FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 7, 2002

¹

1535

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

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1545

Mr. Thibault

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

Mr. Thibault

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Thibault

¹

1555

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

M. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.)

º

1600

The Chair

M. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

º

1605

Mr. Thibault

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure--Gaspé--Magdalen Islands--Pabok)

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

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

º

1620

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.)

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

Some hon. members

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

º

1635

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Thibault

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Thibault

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

M. Thibault

Mme Tremblay

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. Thibault

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 038

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

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

    Just before I turn to the minister, I would inform the committee that the proposed travel to further our study on aquaculture and marine traffic control, etc., from March 12, I believe it was, to March 20, was approved by the liaison committee, so that should be taking place. And I should report to the committee as well that Madam Tremblay will be taking a six-week or two-month leave of absence so that she can get her hip strengthened so she can kick us harder, and it will give her some time to plan how she welcomes the fisheries committee into Rimouski when we get there sometime around March 19.

    With that, welcome, Minister. First of all, I might say congratulations on your appointment as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think you can tell us how many years or decades it's been since there's been a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the province of Nova Scotia, a good strong fishing community.

    I think you will find that in our involvement as the fisheries committee we're very direct: we call a spade a spade. But we all have in mind the benefit of the fishing communities and the rural areas across Canada and we look forward to sometimes a challenging but a good working relationship with you as minister. So welcome, and the floor is yours.

    Peter.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): If the minister would like some of his staff to sit with him, he's more than welcome.

    The Chair: I think he's fine.

    The floor is yours, Mr. Minister. I don't know if you have a written statement. I'm sure you have an opening statement, and then we'll turn to questions. Welcome again. How much time do you have?

    Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Thank you very much. I've got a good hour for you. I thank you for the invitation. It's the first time I meet a few of you on the committee.

[Translation]

    I know Ms. Tremblay. We were seated facing each other in the House during my first year here.

[English]

    I thank you for the invitation. I don't have a formal presentation to make. I think the important thing for me now is to meet all of you, to show you the cut of my jib, as we'd say in the Maritimes. I am new at the department, and I'm interested in finding out about the committee--what your interests are, what your priorities are, and any suggestions, comments, or questions you may have for me. I hope to be back relatively soon to make a more formal presentation on the department, at which time I'll invite staff so that you can have expertise and can ask some more specific questions.

[Translation]

    If you wish to ask me specific questions today which I cannot answer, I will be happy to send you the information later.

[English]

    A little about myself: my name is Robert Thibault, and I'm from Saulnierville or Comeauville. The Prime Minister said Saulnierville, so now I think I'm from Saulnierville. I'm from Comeauville, which is at Baie Ste-Marie en Nouvelle-Écosse, a small Acadian community, rural, all fishing.

¹  (1540)  

    I studied fisheries management at the University of New Brunswick at the Shippagan campus. I did my bachelor's degree there, and now I've signed up for my master's degree from the school of hard knocks as Minister of Fisheries. Between the two, I didn't work in the fishery; I worked first as economic adviser at the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse. After that I bought a small business, a small window manufacturing firm that I operated for four years. And the last nine years I was municipal administrator in Argyle, another fishing region that includes the Pubnicos, Wedgeport, areas that some of you may well know.

    On volunteer capacity, I've been president of the board of trade of my community, as well as président de la Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, président de l'Association des administrateurs de municipalités de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du conseil d'administration de l'Université Sainte-Anne.

    As to my being the first Minister of Fisheries in a while from Nova Scotia, actually it's 68 years since there was a minister from Nova Scotia. It's the largest fishing province, but it hasn't had a lot of ministerial representation. The last one was Mr. Bill Ernst, and I don't want to take his career track. He was a Rhodes scholar who was an Oxford-graduated lawyer, appointed to fisheries in August, and lost the election in October. So I hope for myself that's not a harbinger of things to come.

[Translation]

    The department is much more complex than you might think when you come from coastal communities. We think about resource management, about the ports and harbours, but there are also all of the aspects having to do with the ocean, the coast guard, the Atlantic fisheries policy, on which we are currently working, aquaculture and the whole field of international relations.

[English]

    So it's a pretty steep learning curve for me. I've been very encouraged, very gratified, by the quality of the people I have found in the department, as well as the work of previous ministers and the direction the department is going.

    What is my agenda as Minister of Fisheries for the time I will serve? As I said earlier, it has been 68 years since there has been a minister from Nova Scotia. So for the last 68 years the people of Nova Scotia, the fishing community, have been waiting for the saviour or the Messiah. By agreement with the Prime Minister, I'll serve as Minister of Fisheries until that saviour comes, or at least until the next person.

    I don't have an agenda as minister; I come with an open mind. My intention is that long after my name is forgotten and stricken from the records, I will have left the fishing communities, the oceans, the coast guard, and all the resources entrusted to me, in better shape and in a better position. I hope that in working with the committee, with parliamentarians, with the communities, and with the industry we are able to make decisions that are in the long-term interest of our communities, our oceans, and their resources.

    I'm here to listen to you. It's the beginning of my consultations. I have to say that you are the third group I have visited. The first one I visited was at Meteghan Wharf, a little hangout where the fishermen go on Saturday morning when they are not working. I went to see them. The second was Association Québécoise de l'Industrie de la Pêche. Today, you are the third group I have consulted. I hope to consult a lot. I'm going to Newfoundland next week. I hope to be able to meet a lot of communities, a lot of the industry, and form an idea based on the facts I discover through these consultations. Merci.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

    Mr. Lunney.

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

    As the first one to speak from this side, I would like to open by welcoming you on behalf of the official opposition. We welcome your openness, and I think given the fact that you come from a community that has a big stake in the fishery historically, a big interest, we are hopeful you will understand the issues related to small communities and the resource-based communities that have been so dependent on resources. That, I think, is a very hopeful thing.

