You will find that the position the Government of Quebec has taken on that is pretty much consistent with the position the federal government itself has taken in some of those cases I mentioned

Anyway, I'll move to another issue, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Pierre Tremblay, who was former Minister Gagliano's chief of staff, is now under contract at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, I guess earning $140,000 a year. Recently, he doled out a contract to the Everest Group of some infamy--

Mr. Robert Thibault: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is not within the purview of DFO, it's Agriculture.

The Chair: It's under the purview of Agriculture, yes, not under Fisheries.

Mr. Robert Thibault: But I'm sure it was a very important Fisheries-related question.

Mr. John Cummins: The issue here is that this fellow is under investigation, and yet he heads up an industry that is critical to food safety, the control of diseases, and farmed and wild fish. The Auditor General says he's broken all the rules. Is there is a Fisheries connection here, and are you also concerned about it?

The Chair: Minister, do as you like, but it is--

Mr. John Cummins: Apparently, he's under investigation by the RCMP.

The Chair: The issue really relates to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is under the purview of Agriculture. Yes, CFIA does the inspections on processing plants and fish--

Mr. Robert Thibault: We enjoy a great working relationship with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They do outstanding work, and I have full confidence in their ability.

The Chair: You've got time for one more question, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: With the national safe boating week, May 18 to 24, this year's focus, according to the minister's press release of May 16, is to ensure that all boaters know about and comply with the September 12, 2002, deadline for proof of competency for all operators of motorized pleasure craft under four metres. It appears that there is some difficulty getting people to take this test, but it seems quite easy to get a card. I guess you can write the test at a Canadian Tire store or on the Internet or by correspondence. The issue here is that there is a requirement that people have these cards, and yet DFO will have no record of who legally has a card and who hasn't. There's no actual hands-on control by the department of this issue, is there?

¿ (0930)

Mr. John Adams: Incredibly, Mr. Cummins, you're absolutely right, but we are addressing that issue. We now will assemble the data and have control of the matter.

Mr. John Cummins: When will that take place?

Mr. John Adams: We're looking to do it this year and next.

Mr. John Cummins: Are we looking at another gun registration fiasco?

The Chair: That's got nothing to do with Fisheries.

Mr. Efford.

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister.

One driving force beyond my decision to run in the riding of Bonavista--Trinity--Conception was my concern about the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the backbone of the economy, there's no doubt in our minds about that. We have great concerns. We made a tremendous mistake pre-1992, those who participated and those who sat idly by and watched it happened, the collapse of the groundfish stocks. We're doing a similar thing today with shellfish stocks, and I fear that in the near future the same thing is going to be repeated, the collapse of the stocks.

One of our concerns in Newfoundland and Labrador is science. I look at the budget here and it says $96 million in habitat management environmental science, and I'm not sure whether that takes care of the science I'm talking about. I talked about science with DFO in Newfoundland, asking questions about 10 years since the collapse of the groundfish stocks; there are no pelagics; lobster fishermen cannot even now get herring for bait for their pots, it's just disappearing. We asked why. What is the actual science? Is that $96 million the total Canadian science, and how much of that's spent on the east coast?

Mr. Robert Thibault: Science is a huge challenge for the department. The request for science is big. I think it's important for you to recognize that there is more that comes to bear in the science advice provided to the department than the straight science done by the department. In the case of shellfish, for example, we do a lot of work with industry. We allocate a certain part of the quota to the industry. They do trap surveys, so we keep track of the shellfish, because everybody shares the same concerns. We've been managing it very conservatively. There will be up and down years. Crab, for example, is very cyclical, as can be shrimp, but we manage on the conservative side.

We also, through government, have increased the amount of money for science greatly, through the research chairs, through CFI, through all sorts of other funding areas. There are billions and billions of dollars more science being carried out throughout Canada now than there was 15 years ago. We work with these other institutions also, whether it's the universities or things like the Marine Institute in Newfoundland. Internationally, we work with other organizations. It's an area of concern, and we're always reviewing it.

When I visited your province, the areas of the north were quite concerned, not necessarily about risk to the resources that were there, but that there might be a lot more resource available for economic benefit than we allocated, because we didn't have enough data. I recognize that, and we continue to review those questions.

Mr. R. John Efford: Mr. Minister, I understand what you're saying, but trust me, I was Minister of Fisheries for six years in Newfoundland and Labrador. I still live in a fishing area. We know the state of the shellfish stocks and we know that cyclical nature. Our concern is about putting too much effort into that stock and nothing in the groundfish industry. Science is saying the same thing to us in Newfoundland, DFO scientists: they do not have enough resources to answer the questions and to do enough research on why, 10 years after the collapse of the groundfish industry, they haven't recovered. In fact, the biomass is worse today than it was in 1992 at the collapse, and now the pelagics are not returning, are getting fewer and fewer. What we're asking is whether more information can come from science as to why the groundfish stocks are not returning.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Before I get into that, I should say that the budget is $185 million for science, and 13% of the Newfoundland and Labrador region budget goes for science, $16 million.

