FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1539

[English]

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

Welcome, Minister and delegation.

We have the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, here this afternoon. With him are Mr. Jack Stagg, associate deputy minister; John Adams, commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard; John Davis, assistant deputy minister, science; and Pat Chamut, assistant deputy minister, fisheries management.

As all members know, we're here today to deal with the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Welcome, Minister. The floor is yours.

As well, I might say at the beginning, Mr. Minister, that we do thank you for your almost weekly, I believe—or bi-weekly—updates on the Marshall decision. I think members have found that information very helpful.

The Honourable Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

• 1540

Good afternoon to the members of the standing committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee,

[English]

I'd like to speak for about 15 minutes and then open it up for questions.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the 2000-2001 main estimates for my department. As you can see from the main estimates, we are winding down some programs, most notably the Canadian fisheries adjustment and restructuring program, referred to as CFAR, while we're developing new initiatives to meet evolving needs.

Before we start discussing the estimates in detail, let me first elaborate on some of my priorities as minister in leading the department to carry out its mandate.

As I've said in the past, and as my predecessors have repeatedly stated, the priority in Canada's fisheries is conservation, protection, and sustainable use of the resource. The health of our fish stocks must be assured and we must ensure that harvesting efforts do not exceed the availability of the resource. This is key for securing the long-term future of the resource and economic opportunities and social stability for Canadians.

Indeed, following the difficult periods of declines in mainstay fisheries, conservation is a priority now more than ever. We have had to take a strong leadership role to help the industry adjust to this new reality.

The CFAR program is helping Atlantic and Pacific fleets to reduce fishing to achieve a more viable and sustainable future for those who choose to remain in the fishery. It is also ensuring a better future by supporting measures to build fishery resources by helping people and communities adjust to the changing fishery.

But this is just part of the solution. I expect the licence retirement components of the program to conclude shortly, and we need to ensure that we position ourselves to look and plan ahead, hence our ongoing policy review exercise on the east and west coasts, which complements and follows up on the initial process of restructuring and adjustment through our CFAR program.

The thing I want to emphasize here in relation to these policy reviews is that they are open and transparent. We depend on extensive consultations and stakeholder input for success, because a sustainable fishery means a responsible, accountable, and professional fishery, a fishery in which all participants and interested parties play an active and meaningful role in steering the course and determining their own future.

We also need to position ourselves to make well-informed decisions about how much fishing effort can occur at any one time. In today's world, there are a number of factors that have created a need for greater capacity and greater sophistication in stock monitoring, factors like: fluctuations in fish resources, which we have witnessed most dramatically in the past decade; new fishing methods and fish-tracking technologies; the emergence of new or alternate fisheries; regime shifts in marine ecosystems; and shifts in the distribution and abundance of various species.

A broad-based approach is necessary to meet these challenges, an approach that takes into account not just individual species but the entire ecosystem. This brings a wide variety of interests into play. That is why we work in concert with our partners and stakeholders in industry, in the academic community, and in aboriginal communities, and with other governments.

At the core of this broad-based approach is a need to enhance our science capacity. Thorough, well-coordinated and scientific research and advice are essential to provide a sound knowledge base in support of conservation and sustainable development of our oceans and our fisheries resources.

Equally important are the actions we have taken to bolster our fisheries enforcement capacity on both coasts. New funding for fisheries enforcement will allow us to increase our efforts in the field. It will also provide for new technologies to modernize monitoring, control, and surveillance. This includes taking advantage of state-of-the-art satellite technology and data systems. These improvements will support a more fully integrated, proactive, and cooperative approach toward compliance.

• 1545

With better information more readily available, fisheries officers will be able to work more effectively with the fishing industry. Enforcement and compliance are a two-way street. In today's world, that means ensuring that we work together with fishermen. The industry has been requesting improvements in the area for some time, and I fully support measures that help us to share responsibility with them.