    I'd like to say about this committee, as a new member of Parliament, that I have thoroughly enjoyed working on this committee, knowing that some committees are extremely partisan, almost to the point of being dysfunctional. I've been very proud to work on this committee. I think most of the people around this table have in mind the interests of the communities, of trying to do what's right for the environment, for the communities, and so on.

    I recently had the committee out in my riding on the west coast, and I would say the conduct of the committee was quite surprising to the people of my own community. They were quite surprised at how well we worked together, and we hope to keep that model, and also carry that through to the ministry to make sure we do what's right for Canadians.

    That certainly seems to be the attitude of the committee. We are hopeful we will be able to work together to make a difference.

    Following through, there are some major issues. I represent Nanaimo--Alberni. We were recently out there on some very important issues, some of which overlap on the east coast, and I would like to review one that was very important in my riding. Some of the implications have to do with coast guard and marine communication traffic services, a division of the coast guard, and some very serious issues the committee was out to address. We visited Victoria, Vancouver, Ucluelet, Prince Rupert, and Seattle in looking into issues related to communications.

    The previous minister did receive a representation from us in relation to the extreme funding crisis that's going on in this sector, the shortage of funds for adequate training and replacement of officers, and the very serious condition we found this department in. We're hopeful you will take those recommendations seriously.

    There was a rather unpleasant and serious incident related to one of the officers who drew these matters to our attention, who flew here as a witness and has suffered a reprimand from the department for speaking out. We feel this is highly inappropriate, and we'd perhaps appreciate the minister's attention to looking into the facts. We found all-party agreement that this was a matter that did need to be addressed on behalf of Canadians.

    I hope with the new budget we will see the funds in place to make a significant correction towards that problem. We understand funds have been directed in that direction, but I would like to see some confirmation that this is indeed in place and that adequate staffing and training will be available for our fine officers, who are doing an excellent job out there.

    I would also like to mention that the hake fishery is a very serious concern on the west coast. Again, we visited facilities there where there had been a major investment, millions of dollars, to gear up to manage the hake fishery. There is the issue of the joint venture fishery. I hope the minister has been briefed on that issue. We understood, and the community understood, that was a temporary fishery involving foreign fleets that would, after three years, be terminated. That has now passed.

    The communities have made a huge investment to be able to process onshore, and there are some big problems in the resource not coming to the shore-based facilities. They are in desperate straits. That's hake. The communities really need to see that resource processed onshore. The value to the community is multiplied many times when it's processed onshore, as opposed to selling offshore. There's also scientific evidence that the biomass is diminishing, and I believe you'll find the committee is of the opinion that it doesn't make sense to continue to sell this resource offshore when it can be processed onshore.

    There are many other issues related to fisheries that we hope to draw to your attention over time, but I wanted to give you a heads up on this. I know you're new to the files, and some of these you may not be fully briefed on, but would you care to comment on any of these issues?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you very much. Thanks for bringing all that to my attention. I have been briefed somewhat on some of these elements, not all of them. I'll be visiting British Columbia soon, and the regional director and his staff will be briefing me, I presume, as I was in Halifax, on the regional issues, on those matters. Hopefully I will become better informed on all of those.

    In the meantime, on a few that you mentioned I'll start getting information right away. I'm especially concerned about the one mentioned about the hake fishery, if we have an offshore fleet that's fishing a resource that could be available for our communities. There are questions, of course, that would have to be answered. Can we process it profitably onshore? Will we have markets for that processing, and are there international agreements that preclude us from or make us have a joint fishing venture? I don't know any of those answers, but those could be some of the mitigating factors.

    Barring that, I certainly share your interest: that whenever possible we've got to nationalize the effort, nationalize the processing, get value added. That's how we're going to strengthen our communities. We can't just be fishers. We have to have a full fishing industry, and I think that's very important.

    As far as the coast guard, I thank you for the work the committee has done on the coast guard and bringing that to our attention, those problems. We've received $15 million additional funding lately in response to the September 11 events to do marine safety. We'll assist Minister Collenette, who of course has those responsibilities. As part of that money we'll be able to keep the St. Lawrence sea system for a couple more years as a backup. The MCTSs that you're talking about will get some of that funding so that we can maintain and upgrade them because of their importance in the communication system and marine surveillance as well as general surveillance and more boats being out there on our coast. That's going to have a benefit as far as national security but also a benefit as far as resource management for the fishery generally, because our eyes will be out there in an increased fashion.

    There's also some potential for more funds through that avenue in the future, depending on the needs of our coast guard and our ability or the need for us to assist the Minister of Transport and all other agencies or departments in questions of maritime national security.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Minister.

    The Chair: That's it, James?

    I have just a couple of points, if I could, Mr. Minister.

    We have a report before you on the MCTS. It's 150 days for the department and yourself to answer it from the time we present it, which was sometime around the first of December. And if we get it through committee today, we have a letter on the hake fishery, which will be going to you hopefully following this committee meeting today. The members have it; it's in translation and we need to approve it later.

    I do want to say, on Mr. Lunney's point on the individual who appeared before us from the Canadian Coast Guard, that we do have a letter from John Adams stating that:

Mr. Dwyer has received a reprimand for a letter he sent to the United States Coast Guard. Mr. Dwyer has not, and will not, be disciplined for appearing before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans...or for anything he said to SCOFO Members.

    I think that should be put on the record, because the commissioner in charge of the coast guard has responded to our letter on that, and I think that's fair.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Robert Thibault: I would just comment on a couple of things. I cannot comment on the employees because of the Privacy Act, but as a matter of principle, we don't preclude civil servants from appearing at committees if asked to go to parliamentary committees.

    The other thing is the report on the coast guard. Our responses to your report and two others are being prepared now to be presented at cabinet, and we intend to meet the deadlines.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

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

    Good day, Minister. I too am happy to welcome you to our committee.

    I heard you on the radio this morning and there is one thing I would like to understand. If you can't tell me today, I would appreciate your letting me know later.