Those are very difficult questions, and I don't know, in the case of the groundfish, even if I brought all the science of the world to bear on it, whether we could answer that question. But it seems logical to me that the problem with those stocks is ecological, that we have brought the stock down below the critical mass, so it's going to be very different.

In the past, once we've seen a species get in trouble, we've sent our harvesting capacity after “underutilized” species. Not all those underutilized species were underutilized. Some of them were utilized by the cod as feed. They're part of the ecosystem. So species-specific management in the past, undertaken for economic and social reasons, with the best knowledge we had then, rather than using the ecosystem approach, I think is costing us dearly now. But we'll continue to work to increase those resources. We've received very good advice from the FRCC, as we have from the panel of eminent people on seal management, on places where we can improve our practices.

¿ (0935)

Mr. R. John Efford: I know we're going to have a lot of time to talk, because there are so many issues, but I have to make one other quick point about surveillance. We don't believe there are enough fisheries officers. We know there's good air surveillance, we know there's some surveillance by the armed forces, but I tell you, Mr. Minister, you will have to listen to us who live with it every day and listen to the people out there in fisheries management, fisheries enforcement. We need more attention paid and more fisheries officers, because--and I'll tell you about it another time--there is a major problem there.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you for the advice.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

I have one quick question. There's a lot of concern in the aquaculture industry about what's called the national aquatic animal health program. I think it was talked about last year. I can't find it in the estimates. Is it there or is it not? What's happening?

Mr. Robert Thibault: We don't have a specific line item right now for new funding to work that program. We're working with the provinces, with industry, with everybody, and we've worked within our budgets to reallocate $500,000 for this year.

The Chair: Thank you.

I know you have to run, Mr. Minister. Thank you very much. I understand the officials are willing to stay until 10 o'clock. Thank you, again, Mr. Minister, we appreciate your appearing. No doubt we'll be calling on you again.

Mr. Robert Thibault: Thanks for coming up early.

The Chair: That's not a problem.

We'll spend a few more minutes with officials. I want to move to vote on the estimates no later than 9:50.

I have Mr. Roy first.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three brief questions. One of them concerns the Coast Guard.

We have noted that in our area, there is a kind of training race going on. Training courses are being given very hastily to people who must have operator licences. Indeed, this has been in the newspaper headlines recently. Some of the people who are supposed to be providing these classes simply go into the classroom, plop down a workbook and leave, and those taking the course can then obtain their licence.

My other question is on fishing vessels that have a permit for several species, that is to say that they fish several species in the Gulf, among other places. For instance, the department asked some fishermen to shorten their boat by three feet, which is completely stupid because basically this jeopardizes the safety of the fishermen on the vessel. Moreover, some fishermen are being threatened with losing their licence or having it simply withdrawn because the department claims that their boat is three feet too long. This is because they must go to fish further offshore in the Gulf. The stocks are not static; they move around, and fishermen must sometimes go much further offshore in the Gulf to fish.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Roy, a similar question was raised in a different vein by Mr. Cuzner earlier, but if the officials want to answer, they may go ahead.

[Translation]

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: I'm going to ask John Adams to answer your first question on the courses, and Patrick Chamut will provide a brief answer to your question on boat lengths.

[English]

Mr. John Adams: Mr. Roy, with respect, I think what you are referring to are the competency tests for recreational boaters. Those are not CCG.

Again, you're right, there have been some concerns with respect to the degree of vigilance that was afforded some of these test facilities. What we have done is bring in new regulations that will enable us, the coast guard, to deny the authority for those agencies that are testing in that fashion to continue to test. We have now withdrawn our certification for them to do that, in order to address that issue. You're absolutely right, there were some rogues out there who were simply giving them the answers so they could collect the $35 fee. We've put a stop to that through regulation, and also, the industry itself, as it grows--because these competency tests are quite new and this is only their third year--is beginning to enforce a level of strictness with respect to the testing. So with the new regulations we can enforce and their own self-regulation, we think we'll address that issue.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The existing regulations governing vessel length do indicate that there should be no increase in the length of a vessel registered under a licence. Those rules have been in place for at least 20 years, and they were designed to prevent overcapitalization and all the associated problems we've seen repeated in too many fisheries. We also recognize that the circumstances are changing in the fishery. We're seeing a lot of change in the species being prosecuted. We're also seeing fisheries pursued further offshore, and that does introduce questions of quality and safety.