To illustrate how far we have come in this regard, let me point to the role that industry has played in developing and adhering to the Canadian code of conduct for responsible fishing operations. By acting to change behaviours and practices, industry has demonstrated its commitment to conservation—and to the future, in other words.

Indeed, I'm proud to note that Canada is the first country in which industry has devolved its own code of conduct. We have a unique opportunity to be a world leader in sustainable fisheries and oceans development. If we get it right, I'm sure others will follow. We have a role to play in making sure that it truly happens.

To that end, one of the high points in the past year is the fact that Canada has ratified the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, referred to as UNFA. UNFA is a vital tool for ensuring the sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, which we, along with other countries, depend upon.

Having ratified UNFA, Canada has strengthened its position to promote the agreement so that other countries ratify it as well and so that it can be implemented in the very near future. That is good news for us and good news for key ocean resources that we share with others.

You have heard me say a couple of times now that our goal is to promote sustainable development of our fisheries and of our ocean resources. I say that deliberately, because the name of the department is “Fisheries and Oceans”, and I know that sometimes people forget the oceans part and refer to me as Minister of Fisheries. But both parts are equally important. They are interconnected, and the fundamental goals are the same: to balance wealth generation with the need to protect and sustain the long-term health of our oceans, waterways, and marine resources.

These are goals that we share both here in Canada and internationally with other ocean states. We need to continue our efforts to collaborate with other governments, the industry, and communities, and to work in coordination and cooperation with other nations. At the beginning of the 21st century, this is one of our most important challenges.

In Canada, we are working to implement the national oceans management strategy, as called for under the Oceans Act. This requires a comprehensive approach to coordinate scientific research and advice so that we consider the needs of the entire ecosystem and to work in cooperation with the immense variety of stakeholders—communities, first nations, other levels of government—who have an interest in the oceans and their resources. This is what integrated management is all about. This is a massive and long-term undertaking.

Canada must continue to set the direction and show leadership in pooling resources and expertise and in pushing towards consensus in the national and local interest. As I said earlier, the world is watching. I believe others will follow our example if we get it right.

In fact, the situation is similar with respect to an area that is a particular interest of mine, namely, aquaculture. This is an important industry. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am very familiar with this subject. I've had a strong interest in aquaculture since chairing a Liberal caucus task force some five years ago.

Canada's specialty, as you all know, is cold-water aquaculture. By working to develop this industry, we can help meet a critical human need and create jobs at home, jobs that can make a huge impact on our local economies.

But to do it right we have to act prudently, so that we develop the industry in an environmentally sustainable and economically viable way. To that end, we have been engaging in wide-ranging, inclusive consultations with stakeholders and other levels of government, so that industry is guided by common objectives and grows in an environmentally healthy manner.

• 1550

I want to commend this committee's efforts in this exciting area, and I look forward to the results of your work. Aquaculture is an industry that can provide jobs in coastal communities, including those hit hardest by fisheries restructuring. I'm also looking forward to hearing your observations and recommendations from your recent visit to Norway and Scotland, our aquaculture fact-finding mission.

I'm committed to sound oceans management and to assisting the aquaculture industry to develop in that context. This is the key to Canada becoming a world leader in aquaculture development, a goal that I along with my provincial colleagues endorsed last September.

We are also taking steps to improve marine safety and to encourage environmental protection in Canada's oceans and waterways. Commercial shipping and recreational boating activities on Canadian waterways are increasing dramatically. We have responded by evaluating our programs and enhancing our capacity to keep these activities safe, productive, and enjoyable for Canadians. A key strategy is to work more efficiently and smarter, in keeping with today's needs. We continue to explore ways of innovating and using technology to enhance our services in response to increased commercial marine traffic. New boating safety regulations are being phased in to promote greater security in our burgeoning recreational boating community.