    What would it not be possible for us to unilaterally declare that we have decided to go beyond the Newfoundland banks to fish and extend our territory? Why can we not do that unilaterally and why are we allowing people to come and fish on the edge of our waters, and run off with the fish, when that fish should normally be heading into our waters? It seems to me that if we went upstream--

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you. The matter of the 200-mile territorial waters limit falls under Canadian jurisdiction. We can fish the ocean grounds up to the continental plateau, but only for sedentary species such as scallop and crab and that is recognized internationally.

    As for the water column, we cannot go beyond the 200-mile limit for the moment, but all of these matters could be discussed during international negotiations.

    I know that the committee intends to examine this issue and I encourage you to do so. I think this would be very good for Canada. It would be exceptional for the management of the fishery resource. We will have a reply to this question, not in the short term but in the very long term. I think that in the short term our best option is to work to find allies within NAFO—and we do have some—among the countries who fish outside our 200-mile territorial waters limit, in order that we may work together and exert pressure on the countries whose businesses are less inclined to follow the rules laid down by NAFO.

    It must be said that it is not always the countries themselves that break the rules. Sometimes it is businesses within those countries. In those cases we work directly with the governments of those countries and we encourage them to work with us.

    In most cases we succeed. If you compare today's situation to that of 1995, we can say that we have had huge successes, but we mustn't let our guard down. The past two or three years have been more difficult, but as I mentioned, with the additional money we have for the Coast Guard, we will have more air surveillance over the nose and over the area beyond the Grand Banks. I think that that may help.

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: During the holiday period, or at the beginning of January, we read in the newspaper that lobster fishermen were involved in a big scandal. Lobster was being sold on the black market. Unfortunately, it mostly came from your province.

    Did your department really take some steps in this regard? Could you update us on this issue?

    Mr. Robert Thibault: It was not an illegal fishery. What was illegal was that the sales were not reported. There was talk of some $200 million over a certain number of years. The member is quite right.

    Our responsibility at Fisheries and Oceans is to concern ourselves with protecting the resource. We can't encourage this type of trade because if we do, then we don't have the right statistics on lobster catches, on international sales, on the value of this industry.

    Of course Revenue Canada is responsible for collecting tax and following up on this file. It is up to Revenue Canada and the RCMP to deal with it. For our part we are concerned with the preservation of the resource. However, if we can in future take steps to discourage this type of trade we will certainly do so because it is not good for the sound management of the fishery.

¹  (1555)  

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Now, you say --

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Tremblay, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: You say that this type of lobster on the black market has no influence on quotas and on the resource.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: No, because management is done through the number of licences or the number of traps each fisherman has the right to use. Sometimes there is black market activity there as well. Some fishermen will put down more than 375. It is up to us to see to it that our agents continue to work at controlling this. The industry itself must also see to it. Neighbours keep an eye on neighbours, because everyone's interest is at stake. Since it is fishing activity that is limited, and not a global quota, there is less of an effect than there would be in the case of a global quota.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you Mr. Minister, Madam Tremblay.

    Mr. LeBlanc.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman

[Translation]

    I too, Mr. Minister, would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you warmly on your appointment. I know you well enough to say that with the values and the experience you have coming out of Nova Scotia, I am convinced that you will be an excellent minister of Fisheries. So, I congratulate you. As my colleagues said, we look forward to working with you in your new capacity.

    I would like to broach two issues that are often raised at this committee.

[English]

    It was begun by your predecessor. We've seen before this committee some of your officials, who have briefed us and provided us with a lot of documentation about the work they've done. They've been quite open with us about some of the consultations they've done and some of the things they're discussing as they're undertaking this review.

    Minister, Mr. Chairman, I personally have some concern when people talk about a more economic fishery. That in my mind can be a code word for a less social fishery, which is a polite word for not saying a welfare fishery. The whole exercise, as I listened to these officials, reminded me of the rather unfortunate changes that we made to employment insurance in the 1995-96 period, where we managed to have small coastal communities like the ones you and I represent very worried about their economic future.

    Any time somebody talks about arm's length...I would much prefer that you as minister, with the responsibility you have, are able to make decisions about licensing, access, quotas. That to me is much more reassuring than having some unaccountable arm's-length group responsible for the livelihood of communities I represent. They come to see me and expect that I can talk to you and you'll make a decision, and not that we both have to go before some arm's-length panel at a university in some large city and convince some professors whether or not they should have a quota.

    I worry about that. I'm wondering if you have any preliminary reaction. I know it's early in the process, but I'm wondering if you've thought about that.

    Colleagues at this table, Minister, have on a number of occasions talked about the Atlantic fisheries policy review.

[Translation]

    The other issue I wanted to raise was snow crab. There is no doubt that you and I, in our ridings, like many other members who represent inshore fishers, are interested in seeing how you are going to settle the very difficult conundrum of snow crab management. I believe this concerns zone 12. There is no doubt that there were years when midshore fishermen made lots of money, and I'm happy for them. But as an MP, I would like to know whether we could come to some agreement to share this resource with the inshore fishers, who have gone through a lot of lean years. I know that this is a complex file, but I encourage you, when you look at this issue, to find some way, if possible, of permanently sharing a percentage of this resource with the small inshore fishers.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

    Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Mr. Dominic, I will begin with the matter of crab in zone 12. This makes me think of one of my friends who is an organizer in the fishing industry. He said to me, when I was appointed Minister of Fisheries, or before that, when there were rumors that I might become minister,that the best thing a minister of Fisheries can do is to disappoint everyone equally. There is no way of making one group happy without disappointing another. The Gulf of the St. Lawrence is the perfect example of that. There is a limited resource. The aboriginal people, the offshore fishers and the coastal communities would like more permanent quotas. Also, there are four provinces that participate in this fishery. It is very difficult.

    I'm encouraged to see that the dialogue has a reasonable and sane tone. I will certainly take the comments you are making into consideration.