Currently, and this is what the minister alluded to in his response, we are reviewing the vessel restrictions we have. That policy has been examined and a discussion paper is being prepared that we would like to circulate to members of the fishing industry later this spring or early summer. On the basis of that paper, we expect to get feedback that will provide us with the opportunity to put in place a more flexible regime for dealing with vessel restrictions, but clearly, when we talk about allowing some flexibility, it will be flexibility within certain constraints, because we have to be mindful of the need to ensure conservation and to avoid a very large, and possibly uneconomic, rush to create a great number of larger vessels that do not necessarily operate in the best interests of the fishing fleet as a whole. Our intent is to be more flexible, but within certain constraints.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins

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

It's been reported that a fish farm in the Port Hardy area is raising close to one million Atlantic salmon--this is on the B.C. coast--even though it doesn't have the required government permits. Rebecca Reid, federal fisheries area director for the central coast said the farm doesn't have an okay under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Applications under that legislation trigger an assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That environmental screening has not been completed, and Ottawa is investigating. These people have openly admitted that they went ahead with their feedlot because they felt it was taking too long to get permission to do so. Why is it that they're being allowed to break the law with impunity? Why is that happening?

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: I don't think anybody is being allowed to break the law with impunity. As you know, we're working with the Province of British Columbia on aquaculture. The issue of licences is a provincial matter. With respect to navigable waters, I think the press report was likely accurate in saying that until the waterway has been declared navigable, they certainly don't need an environmental assessment. So there are a number of steps that have to go through. We're working, as I said, with the provinces. This is a priority for the Province of British Columbia. As the minister noted in his speech, the $75 million that was given in the year 2000 is working to provide the industry with tools.

¿ (0945)

Mr. John Cummins: Your response made absolutely no sense. Coastal waters are navigable waters, that's a given. They have admitted publicly that they're operating without the required licences. If I took my vessel from the shore without having a properly dated licence on it, I would be nabbed, I would be penalized, and if I tried to do it a second time, the boat would be impounded. The question is, why are these guys allowed to get away with it? They've publicly admitted what they're doing.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: Whenever there are allegations of people working without any licences, we investigate. You do that with every report. With this issue, there are a number of agencies involved, the Province is involved, and we are working with them, with the coast guard with respect to navigable waters, and with Fisheries and Oceans with respect to aquaculture.

Mr. John Cummins: The answer is just deplorable. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. If I'm speeding, to put it in simple terms, I haven't got a driver's licence, and I'm pulled over for the infraction, I'm going to be fined for speeding, I'm going to be fined for driving without a licence. These guys, essentially, are operating that fish farm without a licence, and it's as if they were speeding. Everybody knows about it, and your answer is simply not addressing the issue.

Further to Mr. Efford's questions about science, the Auditor General has done a report and has expressed concerns about the funding cuts for science. But most interestingly, with regard to freshwater fish, the Auditor General notes:

DFO does not report routinely to Parliament on its objectives for freshwater fisheries or the results it achieves and does not collect or report information gathered by other participants in the fisheries. Parliament is therefore unable to assess where the department is meeting its obligation to conserve and protect the fisheries.

Is there any action in the department or any initiative that would address this shortcoming recognized by the Auditor General?

The Chair: Before you answer, I'd like to point out to Mrs. Dantzer that we just did a tour of the west coast. The issue John raises is a very serious one, as I think you understand, and we'll be drafting a report. Also, I met with Senator Frank Murkowski from Alaska. He has asked Secretary of State Powell in the U.S. to look at putting an annex to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. That would be very serious for us, and it all relates to these kinds of issues. I would suggest that the department has to find a way of ensuring that there are guidelines in place and that they're transparent, or we've all got problems.

Mrs. Dantzer.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: As you are probably aware, the department has put in place the guidelines for aquaculture, guidelines for all our fisheries officers, a number of months ago, in conjunction with the provinces. I don't want to suggest that we're minimizing the issues. It is for that reason both the Province of British Columbia and the minister, in his dealings with provincial ministers, have deemed aquaculture a key area. We are working with the Province. Licences are provided by the Province. So we're recognizing the seriousness of the issue and the growth of the industry in the last five years. It's a priority for the department, as the minister said in his opening statement.

With respect to prosecutions, we always look for options for how we start prosecuting. Again, we'll be looking for options to prosecute where they are flagrantly disregarding the law. We have to be careful what law we try to prosecute under.

The Chair: I guess my remark still stands, that you'll have a report shortly.

Mr. Chamut, on the previous question.

¿ (0950)

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

The previous question dealt with the issue of freshwater fisheries. I'd like to first explain what our role is in freshwater fisheries, and then respond to the point Mr. Cummins has raised.