Additional funding will restore the integrity of our departmental programs in the area of search and rescue. New realities require that we add new staff at key rescue centres, while adopting a less expensive but more effective coverage strategy focusing on inshore areas with lifeboat stations. Our priority is to ensure that we have done all we can to prevent accidents and to be capable of responding effectively when accidents occur that put human lives and the environment at risk. This is part and parcel of a comprehensive approach to sustainable use of Canada's oceans and waterways.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I've just highlighted some of the key elements of how we're working to build a solid foundation for sustainable fisheries and oceans management for the 21st century. We aim to lead in conserving the resource while developing new and innovative economic opportunities for Canada. Through our forward-looking approach, we can secure Canada's place on the world stage. We are demonstrating how working cooperatively will help protect our rich fishery and ocean resources for the benefit of generations to come.

Thank you.

As you've already introduced the staff members who are with me today, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to answer any questions your members may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for keeping your remarks short as well.

There is a vote, and we will go to the vote at about 4:12. Then we'll come back to continue the remainder of the questioning.

I have on my list Mr. Cummins, Mr. Bernier, Mr. Steckle, and Mr. Stoffer. Mr. Cummins, ten minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the only significant new area of spending in the estimates is related to the Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. That amount is about $160 million. We have requested of the minister that he make the negotiators, MacKenzie and Thériault, available to the committee. He has refused. He has refused to provide the agreements he's negotiating as they're signed, and I haven't had any response to a request that he produce the legal opinion on which he's basing his actions.

The issue here, then, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not there's a legitimacy to the spending of these moneys, and that's what I'm going to be basing my questions on. Unless the answers are very good—and I rather doubt they will be, given the failure to put those documents we requested in front of us—I would suggest that we're going to be in a position where we should be rejecting or not supporting the estimates.

Back in 1994, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stagg was with the Department of Indian Affairs. He noted that the fall lobster season was about to commence and that people's livelihood could be at stake. He was referencing, of course, this Marshall issue.

• 1555

The government, it would seem, has known for a long time that if a general right to a fishery were found, it would have a serious impact on the department. Is that your understanding, Mr. Stagg?

Mr. Jack Stagg (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm not sure what document you're referring to, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: It's the document you provided to the deputy minister back in 1994 in which you were expressing your concern about the impact on the fishery if a general right to fish were found.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, Mr. Stagg was not with DFO in 1994. We'd certainly have to look at the document you referred to. I don't think Jack is aware of the document you referred to.

You stated that the only major expenditure is on Marshall, which is not true. In fact, if you would go to the main estimates, there's $320 million over the next three years for a variety of expenditures, including science and research, marine safety, and conservation enforcement. So there has been a major increase in the resources available to DFO. I'm certain that if you follow it through, you can outline those.

In terms of the Marshall decision, the members are very much aware that $160 million was allocated for the last fiscal year and this fiscal year. The vast majority of that money will be going to licence buyback, but also in terms of capacity-building. At the last meeting I provided a summary as to the licences purchased, and what we can do for the committee is once again provide the summaries and total of what licences have been purchased and what vessels for capacity-building as well. Those can be provided, and we'll ensure that we get those to you.

I think this is extremely important, because when I met with the committee, the recommendation from the committee was that one of the ways to deal with Marshall is to ensure that we buy up licences on a voluntary basis, and that's exactly what we've done. Certainly if there were no resources I wouldn't have been able to do that. So I think those resources are being spent as the committee recommended.

In terms of Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault, both of them respond to me. I'm here to answer questions, and I'll try to do the best I can. For those I'm unable to answer, we'll try to get back to you. We have officials here as well who can help me.

They're out there getting agreements. I've been told that as of today we have 17 agreements signed, and we also have a number that are agreements in principle. So we're up to two-thirds of agreements signed and agreements in principle. I think what we have accomplished in such a short time goes a long way, when people, even on this committee, were very skeptical as to what we could accomplish by now. So I think the strategy we've laid out on Marshall has worked very well.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, the fact of the matter is that the department did have a feeling and did know that the consequence of finding a general right to fish.... The court did not find that, but the government nevertheless is acting as if one were found.