[English]

    As far as the Atlantic policy review, I support the process and I support the idea. I share your concerns when it comes to how far you go in delegating authority. I think fish resources are a public resource, and we, the elected officials, answer to the public. I answer to the committee, to the House, and we all answer to our voters. If we delegate that away, we're going to maintain responsibility, but we can lose the effective control we have, or the ability to bring our judgment to bear on the distribution of these resources. So these discussions we're having today become less and less vital. All we're doing is trying to influence another body that we've appointed and that with time changes and evolves. And there's a good chance that body might become overrun at one point by one element of the community, one sector, and would no longer be as representative as we created it in the first instance. So I worry about that.

    I encourage the process, and I think we can do a lot better in dialogue than we have done in the past. I'm quite happy to see what we've done under Ministers Anderson and Dhaliwal and others as far as creating that dialogue. There's a lot more agreement within the fishing community than there ever was. Sometimes it's agreement to disagree, but at least they are speaking, and we are part of those discussions. I think we can increase that--the province, DFO, the communities, aboriginal groups. I think we all have to have our say in the management of the resources that affect our communities for the short term. It's easy for me to make a fish management plan in Ottawa, sitting in the fifteenth storey at 200 Kent Street. You know, there aren't a lot of problems there. But if you go out in the community and you ask the community to participate, there are a few more problems, because you're hitting people directly. But if they recognize that there's goodwill on our part, they'll meet those challenges.

    The Chair: Mr. Burton and then Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, congratulations on your appointment, and we'll look forward to working with you in the future.

    My riding of Skeena is also on the coast of British Columbia, the north coast, and fishing of course is quite a significant opportunity there at times. I want to say that I share some of the concerns Mr. Lunney had, especially on the coast guard issues. I'll possibly get a chance to ask about that a little later on today.

    I would like to start, if it's appropriate, with a question on the Skeena River fishery. You may not have the information today, but I'd certainly like to make you aware of what has been going on and possibly it can be addressed for this season.

    Last year, Mr. Minister, the coho run on the Skeena River was probably the best in fifty years. Your DFO people get very good information in a fairly timely fashion from the Alaskan fishery as those coho move down from the north into the Skeena area. Unfortunately, they don't seem able to act on it very quickly, and that's really a huge problem. There were no significant openings for those coho last year. The main opening was very late, and the fish value had already deteriorated quite significantly as they pulled up around the mouth of the river to move up. A similar situation occurred in the previous year. The economic loss to the Skeena River fishery was in the tens of millions of dollars, very significant in our area.

    I'm wondering if you're prepared, as the minister, to revisit these weak stock management policies, which are creating, I suggest, a problem--with all due respect to weak stocks, there seems to be not much of a balance there--in order to better balance the economic opportunity with enhancement requirements. Are you prepared to revisit those policies? And if so, in what way?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Robert Thibault: I don't know the details of that one, but it's the perfect example of the type of policy review we're looking at in the Atlantic that would apply very well in a case like that where you can bring everybody to the table who has an interest in those waters and those resources and who would have some information they can share and help draft the plan from there. I think the limit, as I was saying earlier, is that the final decision has to be with the minister, a disinterested party who has to answer to the Canadian public.

    Your first concern of course is always the stock. We have to make sure that the decision we're making today is going to improve the situation for the people who are going to replace us in 20 years, that their ability to make the decision is improved, that there is better stock. I think we have to stay away from what we have done in the past as politicians from all sides: try to fix community problems with fish, through the miracle of quotas try to create a lot of employment, just giving quota out when the fish aren't there or sustainable. To do that I think we hurt ourselves in the long run. So I think it's important that we bring together everybody who can have some productive points to bear on all problems like that.

    Mr. Andy Burton: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister. My concern is that there are fish in abundance, but because of a weak stock-management policy...less than 2% of the Skeena River fish were of concern, yet we're wiping out access to that huge resource, and I think it's something that is creating real problems.

    M. Robert Thibault: It's the policy. I think we may be able to improve it by getting the community involved. That's what I meant to say.

    The Chair: Mr. Burton and Mr. Minister as well, our minutes in Tofino were recorded. There was a fair bit of discussion with the local players on some of these issues at our hearings in Tofino in late November. You might want to ask somebody to review those minutes, because there's good information on the ground that was given to us at that particular hearing.

    Mr. Stoffer.

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

    Again, Minister, congratulations on your position from a fellow Nova Scotian.

    There are so many areas we could touch upon, what with wharves, dredging, lighthouses, etc., but some of the issues that need to be seriously addressed by the federal ministry I want to bring to your attention. I just want to remind you that you said something about improving...when you leave, you want to have made things better. I couldn't agree with you more. If you do that, it's great. The only thing you have to do is remember that the department gets over $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to do one thing, and that is to protect fish and fish habitat.

    It's a little out of character for me, being from Atlantic Canada, but one of the dangers we face right now in the Pacific fishery was contained in a letter I wrote to you on January 30. I don't need your answer to this; I just want to point it out to you. There's a mine site, the Tulsequah Chief Mine, and a road going in right near the Taku and Stikine Rivers. It's a pristine area, and it's extremely beautiful. The State of Alaska is against it, commercial fishermen are against it, aboriginal groups are against it, and sports fishermen are against it. Everybody is against this mine. The reality is that if this mine goes in there, it is going to affect some pristine salmon rivers and the five species of salmon that go into there. My concern would be for you to address the matters in the letter when you get an opportunity and do everything you can to prevent this mine from going in there unless the strictest of environmental guidelines are respected and all stakeholders are consulted in that regard.

    Bringing it back a little closer to home, there are a lot of aboriginal concerns regarding the Marshall decision. I believe that Mr. Dhaliwal actually did a fairly good job in handling that file. He had great help from a colleague, Mr. Mike Belliveau. It's unfortunate that you are going into this without his expertise. That is quite sad. There are more aboriginal people in the country in terms of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, as well as through the FFMC and also in the far north. Their concerns need to be addressed as well.