In freshwater fisheries the federal department has delegated management responsibility to the provinces in places such as Ontario and the three prairie provinces. Those delegated arrangements have been in place since around the turn of the century in Ontario and since 1930 with respect to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. I believe the comments he was referring to indicate that the department has not been involved in overseeing or evaluating the discharge of conservation management responsibilities by the provincial governments. These delegated arrangements, as I say, are longstanding, and the province does have the responsibility to manage the resource. We recently have been engaged in discussions with provincial governments, and I think we recognize that there is an interest in working cooperatively to make sure there is proper conservation and protection of fish stocks.

In answer to Mr. Cummins' question, we are evaluating our responsibilities in freshwater matters. We are currently working with provinces to make sure we have good cooperative arrangements and that provinces that do have the management responsibility are managing within and respecting the overall requirement under the Fisheries Act to ensure proper conservation.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chamut knows full well--I'm sure he's read the Auditor General's report--the Auditor General made it quite clear that there is no arrangement for accountability between the provinces and the federal government.

As an aside as well to Mrs. Dantzer, nothing the province does takes away from federal obligations, and there simply are no regulations in place governing the fish farms. Siting regulations were drafted in 1985 and have not been enacted.

The Chair: Before you go on, Mr. Chamut has a point to make on your statement.

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

To complete my previous comment, I was going to deal with the issue of accountability. The purpose of the review I referred to is to ensure that the accountability is properly defined and discharged through an agreement with the provinces, which, as I said, do have the responsibility for managing freshwater.

Mr. John Cummins: The DFO report says there's a shortfall in the cost recovery of revenue in the Atlantic Canada fishery. The shortfall is estimated to be $5 million to $10 million. The effect of the shortfall is that Treasury Board will reduce funding for DFO to compensate for the shortfall in revenues collected by DFO through access fees. We understand that DFO is shifting resources internally to make up this shortfall this year, which means cuts to science, enforcement, fisheries management, etc. In the last couple of years, with the transfer of licences to native communities, there's a suspicion among remaining fishermen that they will have to make up that shortfall. There's a moratorium for licence fees that ends on December 31, 2002, and the question then is, how are you going to make up the shortfall, and is it going to be on the backs of those fishermen who remain in the industry? And what is the actual extent of the shortfall? How large is it? Can you tell us that as well?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We do have a revenue target to be met within the department. That revenue target within the area of fisheries pertains to access fees, which are essentially licence fees, and to small craft harbour fees. In the past year we were short of our revenue target by about $6.6 million, and that does mean we have to find ways to accommodate it within the departmental operating budget.

I have to say, revenue, within the fishery in particular, does go up and down, because the fees are set as a proportion of landed value. So there are going to be ups and downs in our achievement of revenue targets, and we are engaged in discussions with Treasury Board to find more effective ways of dealing with that particular circumstance. I'd also mention that we are looking at the possibility of different ways of assessing access fees that will be fair and equitable to the fleets and upgrading our fee schedules, so that we can ensure not only that fees are equitably applied, but also that we can find a way to deal with this particular revenue shortfall.

The final point I'd like to make is that your speculation that transfer of licences to first nations under Marshall is contributing to this is incorrect. As we transfer licences from commercial fishermen to first nations, we actually have an arrangement with Treasury Board whereby our revenue feed goes down by an equivalent proportion, so that's certainly not a concern.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Before I go to you, Mr. Farrah, Mr. Hearn wasn't able to be here earlier, because his son was graduating or something. Mr. Hearn, I'll give you five minutes, and then turn to the rest of the questioners.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. As you said, my son was graduating last night, and I just got back in.

I have three questions to put on the table, and then we'll let the officials answer.

One, I think, has already been dealt with this morning, and that's in relation to the overfishing issue, particularly surveillance and general enforcement. It's not just an issue the committee has taken up, it's an issue across the country. There is no doubt it's one that has to be addressed, will be addressed, but can't be addressed unless Canada steps in, and that means extra involvement, extra enforcement, extra surveillance. I'm concerned about the funding for that.

Second, with small crafts harbours, I'm looking at an amount here of $29 million, I believe, for this coming year. In the budget there was $100 million above and beyond the regular funding put in. I'm wondering how that will be factored in, and I have concerns, from what I've been hearing, that some of that might be whittled away to other parts of the department under the guise of maintaining small craft harbours. I think we can all say we worked hard to make sure that money was here, as committee members, and we certainly don't want to see it spent in other places.

The third is a more localized one that really got the committee on the issue of infrastructure. That was the use of some harbours that had been eliminated as core harbours, but recently the minister has talked about harbours that are necessary for fishing, one of them being Tors Cove. Our members visited the facility there and the adjacent solely owned one at Burnt Cove. We've made a strong recommendation to do a switch there. We have people travelling 30 miles to fish out of open boats. It's become an embarrassment, and it's an issue I'd like to see addressed and not shoved under the table.