You talk about these buybacks, Minister, and suggest that everything is going smoothly. Yet recently in the Charlottetown Guardian it was anything but. You said that the prices sought by fishermen are too high and that you weren't prepared to throw taxpayers' money at deals that soar above fair market value. You said “This is not a Lotto 6-49, we are not going to be held hostage to people hoisting prices up”.

The fishermen say that you're asking them to sell out their livelihood before they would normally retire and that calls for higher-than-normal prices.

Then you go on to say:

I have followed through from my part but if people don't want to co-operate and sell their outfits at fair market value, then I have to look at other options....

• 1600

The tone of your comments is that you either sell or we're going to find another solution. In fact, you went on to say that. That's hardly vying in the open market. I mean, that's coercion. Then when people point out the difficulties they have of selling before they're ready to retire, your comment is “This is not a Lotto 6-49”. How do you explain that?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, this member is from the party who continually reminds us in the House of Commons that we must spend taxpayer dollars wisely and ensure that anything we do takes care of taxpayers' dollars. That's exactly what I was doing.

I said at the beginning and I've said here that we will pay fair market value for the losses. But you've got to remember, these are done on a voluntary basis. People who want to sell can sell. Those who don't aren't required to sell.

In that area in Malpeque Bay we've purchased 14 licences when we only required 12. So we have a lot of interest in fishermen who want to retire. In fact, over 1,300 licences were offered to us, and we said right from day one we would offer fair market value. But we take our responsibility very seriously in the way we spend our taxpayers' dollars, and I think the taxpayers of Canada want us to do that.

Certainly, Mr. Cummins, you and your party stand up in the House every single week to tell us that we must spend taxpayers' dollars wisely, and that's exactly what we have done.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: The fact of the matter is that spending the taxpayers' dollars wisely is important to us, as it's important to everybody in this room, I'm sure—at least, that's the talk—but the question is, what's the authority for spending it, and is the authority being applied as the law states?

In a briefing note that was prepared for you last September 23, the people who wrote this note in your department said:

While DFO does not have a mandate to determine and/or recognize Aboriginal rights, it manages fisheries pursuant to, among other things, the current state of law on Aboriginal fishing rights. For example: Aboriginal fishing should occur within the areas that were used historically by the Aboriginal group or First Nation.

And the second bullet says:

Aboriginal fishing opportunities will be provided to the First Nation having historical use and occupancy of the area in question.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, if you don't get to a question you'll be out of time.

Mr. John Cummins: The question is, why are you not adhering to the current state of the law as dictated by your own briefing notes?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with Mr. Cummins. We are fully complying with the law under the Supreme Court ruling that took place in September and subsequently the further clarification of that ruling by the Supreme Court. In most cases the fishing opportunities it provides are within the neighbouring areas in which the bands are located, but we have to have practical and pragmatic approaches. You alluded earlier to how important it is to make sure that we work with the commercial sector and consult with them.

That's where Mr. Gilles Thériault, who was the assistant federal representative, consulted with them, and they, along with others, said take a practical approach to ensure there isn't a huge effort in a local area that you take into consideration. They said to take a practical and pragmatic approach. In most cases the fishing will be done within the adjacent areas to where they're located, because that's where the bands prefer to fish as well. That has happened directly.

We have to be pragmatic and make sure we have solutions everybody can support. So far we've had communities in the Maritimes applauding what we've done. All you have to do is look at the recent Globe and Mail editorial that says we are doing the right things and that this is the appropriate way to deal with the Marshall decision.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I am going to take advantage of the fact that the minister is here with us today, not necessarily to talk about numbers, because that could become a little bit hard for the audience, but rather to tackle through numbers the issue of the lack of funds which would be needed to maintain and repair wharves as well as to maintain our fishing harbours, particularly in the province of Quebec.