    I know that's putting a lot on your plate, but I just wanted to point out that these are issues we have read. And another concern, of course--

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, we'll need some time for the minister to respond. You have one minute and thirty seconds.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

    The last concern we have is what happened on the west coast. Jimmy Pattison managed to gain a large proportion of control of the salmon stocks. Corporate concentration of the fish stocks is not a good thing. In Newfoundland right now, as you know, we have the FPI-Clearwater battle going on. That, to my mind, is nothing but strictly a power grab to control the resource, lay a lot of people off, and make a lot of money.

    I'd like your comments on the corporate concentration in what we call a public resource, one that should go to benefiting the communities and those people who live near that resource.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, you have very little time to answer that lengthy question, so you should keep it very brief.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That was just the last one. For the rest of them he can just say that he will get back to us.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: The corporate control is a little like Solomon's baby decision. It's a very tough one. How far do you go in having a sustainable company, industry, that can compete internationally, that has the capital assets to be able to have the proper plant and equipment to meet today's requirements, and at the same time protect the social fabric of our communities?

    There's a role to play for the provinces. There's a role to play for the federal government. Our primary concern federally at DFO is the conservation of the stock and the resources. The Competition Bureau, which is independent from my department, studies matters like the FPI-Clearwater deal to see if there's going to be too much control out of the fishery by one industry.

    So I take your point.

    On aboriginals, we're working everywhere in the country to have some participation by the aboriginals. The Marshall matter gets a lot of the attention because it was court-driven, but our department is active in working with native communities, especially so that we respect their rights, their desires, and the habitat that surrounds them.

    On mining, my primary concern again is the stocks, the fish, and we won't issue our permit or our authority unless we're absolutely sure that the mitigating factors can be taken into consideration. We can't stop the process before the study has been done. We can't say we're not going to even look at it. The process goes on and we'll make our comments at the right time.

    As far as the $1 billion you mentioned for fish and habitat is concerned, we also have agriculture, the coast guard, the Marine Transportation Security Act, navigational waterways, small craft harbours. Our $1 billion goes to many other areas.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    We'll have Mr. Farrah and then Mr. Hearn.

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure--Gaspé--Magdalen Islands--Pabok): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Now it is my turn, Mr. Minister, to welcome you here most cordially, as have other members of the committee.

    Of course, within my community or the fisheries community in Quebec, your appointment was received very favourably and I am personally very happy with it. I think I can say here before the committee that your visit to the Association québécoise de l'industrie de la pêche [Quebec fishing industry association] convention proved truly exceptional. People were delighted to see you there and I want to thank you for that once again.

    One of the awkward issues regarding fisheries in Quebec is of course the big debate on equity. I think that everyone in the fisheries sector is aware of the fact that we can't perform miracles or multiply the fish. Decisions are not easy to make in light of the fact that we are talking about sharing. It seems to me that fairness is the issue that matters in making these decisions, both with regard to the distribution of the resource and other sectors, particularly that of the Coast Guard. I would like to hear your point of view on that.

    During our visit to the west coast, which some of my colleagues referred to, we realized that we were applying a double standard with regard to lighthouses. For instance, in the Maritime or Atlantic region there is a policy being implemented that eliminates lighthouse keepers, whereas over there lighthouse keepers are still in their jobs. One is led to wonder about the department's policy. Is there such a policy or not? We came away feeling that it may not be a fair one.

    What is interesting and refreshing about your nomination is that, as we said, you're someone who comes from a maritime area, and an Acadian, to boot. As I am myself Acadian and as there are many Acadians in my riding, this is very gratifying. So, you know the terrain.

    I want to talk about the situation we are faced with. The cod fishing licences force fishermen to have boats of a given size, let ut say 35 feet, for example, according to their quotas. When a fisher realize that the resource is not as abundant as it used to be, as small as his or her quota might be, the fisher must go and final fish further out. And if he is using a 40-to-45-foot boat because this was safer for him, he will no longer have the right to his quota.

    I may understand the department's idea. In the end, for the fisher who has a 45-foot boat it is no longer economically feasible to have a small quota and he asks for a bigger one. I think that people in the field will understand if they are told: “We authorize you to use a 45-foot boat because you need it, but don't come and tell us later that it is not a money-maker. If quotas eventually become available, we will put you in the pool and you may have access to them”. That is why your arrival on the scene is refreshing. You are close to the field and you are sensitive to these issues.

    I would like to hear your comments on that. I understand that you have not made your bed yet, so to speak, because you have just taken on your new duties, but I would like to hear your point of view.

º  (1615)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you

    Mr. Thibault

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Thibault: The issues having to do with the distribution of the resource, with the way this is done, with what I should base decisions on when there is a decrease or an increase in quota allocations, are very difficult issues.

    There is a study group that will be submitting options to me, opinions on what the future situation will be. I am anxious to see these; I await the committee's opinion on these matters with some anticipation. Is it the proximity of the resource that should be most important? Rather, is it the historical share of the catch that should be considered more important? The needs of the community? Job creation? The social or economic aspect? What weight should be attributed to each one of these elements?

    I believe that what is important is that everything be transparent, that people be able to see what the minister of the day is basing his or her decisions on, and to arrive at future decisions in light of the ebb and flow of the resource. I think that that is the way to go.

    I have asked the department to examine the matter of the boats. I know the issue well; it concerns my region. It applies to the whole Atlantic region and to Quebec, and I am sure that the same questions are raised in British Columbia. There are a host of reasons.

    As for the lobster fishery, one of the reasons is that in the past there was no limit on the number of traps, but fishing boats could be limited. Now there are still 45-foot boats but they are wider than they are long. They can go where you used to need a 65-foot vessel, in certain weather conditions. If you let the boats become too big, people will go and fish even further out. They will be just as insecure as they are now, if not more so, because they will have to catch more fish, and bigger fish, to pay for their bigger boats. This is not necessarily the solution.