I'll leave those three with you.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The response the minister gave is obviously the one I'd want to re-emphasize here in response to the first question. We recognize that we do have concerns with overfishing or foreign fleets that are fishing and not complying with the rules. I've talked to this committee about some of the violations, and that's been a very active program. We have flagged those problems, we've highlighted them, and we are certainly taking a very firm stance in dealing with situations we see.

With surveillance and enforcement, I think it's important to point out that we have a balanced program of enforcement that does not just rely on one type of activity. We do have fisheries officers on board one dedicated vessel that is inspecting foreign fleets as they're fishing outside 200 miles, but that's not all we have. We also have, in my opinion, a very effective way of identifying situations where vessels are in non-compliance. We have observers on board all the vessels. We have the benefit of satellite tracking devices on board the vessels now. We also have a very sophisticated aerial surveillance program that I think is probably the foremost in the world. All of those inputs, plus periodic patrols by DND that take fisheries officers on board, give us a very balanced and effective method of identifying what's happening outside 200 miles.

The other point I'd make is that it's not just a Canadian responsibility to make sure foreign fleets are complying with the rules. It's a flag state obligation. And I can tell you, we are working very hard with other countries who have fleets fishing in that area to ensure that those countries do take up their flag state responsibilities. I met with the executive secretary of the Spanish fisheries yesterday. The Spaniards are actually doing some very innovative things to ensure that their vessels are complying. They have, for the first time, their own inspectors on board vessels taking action to try to identify people who are in non-compliance. They're doing other things they haven't done before, using observer reports to guide their dock-side or port-side monitoring. I think it's all a result of the attention, the pressure, and the initiatives that have been taken by the minister and by the department to identify this as a very serious concern, and we are seeing improvements in the way responsibilities are being discharged by flag states.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

Mrs. Petrachenko.

Mrs. Donna Petrachenko: In relation to the small craft harbours budget and the question of the honourable member, the ordinary harbours budget would have been $72.9 million this fiscal year. Because of the work of this committee and the $100 million that was announced in the budget, there is an additional $20 million. There is a little annotation at the bottom, because the money came after main estimates were put forward. That $20 million is intact. It will be spent on urgent repairs across the country. The minister has made it very clear that money will not be reallocated for other priorities within the department. We will be able to provide you with further information as our planning rolls out.

As to your specific question on funding changes and how we designate them, the minister has asked for review of the overall formula, of the overall funding approach for various harbours, recognizing the changes in the fishing industry and the requirements of various communities, and we're undertaking that right now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Petrachenko.

I believe we are going to have to cut the questions. I know there are three still on the list, but I do want to deal with the estimates. Do you people have to be out of here at 10 or are you okay until 10:30? If you have other commitments, say so.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: I think we could probably stay until 10:15.

The Chair: Okay. Then I'd like to deal with the main estimates first. That'll take us perhaps three or four minutes. Then we'll have time for three or four more questions.

If we do not deal with these votes, the department will not have enough money to do its work. The table is found at 8-2 of the main estimates book, parts I and II. I believe the clerk has given you a paper with the votes on it anyway.

I would ask someone to move that vote 1, less the amount of $249,876,000 voted as interim supply, carry.

FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Vote 1--Operating expenditures..........$999,504,000

The Chair: Moved by Georges Farrah. It'll be a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

À (1005)

The Chair: Will someone move that vote 5, less the amount of $42,475,500 voted as interim supply, carry?

Vote 5--Capital expenditures..........$166,898,000

The Chair: Is there a mover?

Mr. John Cummins: I'm sure that if you asked, everybody would vote the same, just to hurry things up.

The Chair: Okay, is there agreement on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Farrah.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The Chair: Third is that vote 10, less the amount of $79,647,500 voted as interim supply, carry.

Vote 10--Grants and contributions..........$159,295,000

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Murphy.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The Chair: Could someone move that the chair report the estimates to the House? Moved by Mr. Cuzner.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The Chair: Okay. We'll go back to questioning. Thank you for staying. We have four questioners, Mr. Farrah, Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Cuzner, and Mr. Cummins.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief question for the Coast Guard. Perhaps Mr. Adams could answer it. It concerns lighthouses. In our ridings we receive a lot of questions—at least I have received a lot in my riding—on the Coast Guard's policy concerning lighthouses. We are asked what the policy is and what the maintenance budget is. I know that the Government of Quebec wants to make a proposal, if this has not already been done, to take over the lighthouses. There are also non-profit heritage organizations who want to get their hands on the lighthouses. At this time, it seems that the decision has not yet been made. I wonder whether you could tell us something about the Coast Guard's intentions with regard to the lighthouses, Mr. Adams, please.