• 1605

I am going to cite you two cases. In the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a sandbank had formed which was blocking the Millerand wharf. Perhaps the problem was due to wrong anticipations from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Maybe the maintenance had not been done in a timely fashion. However that may be, the problem has just been solved, but it would be unfortunate—and that is why I want to tell the Minister about it—that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be compelled to bypass its own law regarding the 30-day notice for immersion into the sea. The opposition groups made known their intention not to oppose, but the department should be more proactive and check the situation as soon as the ice is gone. So, the department should ensure that the maintenance is done in terms of dredging by the wharves. That should be done. That's what I wanted to say about the case of the Millerand wharf.

I have another example, concerning repairs that have to be done on the Old-Harry wharf. It's a wharf which, it seems, was shut down by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials in August 1999. Those fishermen were told to go and use the Grande-Entrée wharf, again in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to inform your officials of that situation and to ask them some questions in our absence. While the wharf in Grande-Entrée was built to accommodate 65 boats, it is currently used by 135 boats. When the Old-Harry wharf was shut down, 20 to 25 fishermen were asked to go and use a dock which was already overused, all that for rationalization purposes. I think this is not fair. If the Old-Harry wharf had to be shut down, the department should have made sure that sufficient room was already made available somewhere else for those fishermen.

I would like to hear your comments about that. What are your priorities at Fisheries and Oceans concerning the maintenance and the repairing of those wharves? Are you going to be able to send me the list of wharves about which requests were made to get them repaired in priority. Finally, if there is a lack of funds, do you intend, as a minister, to go to Paul Martin and fight for that? If Paul Martin wants us to be able to participate in the reduction of the deficit, we, the Gaspesians and the Madelinots, must have the infrastructures that we need to earn our living.

I would like to hear your first reaction. Is the maintenance of harbours a priority for you? If you want to rationalize, shouldn't you make sure first that there is enough room available elsewhere to accommodate the boats thus evicted?

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First, as I'm sure all members know, there's always a huge demand to fix wharves, whether in the Gaspé region or in New Brunswick or Newfoundland. There's always a big demand. I want to be frank and honest: I don't have the resources to fulfil all the demands that are out there.

As you know, Mr. Bernier, back in 1995 the government decided it was best to have a divestiture of our wharves and let the local community manage them through harbour authority groups. In fact, I've met with many communities and harbour authorities, and they've said this has worked very well, having local control, making local decisions and maintaining them, and that they've also been able to take advantage of some of the synergies that may exist. In some cases they've created a small-business situation where they've added services that we as the federal government wouldn't have been able to do. They've included the municipality and had them play a role. So this has worked well.

The problem has been that some of the capital that is required on some occasions is beyond the normal maintenance requirements of some of these harbours. We recognize that. Harbour authorities and members of Parliament make representations to me all the time. Those are evaluated, based on those that require the service immediately, and we deal with them.

In fact I've noted that in the Grande-Entrée there's $3 million planned for this year. This will help the situation. I presume that may be the area you're talking about.

There are wharf repairs going on all the time, and that will continue, but there's no way we can fund all the demands. I think our total budget is $50 million for wharf repairs. You can imagine that across the country $50 million doesn't go a long way. There are lots of demands for that.

• 1610

We continue to fight for more money to do more. I think the government has provided us with $320 million on some of the program integrity issues—for instance, science, which this committee said we should spend more money on, or conservation and protection, which this committee has said we need to put more resources on. Another is search and rescue—we've had people say we should put more money into search and rescue. So this government has made a big commitment on those areas that are extremely important for program integrity. We're certainly not going to be able to fill all the demands on our wharves, but we're responding to those areas that need it the most.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

You used up four minutes in your preamble there, Yvan. I don't believe we have enough time to get into the next question right now.

We will suspend until after the vote. Then it will be Mr. Steckle and Mr. Duncan.

• 1611

• 1641

The Chair: We'll reconvene. Mr. Steckle, the floor is yours.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I want to go very slowly in this process of putting forward my questions to you this afternoon. As you presented your statements before us earlier you had a number of things to say about fisheries and oceans but nothing to say about freshwater in Canada. I think it reflects largely on what we in the freshwater district of Canada have seen in terms of response for those issues, which we think are important.