    But for certain fisheries, there is certainly no reason for this limit. So, I have asked the department to have a look at this, and we may be reviewing this in the near future, to see whether there are still reasons for these limits or whether they should be eliminated.

    Mr. Georges Farrah: The coast guard...?

[English]

    The Chair: Georges, I know the minister has a very critical time limit. I believe he has to be gone by 4:40, and we have three people who haven't been on yet.

    Mr. Hearn.

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

    I'll mainly just leave the minister with some food for thought, rather than expect answers.

    I just want to welcome the minister and also say I'm very pleased that he became minister. As I think I said before Christmas, I agreed with him when he talked about his staff. He has a great staff in Newfoundland and here, from what I've seen of the people I've dealt with. He has a great committee. The committee has worked very well and I think we've done great work, with no pettiness.

    He mentioned the work of the ministers before him. Well, from Meatloaf's old song, two out of three ain't bad, I guess.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'll just list a few things that I think are extremely important for him to be involved in and aware of. Two of them deal with reports we have tabled here. One is on the Newfoundland shrimp fishery, particularly the 20% tariff going into Europe, strictly because of a concern by some firms in Denmark. I really think it's something that can be handled at the ministerial level, rather than through the World Trade Organization, which takes so long.

    On the infrastructure report, your department has already moved on that, to some degree. I'd just ask that when money is loosened up it be done fairly and according to need, and not because of political affiliations, or whatever, which is always a problem--

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: --maybe just with former ministers.

    There's the issue of fishing on the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap. On overfishing and the extension of jurisdiction, probably the greatest thing we can do as a committee in this department, if it's possible, is at least have some real say in the management of that stock. It has so much effect on our country, not just Newfoundland.

    We have the issue of seals and adjacency, which you're going to get hit with. In Newfoundland and the Maritimes generally, smaller issues like permits versus licences, B licences versus A licences, and so on, are contentious and maybe unfair.

    One topic we should perhaps mention, because it's been sending out mixed signals the last few days, is the request by Canso for Newfoundland redfish. Plants down there have closed down because they've been told over the years they can't access that stock, for various reasons. If for some reason that stock, or part of it, is given to some other province, I think it's going to cause a tremendous amount of concern, and rightly so, because of the state that area of the coast, in particular, finds itself in.

    I suggest you not approve any request to give away any Newfoundland product or any Canadian product to any other country. It's taking away a lot of our work. It's something we're generally looking at to see the state of our stock, if we're getting full benefit for what we have, and if not, how we can do that.

    I guess we're saying, Mr. Minister, we'll pledge you every bit of cooperation we can. We wish you all the best, and hopefully you can address some of those issues.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, if you want to take about a minute to address that, that's fine.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Okay, I'll try to go quickly.

    The Chair: I think, as Loyola said, there's food for thought there, a lot of issues for you to think about--good bedtime reading.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: On the mixed signals coming out on the Canso deal, I think it should be understood that we haven't made a determination on Canso. What I assured the communities, particularly in Newfoundland, was that we wouldn't take from one community to feed the other. If you starve one community to feed the other, you have two sick communities.

    We are willing to look at Canso, to look at where during last year we were able to help them with some shrimp quota, with some crab quota. There's some redfish available in the competitive fishery that are yet to be caught that could have been processed there. There's also the 3,000 tonnes that they're requesting that other companies have, that they could have purchased on a temporary basis to process--the Barry group. So I think there are a lot of questions to ask, but we'll see if there is any way we can help that community without hurting others--and keeping in mind conserving the stock.

    We've worked hard. International trade has done a lot of work on the tariffs, and we were able to get the special allocation of 5,000 tonnes that we could sell into England at 6% quota. Denmark, oddly enough, I believe, is the one that's asking for another 2,000 tonnes. There's another country.

    Britain has proven to be a good ally with us. I met with Minister Morley this week and we brought it up. So I think if we keep plugging away....

    In the interest of time, I think I'll let the others go.

    The Chair: Okay, we're going to leave it there.

    I'll go to Mr. Steckle, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Lunney, and Madame Tremblay, and that will be it.

    Mr. Steckle, as quickly as you can.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing today. I want to congratulate you publicly, too, and I congratulate you on your openness and your receptivity to ideas and concepts, because I think today is a day of sharing. We rarely have those times when we can share our thoughts about the industry.

    I bring to this committee a perspective of freshwater fishery. Most people here don't represent that part of the country, but I do represent the central part of Canada, the Great Lakes issue. Obviously the Great Lakes do contribute largely, in economic ways, to the benefit of this country. The freshwater fishery is a big fishery. When we look at the amount of money that is extracted in the Great Lakes area and the freshwater concerns of the fishery, it's pretty insignificant to the total amount of money expended in the department.

    We have a number of concerns in the Great Lakes fishery. One of the concerns that I've had for some time--and this goes back, and every member of this committee and those who were here from the department and are here today will have heard me say this before--is that, first of all, the provinces control the fish. We control or are to be responsible for the habitat.

    Part of what we're responsible for is the indigenous species there that jeopardize the well-being of our good fish stocks. One of those species, of course, is the sea lamprey, which is non-indigenous to the Great Lakes and has been there for a long, long time. One of the reasons for it being here, probably the way it came here, of course, is through ballast in the ships coming into the Great Lakes. We've had a program to control those species.

    The sports fishing industry in Ontario contributes about $65 million to $70 million in GST to our national coffers, plus what it contributes to the provincial side in taxes there. When you look at that, that's a lot of dollars, so we need to protect that income base.

    Because we have our agreement with the Americans under the IJC to look at that issue, to participate in about a 33% ratio of the total cost of doing remedial work in keeping those species in control, we have received or participate to the tune of $6.1 million at this point in time. The former minister, Mr. Mifflin, brought that to that level, but we've never been able to get it further.