[English]

Mr. John Adams: From a purely coast guard point of view, our interest in the lighthouses is for operational reasons, for navigational purposes. In many instances there are lands and outbuildings associated with the light stations that, frankly, are far more important from a heritage point of view than from an operational point of view. What we're constantly in the process of doing is working with communities, working with historical societies, working with anyone interested in working with us to attempt to maintain the heritage quality of those facilities. Where we can, we have those associations assist us in maintaining the heritage character of the site, because all we need is the tower and the light. From an operational point of view, there's no question that we will continue to maintain those lighthouses essential for navigation. The question we're working on with Heritage Canada is how to deal with the lights people want to be preserved for heritage reasons.

À (1010)

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: What is the maintenance budget? What funds do you have at your disposal?

[English]

Mr. John Adams: That budget is divided between corporate services and ourselves. It's part of our real property responsibilities. We don't break it down lighthouse by lighthouse or type of property by type of property. Essentially, we assess need on a case-by-case basis. To date our budget has been augmented by Treasury Board to assist us in restoring those lighthouses where it was decided that we would maintain lightkeepers on station. We had over the years, because we were in the process of destaffing lighthouses, allowed the living quarters to run down. Our budget has been supplemented to the extent necessary for us to deal with that issue, and our ongoing funding continues to be sufficient to maintain the lights, once we get them restored back to the acceptable level.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

When we were in Vancouver--not the last trip, but the trip before that--we asked the person responsible for the coast guard there how his resources were. He said money was not a problem. Then, when we went to Victoria, Tofino, and those areas, the people who work at those sites said the complete opposite. When we went to the east coast, they said the same thing. When we had a video conference with some officials from British Columbia, they wouldn't even answer the question.

So, Mr. Adams, again--now that we've, unfortunately, passed the estimates--there are five vessels probably right now sitting in the Halifax harbour. Mr. Chamut talked about surveillance, but to my best knowledge, there hasn't been a DND patrol with a frigate or any other sort of vessel out there for quite a while. The Auroras have been cut back in their flying time, and Provincial Airlines do an excellent job when they have the resources or the budget to do it. But the reality of the situation is that our resources are going down. The fisheries resources are going down. We have oil spills on the east coast. We have fishing violations happening all the time, and everyone is telling us we simply don't have the manpower to patrol and properly look after our resources and our fishermen on the east coast. I'd like your comment on that, please.

Mr. John Adams: I can certainly take part of it, and I'll turn to Pat with respect to the fish management side.

Be thankful there are five vessels alongside in Halifax. Two of them are icebreakers, and I wouldn't want icebreakers to be working right now, the Louis and the Fox. They've been there almost all winter because we haven't had very much new ice in the gulf this year. They would not be vessels you would want to use for very many other things, they'd be far too expensive. Another vessel has been declared surplus, because we've decided we no longer need it. The other two I can't account for. There will be vessels alongside, because we pull vessels out for at least a month every year for maintenance. And as I've explained to the committee in the past, we do have down cycles for some of our vessels throughout the year, depending on demand and need, and obviously, on our capacity to pay.

If you asked me if I could use more money to have more vessels on the water, I would say, yes, and I did get more money recently. They did give Fisheries and Oceans $15 million over two years to put more vessels in the water, to increase surveillance flights, to improve the capability of our MCTS stations to share data with other government departments and with the data centre on both coasts run by Defence.

Frankly, I think there's a recognition that what we do is essential. What we, though, as a department have to do and what we as a coast guard have to do is make absolutely certain that we're clear on how much is enough, and we're doing that now, and how we do it. In my humble opinion--and I haven't been with the coast guard that long--one of the things we really have to spend a fair amount of time doing is looking at how we're providing services. There are smarter ways, obviously, embracing technology etc. We're in the process of doing that now.

So when Mike Henderson said to you on the west coast that money isn't a problem, that doesn't mean he hasn't got issues. What he's saying is that he thinks the how and how much are the problem, and that's what he's turning his attention to with his change initiative. We're hopeful that with that kind of work, with that kind of review, money won't be a problem.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Chamut, on the other question.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think my response would be, to some extent, similar to what the commissioner has said. We in fisheries management could use more money, of course. As with any enforcement or management program, you can always find ways to spend more money. The question is, are we actually getting the job done? I think that's what I would like to focus on.

The comment was made that resources are going down, and in fact, that is not strictly correct. We did receive two years ago a total of $13 million, which has largely gone into augmenting a number of our critical enforcement functions. The other thing I'd mention is that our resources dedicated to air surveillance have increased by $3 million a year, which is a little more than a 30% increase. What that money has allowed us to do is augment the coverage we have in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. I don't need to tell this committee how valuable that air surveillance program is, because it is doing a really first-rate job on behalf of Canada in monitoring what's happening.