In November 1998 we presented to the Government of Canada the Central Canada's Freshwater Fisheries Report. In that report were a great number of recommendations. Among those recommendations were two recommendations that I feel were very important.

We talk about species and the threatened species within the Great Lakes or within the oceans, within our ecosystem. We have a species in the Great Lakes that was brought in through ballast water many, many, many years ago. As a result of that species coming into our Great Lakes system we have a species that at many times in the past has threatened the sports fishing industry. That sports fishing industry is so large that some say it returns to the Government of Canada $65 million and others say up to $80 million just in GST alone.

We are in a joint agreement with the Americans in terms of our commitment to that program, the sea lamprey control program. The Americans just recently put another $3 million—that is federal dollars—into this program. Two years ago the State of Michigan put in $3 million, $1 million a year more than their regular commitment, which is about 67% of the total program.

For five years I have been trying to get this money allocation up to what the sport industry tells me is the right amount—that is, $8 million. We are currently at $6 million, and we need $8 million. Upon reaching $8 million the industry has committed to.... It's reported in the committee report of 1998. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters described the plan as a victim tax. That is when we were asking for more money. Nevertheless, they agreed that fishermen would be prepared to financially enhance the sea lamprey control program as long as the federal government fully meets its obligation to fund the program.

I'm asking you, Mr. Minister, one more time, when will we see as baseline funding the $8 million that has been requested? The freshwater industry in Canada is a large one; it's an underrated industry. It's never talked about. Given that we get less than 2% of the total fisheries budget relegated to the central Canadian industry, is it not fair that we should ask for something that returns such dollars to the federal coffers?

We need this, Mr. Minister. I have asked for it. The people in Sault Ste. Marie don't know when it's going to be delivered; they cannot plan ahead. I'm asking you one more time, for the record, when will that become baseline funding in this budget? It's not in the estimates.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that this member has worked very hard on this issue and articulated his view on it.

I understand that in 1994 the budget for sea lamprey control was $3.8 million. From that time the government has consistently increased its budget. Even when we were going through some difficult cutbacks where the Department of Fisheries had cut back 30% in 1995, this was one program that was recognized as being very important. Therefore, this year we'll be spending $6.1 million. This is a substantial increase over the last five years since 1995. So it shows that this is very important, and the sport fishery is extremely important. But this is only the federal government. There are no funds being put in by the provincial government. If the sports fishing community want to contribute over and above that, or the Ontario government wants to put something in there, I think it would be very much welcomed by the department.

• 1645

As the honourable member knows, we're not always able to get all the funds we want when we go before our cabinet colleagues. This is not part of the A-based budgeting, because when there were cutbacks it was removed from the A-base. But because of the need of this, because of the importance of it, the department has picked money from other areas to continue the sea lamprey program on a year-to-year basis.

I would prefer to have it A-based so I don't have to look for funds in other areas. It would be my preference to go to A-base, but unfortunately we were not able to get that in the last budget. We'll continue to work on it, but right now for this year we're committed to spending $6.1 million. When next year comes around we'll have to see what we can do. There's no doubt, I agree with you, it would be preferable to do it through A-base, as opposed to trying to find money each year. It's difficult on us and our staff as well.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Tell me, Mr. Minister, how do we get it onto A-base? You are the minister; I am not. Your staff are here today. Given the fact that it has been receiving the priority, $6.1 million.... And we're grateful for that; I don't want you for one moment to think we're not grateful. But at $8 million we start triggering new money. That's the point. I don't want to be here next year and ask you the same question. I want to have it on A-base, $8 million, and then I will do my part in the commitment I made earlier on the travels, which I made to you personally. I will do my part to go back to that sport. I have met with them, and they have committed to me. I will see that it happens.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Unfortunately, all I can say is that we have a budgetary process every year where we put forward our priorities. This is an area I very much supported as minister. But we need to go through the budgetary process and each department puts forward their priorities and then it's up to the finance minister and the Prime Minister to decide which ones they accept and which ones they don't accept. So we'll continue to work on it, and meanwhile this year we'll be providing the funding.