    We have commitments--I have commitments--from the sports fishing industry that they will take that well and beyond, if we go to $8 million. I've been asking your two predecessors to take that to $8 million, and I'm asking you to do the same, because I think if we do that, we can take it to another level, because if we allow those species to come back.... Even the State of Michigan has gone the extra distance and put in another $3 million.

    So I think we have to look at what's good for that industry. We just want a little bit of the pie, a little bit of the money that we're putting into the national coffers, and I'm asking you to carry that.

    Of course, there are a number of other issues, but that's the big issue for me today. I'll work with you and I'll be patient, but I don't want to have three ministers strike out on this one.

    Thank you.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: You'd like the $8 million by March. Is that what you're saying, Paul?

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I'd like the $8 million as soon as possible. Then I will make the commitment, as I have already--

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I'll have a look at it. I can't make a commitment today. I can't say how it works in the Great Lakes, but in my area, if we had a species that was overtaking all the other ones, we'd just declare it illegal to fish that species. It would be wiped out in about a year.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Congratulations, Minister. I think you have quite a job, being the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I can vouch for that as a parliamentary secretary to Minister Dhaliwal for a couple of years on the Marshall case and the shrimp. Welcome to the great arena. That's all I can tell you.

    I want to make a couple of points. I think small crafts and harbours is a very volatile issue and one that I'd like to see treated fairly. I would agree with my colleague across the way, Mr. Hearn; I don't believe the distribution in our province last year was fair at all. The regional minister took all the money and the rest of us were left with nothing. I feel very offended by that.

    A voice: It will happen in Nova Scotia this year.

    Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: So I just want you to know that fairness is important. I don't think we're greedy people, but we are fair-minded people.

    In terms of adjacency and extra quotas and stocks and all these sorts of things, let me tell you that I would caution you very much, Minister, on doing any increases in shrimp. I would caution that you should know where you step on that one. Last year all the officials suggested to Minister Dhaliwal that there be an increase. I was one of the very few who suggested that he hold the line. He held the line. I think he made the perfect decision, if you look at what happened in the last 12 months in the shrimp fishery.

    I say that to you, Mr. Minister, on a couple of points. The further north we go, the harder we get hit. I'm from the north, Labrador. The less science your department does, the greater the pressure they put on the resource. They're not afraid to send the maritimers and the southerners up to take whatever they want and do very little in return to show the balance.

    We are being crucified at the moment, sir, because we have 350 shrimp boats, 65-footers, plus we have the big offshore boats on what we call the Great Hawke Channel. That's where our crab stock is. We're losing our crab stock in leaps and bounds, and the other crab stocks are not going down. We're asking your department, Minister, as I speak to you, for zones to protect that crab. That represents five plants in my riding. Nobody gives a damn.

    I tell you, we have to err on the side of conservation. Minister, I know you believe in conservation. Please, when in doubt or grey, err on the side of the fishery and do something about it. I've been pushing for this now for four years, and all I get is dipsy-doodling around.

    Mind you, your officials are coming up to Labrador before the end of March to try to deal with this issue. You know what they say to me? “If we do it for northern Labrador, for 2J, we have to do it for all the rest of Canada.” That's crap, as far as I'm concerned. The pressure comes down and it polarizes. All the other crab stocks are not treated with shrimp like we are in our overlapping stock. This is a very important issue, Minister, and I really ask you to take serious consideration of this.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I would prefer to go on and let him take his notes, if you wouldn't mind.

    The Chair: Okay. Then there won't be time for any answers.

    Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Okay. I understand, but at least I'll make my points.

    The other one, Minister, is safety of boats. We have boats 34 feet 11 inches going 90 miles to sea. It's a terrible shame. They're ITQ boats, with ITQ quotas. I think we need some flexibility there on the pure safety side so that we don't have too many mishaps. We've had some near ones, and luckily, thank God, we haven't had any disasters yet. So I caution you on that one.

    The other point I would make is that we talked about the FBI issue and Clearwater, and all these issues. I'd like for you to come to Labrador to see how we do it. I think we have one of the finest organizations in terms of how we process the fishery. You were there last year as part of the Atlantic delegation, the Atlantic caucus. You're welcome back again, because I believe we have something we can share with others to try to bring some fairness to this whole equation of plants and quotas and things along these lines. So you're certainly welcome.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

    Do you have a quick answer? Go ahead.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think we all should accept his invitation and go back to Battle Harbour and have some good crab, as we had on one of those excellent 35-foot boats.

    The small craft harbour has been a big problem in Atlantic Canada. We hear about it everywhere. I heard about it as an MP and when I was minister for ACOA. I presume you have the same problem on the west coast, and I know there are some problems in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

    Starting April 1, it will be the best year for small craft harbours for a long time. We will have $95 million. It has been 10 years since we've been able to do that.

    To Mr. Hearn and his concerns, I' ll be asking the department to try to foster a long-term development plan for today's fishery and the fishery of the future throughout Canada so that we have something to look at as we invest these funds and so that we're doing something that's reasonable and sustainable and that over the long term will improve the situation, rather than just doing stop-gap measures. Hopefully, we'll be able to do that. I think that the addition to the budget of $100 million over five years is good news for those areas.

    One quick point on that: I think Mr. LeBlanc's father, when he was Minister of Fisheries, would never have believed that he could go to the fisheries committee of the House of Commons and have a member ask for less quota, rather than more, for his riding.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    You have time for two very quick questions, Mr. Lunney, and then we'll hear from Madame Tremblay.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

    As you see, there are a lot of issues around the table, including two from the west coast that we haven't mentioned. They're related to management. One involves the Fraser River. In 1999, for the first time in history, there was no commercial fishery in the Fraser. In 2000 the commercial fleet had a two-and-a-half-day opening. Then in 2001, in spite of almost 30 million salmon returning to the Fraser, there was no commercial fishery.