We are looking at different ways of doing our job. I know in the past there have been questions and concerns about this area, but during the time we have been modifying the approach we take, we're replacing 30- and 40-foot coast guard boats that are very expensive to operate with small, high-speed Zodiacs that can be moved around quickly from area to area. I think we can show that the effectiveness of our enforcement program has been enhanced by doing that, if you judge it by the number of violations identified and the number of charges laid. So we are doing things differently, we're doing things more effectively. I think the overall outcome is one that meets the requirements we have for ensuring enforcement and compliance.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Cuzner, and then Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'll go back to a comment the minister shared with us in regard to the status of cod stocks on the Atlantic coast and why the stocks haven't returned. His reply was that with the devastation that took place prior to 1992, the ecosystem dipped below that critical mass, and so the challenge is even greater now to try to restore those stocks.

If there's one place in our country, one area of the fishery, where there are bells and buzzers going off and red flags being raised, it's with regard to the aquaculture fishery on the west coast. We do have a report going forward to the department, but it was obvious on our visit that any progress that has been made has really been a result of steps taken by the corporations, by those involved in the actual fishery, almost in absence of federal regulations. The single theme was that the federal science was woefully inadequate.

I appreciate that there are 10 people looking for the same dollar and decisions have to be made, but is it on the radar screen that we appreciate the potential devastation that's on our doorstep on the west coast with the impact of the fin fishery and aquaculture? What is on the horizon here? What are the immediate plans to address these concerns?

À (1020)

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: First, let me be very clear that the department and the minister are very well aware of the priority aquaculture is creating in the department with respect to the demands for renewed science in that area, with respect to the management time it's taking our officials on the west coast, and with respect to the policies that are being delivered. So in that sense, please rest assured that it is a focus of the department.

When you speak about the devastation that will occur, I would say we don't have the science to back that up. There's a lot of rhetoric out there, and I think the department's role is very much to cut through that and get a balanced approach. Aquaculture has grown. For many coastal communities aquaculture represents a viable alternative, and the minister has made the point and the government has recognized by appointing a commissioner for aquaculture that it will be an important part of a sustainable fishery. The level to which it should grow and environmental matters are very much concerns for the department, as I said, but they're not concerns we can manage alone. We're working with the provinces, in particular the Province of British Columbia, which has enunciated a much more aggressive stance than the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada at this point.

So to answer your question, we are absolutely aware of the potential of aquaculture, both positive and negative. We're ensuring that resources are allocated to that, and we're working with partners. The fact that the industry is such a willing partner is useful. That's a nice place to start, and we're working with them.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The fear is in the fact that we've taken a promoter's role there and we try to advocate the positive, and if we're saying there is a lack of science, that has to be addressed, I think. That's the fear in the community.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: The aquaculture commissioner is arm's-length. I would not say the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken.... It's a balanced approach. We listen on the fisheries side, and those interests are all taken in.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with great respect, the aquaculture commissioner is not at arm's length from DFO.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: The commissioner reports directly to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think that is the fact.

The Chair: Ms. Dantzer is correct on that point, Peter.

Mr. Cummins.

À (1025)

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

I think the final comments support what I'm going to say, but it was suggested earlier by Mr. Adams that we have to be looking at how we do things and that there are smarter ways of doing things. I would agree with him, but if the smart way of doing things is going to be effective, the decisions will have to be made by people with long-standing experience in the department, and that certainly hasn't been case in the years I've been around here. Too few people with long-standing experience are in decision-making roles.

On the issue of hovercraft for Vancouver, again, Mr. Adams said vessels have down time for repairs; that's true and includes hovercraft. So when can we expect the new hovercraft to be ordered, how much is it going to cost, what kind is it, where are you going to get it, and when will it be in service?

Mr. John Adams: I can offer some indication of where we are. We are looking at all options with respect to the replacement for the second hovercraft in Vancouver, so I can't tell you when. If, for example, we're able to find a hovercraft that will meet the requirement that currently exists, we can move as quickly as the department will allow us to move, because it's in competition for the same capital dollars with a lot of other things. It clearly depends on the priority we're able to establish for that hovercraft in competition with other priorities for capital projects. If it's a new hovercraft, it'll be along the lines of the current 1998 hovercraft, the newer of the two that are out there. We reckon we need a platform about that size for aid work, search, research, etc.

Mr. John Cummins: To build one from scratch, I'm told, you're looking at 18 months probably.

Mr. John Adams: That's correct.

Mr. John Cummins: You're running out of time. The N6, or whatever it is--

Mr. John Adams: The 034.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, the older one is out of service in October and you're going to be stuck with one hovercraft. You're not going to be able to provide the services you're mandated to provide to the Vancouver airport. How are you going to do it if you don't have a hovercraft? Where are you going to find this baby in four months?

Mr. John Adams: There's nothing magic about October. The 034 doesn't blow up and disintegrate in October. That was our original date, we were looking to replace it by October. If we can't replace it by October--

Mr. John Cummins: Its licence expires in October.