I might also say that in the area of freshwater, we've also increased our spending in terms of habitat. The Ontario government is not doing much work in this area. That's important as well for the sport fishery. We're putting additional funding to what we had in the past to make sure that we do our share in habitat.

I don't know if you can add anything more to what I've said, Pat. No? Okay.

The sports fishery is extremely important. I know the amount of money it brings in in British Columbia.

Mr. Paul Steckle: My last comment would be that I have, on your advice, gone to the Prime Minister, and I have written to you and every minister in the cabinet, including secretaries of state. I have not received a response from very many of them. So when you go and ask for A-based funding, there isn't one minister in the current cabinet who hasn't heard about this issue.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I want to assure the honourable member that all ministers are very much aware that for Mr. Steckle this is a top priority. Mr. Steckle, they're very much aware of your work and what you've done in your continuing lobbying on this issue.

In fact, I think the reason this amount has been allocated is because of the good work this member has done on the sea lamprey program. I want to encourage him to continue to work on it. One of the things you learn around here is you have to be persistent if you want some things done, and he certainly has shown that. I encourage him to continue to do the good work he has done.

The Chair: I might point out as well, Mr. Minister, that the full committee, after its hearings in central Canada, in their central fisheries committee report did recommend what Mr. Steckle has requested. I hope that information gets to the budget-makers as well.

Maybe, Paul, it's time to bring back the model and put in the foyer again what a sea lamprey looks like. Then maybe they'll snap to attention.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the minister for being here.

• 1650

The Southwest Nova aboriginal fisheries are described in a briefing document to the minister for the weekend of September 24 to 26, 1999, as openly conducting the food fisheries basically as a commercial fishery. When you appeared before the Senate committee on fisheries in April you described the food fishery at the end of the day as something where the first nation community will be making the decision. Did you mean by that it was not your duty to look after the determination on food fishery?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: No. I think you may have not interpreted that correctly or read the whole statement. What I said when I was in the Senate is the food fishery for food, social, and ceremonial purpose is a result of the Sparrow decision, which is a law that requires that we provide a food fishery.

I also said that the food fishery has to be reasonable and we have to protect the integrity of the food fishery by ensuring that we enforce to the amount we have agreed to. However, in some of the agreements that have been signed there has been a reduction, in some cases a substantial reduction, in the food fishery where they in fact would rather be involved in the commercial fishery, because the aboriginal people felt that it's to their advantage to have a reduction in the food fishery and have more access to the commercial fishery. In some of the agreements that's been done where there are substantial amounts.

So what I was saying to you is that this has been done at the negotiating table where many of the first nations feel it's in their interest to convert some of their food fishery into having improved access. This is something they've decided. We as a department have to ensure, first of all, that we follow the Sparrow decision, which is the law, so we have no choice, but we also must ensure that the food fishery is a reasonable and fair fishery. We have to make sure we preserve the integrity of the food fishery. We have to make sure we have appropriate enforcement.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we announced $13 million in total for additional enforcement, which this committee recommended to me to ensure that we stop the poaching or illegal fishing that may be out there by whatever groups or whatever individuals. They asked for more enforcement, and we've done that. Conservation and protection of the resource is very important, and that's why I introduced $13 million across the country for increased conservation and protection of our resources.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm going to move to the west coast and to the Nisga'a agreement for a minute. On the Nass, which is now our third-largest salmon-producing river, the Nisga'a are to receive a minimum of 25% of the Nass sockeye, which would translate on an average run size to an entitlement of about 120,000. Assuming half of those are in a food fishery, that would leave a commercial allocation of about 60,000.

It's my understanding—you can correct me if I'm incorrect—that in order to achieve that there was a retirement of eight gillnet licences only, which works out to several thousand sockeye per boat, and last year the boats were lucky to get 500 sockeye. So the question is how do you justify retiring only eight licences for that allocation?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Pat, maybe you can respond first on the detailed part of the question.