    There's a problem with the south coast. Seine boats are now restricted primarily to the Fraser River stocks because of an area licensing scheme, the Mifflin plan. That only allowed an opening of one day a year, with very limited results because of where and how that resource was managed.

    In my riding there's a similar concern with the Somass River and Alberni Inlet run, only instead of commercial, it's the sport fishermen. It had an excellent return of sockeye this year. It's a few kilometres from where I live. The community has been hit hard by the softwood lumber issue. Port Alberni has been just about devastated. They had an excellent run of sockeye coming in, tourists were coming, the sports fishermen were excited, and the boats were out. Then at 12 o'clock on a Friday night, DFO slammed the door on the sport fishery. It wasn't because of conservation. They admitted that from the beginning.

    The tourists left town. It cost $200 to drag a rig over to the island from Vancouver on our ferries. A lot of the sports fishermen were insulted. There was a town hall meeting, and people were up in arms. The loss to the community was devastating. Considering what Alberni had been through, it was just outrageous.

    The issues are really the same. The community would like to know what can be done. They did open the fishery back to Alberni a few days later. They checked the numbers again and said we can open it with two fish a day. But by that time the campgrounds were empty and the loss was sustained, and people won't come back for that short time.

    Both the sports fishermen in Alberni and the commercial fishermen on the Fraser River feel this is incompetent management. They want to know what action, if any, you are prepared to take to ensure that in a year of abundance the fishermen will actually have access to the resource.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, you'll have to take that under advisement, as I have to go to Madame Tremblay.

    But I will say that there are very good minutes of the meeting we held out west on that point, in which a representative from DFO explained and admitted that there are some problems in that area that he thinks could be overcome.

    Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, I just have a short question for you. It seems that off the Magdalen Islands there is a new resource, the common razor clam,and that this file has just been languishing for several years at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; people would like to obtain licenses in order to be able to profit from this resource.

    Perhaps you have not heard about it, because it may not be one of the departments' priorities—you can see how long the issue has been ignored—but when one sees that certain resources are disappearing and hears that there are new ones that could be harvested, it seems to me that it should be interesting for a minister to see to it that his officials examine the issue, to see whether there is some possibility of commercial harvest exploitation.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: [Editors Note: Inaudible]... that I know the species. You called them common razor clams?

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm sure he knows them.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: The common razor clam?

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The common razor clam, yes. They are about this long and this wide.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: Like a razor clam?

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, that's it.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: It disappeared from my riding. There used to be some.

    Mr. Georges Farrah:It has moved into mine.

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:It migrated to the south.

[English]

    The Chair: Your parliamentary secretary has an answer to this question.

    Go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah: Just for your information, the issue has been settled: three licences were issued, in the beginning of January, before you arrived. So, it is normal that... It is all very recent; about three weeks or a month ago. But people are now saying that there should have been only one licence, to cover the quota attributed to the three of them. There is a quarrel about the quotas, but three licences were issued. This is a new, exploratory resource, but in any case three 35,000 pound licences were issued.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to have to cut off the discussion there. I know the minister has to go.

    Mr. Minister, regardless of all the other issues, and the committee's been very strong on this and we've sent recommendations up the line, enforcement is key. There's no sense having all these rules and regulations and laws in place if you don't have the enforcement officers or the ability to do enforcement. That's key on both coasts. We've had a commitment. There will be more enforcement officers put in. We expect to see that followed through.

    We as a committee are quite disappointed that at the NAFO hearings the Canadian resolutions did not succeed. And we'll make it very clear we don't know exactly what all our responsibilities are in that area. We are going to hold hearings when we're in Newfoundland that look at advising the government to extend its jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the continental shelf.

    Lastly, I want to come back to what Mr. Lunney raised. I would suggest that your staff look at the minutes of the meetings held in Steveston on the Fraser River. Any committee members who attended that hearing...although I wasn't there myself, I read the minutes. It was a very emotional hearing in which the fishermen felt their livelihoods were being displaced by some of the decisions that were being made. I would suggest that you get your staff to look at that. It will give you an overview before you go and meet the DFO officials at the Pacific office.

    With that, Mr. Minister, I want to thank you. Certainly this is not an industry without issues. We are willing to work with you. We've given you, as Loyola said, a lot of food for thought.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: May I have one word, Mr. Chairman, before I go?

    The Chair:Yes, the last word is yours.

    Mr. Robert Thibault: On NAFO, I agree with you, but we should realize that some of our suggestions were adopted and they agreed to an annual review.

    We're looking forward to your report, because we'll be working with the provinces and industry for the annual meeting coming up in September.

    I didn't mention two things that I think are important. It comes to Mr. Lunney's suggestion about sport fishing. Sport fishing is more important economically to Canada than commercial fishing in the amount of money that it generates. I think Mr. Steckle alluded to it. We recognize this at DFO, and I think you should be aware of that...as well as aquaculture, of course, which has grown to 25% of the fishing.

    We recognize there are some environmental concerns, some escapement concerns, some hybridization concerns. We're well aware of them, and we'll continue to work with the provinces to mitigate all negative factors.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: We also are working on aquaculture, and we'll have a report for you by June.

    Thank you very much again, Mr. Minister.

    Committee members, we have a couple of motions to deal with. The letter on the hake fishery has been handed around. I believe people will find that's okay. Does somebody want to move it?

    Yes, go ahead.

    Mr. Andy Burton: John Cummins, our senior critic, does have some concerns about this, and as much as I hate to delay it, I wonder if we could put it off until he could be here.

    The Chair: We can do that. We'll table the hake letter at the next meeting.

    We neglected to put one motion on our committee travel through. We need a motion that would say that the committee travelling to Boston, Massachusetts, Québec, and Atlantic Canada in March 2002 be composed of five members of the Liberal Party, two Canadian Alliance members, and one member each from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the PC/DR Coalition.

    An hon. member: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Have a good week next week.

    This meeting is adjourned.