Mr. John Adams: We'll renew it.

Mr. John Cummins: You can't just renew it, there are guidelines.

Mr. John Adams: Yes, there are, and we'll meet the guidelines.

Mr. John Cummins: You simply can't do it. It will not meet your own standards.

The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I would like to make a comment in response to Mr. Cummins' remark about people with lack of experience. I somehow perceive that it may have been directed at Donna Petrachenko, who's at the far end of the table. I think it might be helpful if I did offer a couple of comments about my colleague's experience, which Mr. Cummins may or may not be aware of.

Donna joined this department in 1983, so she has been in it for a long time. As Mr. Cummins knows, I was involved as the regional director general in the Pacific region for nine years, beginning in 1985. In 1985 the person I used to interact with very much in Ottawa was Ms. Petrachenko, who was an officer in the ADM's office, and through that experience, I gained a lot of knowledge and understanding of what happens in the Pacific fishery, because we used to speak on a daily basis. She went on to become director of Atlantic fisheries and gained an awful lot of direct and personal experience managing and directing operations in the Atlantic. I can assure you that through that experience, both in the department and in what she's done outside working in Parks Canada when she left in 1993 or 1994, she's gained additional experience that has provided quite adequate qualifications for the job she had in the Pacific, the one she currently has in the department, and the one she has chairing the Pacific Salmon Commission.

À (1030)

Mr. John Cummins: That's all very interesting--

The Chair: John, I don't want to get any further into this personality thing.

Mr. John Cummins: My point was that I--

The Chair: I think it's fair for Mr. Chamut to outline for the record these things. We had the minister here for estimates. If you have a complaint, it should be raised with the minister. I'm not going to entertain any further discussion of personalities at this particular meeting.

Mr. John Cummins: What I wanted was to clarify that my comment was not directed at an individual, but was to say it is systemic through the department, starting with the last deputy and many of his predecessors.

The Chair: I'll take one last question.

Mr. Lunney.

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

I just wanted to make a comment on the enforcement and surveillance issues regarding the east coast. We talked a lot, as Mr. Chamut mentioned, about the various avenues that are available for surveillance, including the Aurora, overflights, Provincial Airlines, and so on, and even satellite and the observer reports. I think all those things are good, but all of that does not lead to a successful conclusion without enforcement. For enforcement you need to be able to intercept, so you must have a presence on the water. The department created a defence for NAFO and so on based on those observer reports, but if observer reports go in time and again about abuses and there's no action, what kind of message does that send to the people making the reports? If there's no action taken, what difference does it make whether they report yea or nay? So intercepting and enforcement have got to be part of the agenda. I think that has to be recognized and acted upon. I'm glad to hear we're taking some steps in that range.

On those Zodiacs--

The Chair: James, we don't have time. The departmental officials have given us more time than they were here for. I'll allow them to answer the first one, and then we have to adjourn.

Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'll just answer the first question. I think I know where the second one was headed, but I'll not take your time up.

I certainly agree that enforcement is crucial, but the one point I really want to emphasize is that outside 200 miles, if we're dealing with foreign fleets, the responsibility for enforcement is with the flag state. Even if we have 50 patrol boats out there boarding and inspecting, all they can do is provide what we call an apparent infringement report; that goes to the flag state, and it's up to the flag state to then take action. That's where we're putting a lot of our emphasis, because that's where the ultimate success is going to come from. I really believe we have very effective abilities to detect infringements through the programs we have, and the key is to get the flag states to be transparent and take the action we think is appropriate. As I said earlier to Mr. Hearn, I think, because of the concern about the well-being of stocks, we are getting a much more effective response on the part of flag states, which have the final responsibility to deal with vessels under their control. The final point I'd make as evidence of that is the action the Russian government took with the vessel called the Olga. When we reported that, we took action, working with Russia, and they have taken the licence away from that vessel. That's the sort of action that is going to result in effective protection of straddling stocks in the NAFO regulatory area. That's where we're really pressing.

The Chair: Ms. Dantzner.

Mrs. Ruth Dantzer: On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to thank you for the time and your patience in listening to our responses. I hope we've provided the technical responses you were looking for. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Dantzer. On behalf of the committee, I know sometimes there are difficult questions and sometimes emotions get involved, but I do want to thank you people and the minster for your work and for your efforts here this morning.

Committee members, next week we will deal with the report on the nose and tail, from 9 to 11 Tuesday morning. I would like to try to have the Fraser River teleconference on Wednesday evening 5:30 to 7:30, if possible. We'd have a working lunch. We do have to hear from the aboriginal community. We didn't hear from them when we were out there. And on Thursday we may have to try to have a meeting in the early afternoon, because scrutiny of regulations is in the morning.

Meeting adjourned.