Mr. Pat Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Duncan, I think I'm going to need to go back and check exactly what the arrangements are with respect to retirement of licences. I know there is a provision in the Nisga'a agreement that there will be capacity retired in order to offset any increases in allocation.

• 1655

At this point, I'm not able to verify the number you've referred to of eight gillnet licences. What I'd like to do is review that and have the opportunity of responding to you through the chairman once I have had a chance to review the information and verify what the provisions are. I regret that I'm just not able to give you that information at this time.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Fair enough.

The Chair: Last question, John.

Mr. John Duncan: Let's get back to the east coast. At Burnt Church at the dock there are about 20 boats tied up. We have two watchmen watching 20 boats, one native and one non-native, for 12-hour shifts. How does a racially based policing overkill contribute to communications between the two communities?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Mr. John Duncan: You have two security people, one aboriginal and one non-aboriginal, watching a small facility for 12 hours out of 24, each at the same time. My point is that's total overkill and it's basically not doing anything to bring the communities together. We've done it on a racial basis once again.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me say that I've been down to the Miramichi. We held a forum there inviting all the opinion leaders: the aboriginal community, the commercial fishing community, the mayors, the MP, and the member of the legislative assembly. We brought them together in one room to get the community to talk and to create communication between them. I think that was extremely fruitful.

One of the things that has worked extremely well so far is the dialogue that's happened between communities. I've been impressed. If you look at the Miramichi, we've signed an agreement with all the bands in the Miramichi area with the exception of Burnt Church. Indian Cove and Indian Island have both signed interim agreements.

I'd have to get back to your very specific question. It may be that it's the harbour authority that's involved in consultation with native and non-native fishers. I don't know whether you're referring to our employees, but we've said right from day one that we will have an orderly, regulated fishery. We have followed through with that. When illegal traps were put out, we've gone and picked them up.

I think we've made a lot of progress and I think people do want us to be there to keep the peace. If you remember, last year in the fall when we had this situation, people wanted us to make sure we were there keeping the peace. We'll do that; we'll make sure we carry out the law. I personally went down there to make sure I met with all the groups to get them to work together. In fact, in pretty well all the areas, things have worked out very well.

I'll find out the details, but certainly I'm in favour of making sure that we have resources there to keep the peace between people. If we need to do that, we will.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, last week a coast guard helicopter crashed in Newfoundland. In the main estimate, is there any new, additional funding to make sure the Canadian Coast Guard respects program identity and their search and rescue responsibilities?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We did have a very unfortunate accident just last week, where one helicopter went down. It was a very sad thing and there's still an investigation going on to determine what the reason for this accident was.

The $320 million in this budget addresses a number of issues, and some of those are in search and rescue. They provide us additional funds for rust out, to make sure we can provide new equipment where we need it. Under our program we have $115.5 million toward improving our search and rescue. Some of those funds will go toward acquisition. For example, this will provide us with an additional eight new extended-range, shore-based, 47-foot lifeboats capable of operating in severe weather to address shortfalls in SRA.

• 1700

In terms of our helicopters and whether we'll be providing additional helicopters, we'll have to get back to you on that. We've identified those key asset areas that we need to improve on for program integrity. These funds will provide us with that. This additional funding will provide us with 18 additional staff for our rescue coordination centres as well, to make sure we respond as quickly as possible to marine safety issues.

This is good news for marine safety. Over the next three years, this will provide us with increased capacity in search and rescue, including improving equipment where we feel it's necessary.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

I left the question on dredging in the Jeddore Harbour with Mr. Chamut. I don't need an answer right now; I'll get one later on.

Our researcher has given us some questions to ask, and there's a whole bunch of them. If I can leave those with you and we can have written answers for the committee, that would be great.

My questions all start off on the west coast. I noticed the Pacific Salmon Treaty is not in here in terms of what moneys Canada received from the United States when we signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty. How much money did we receive?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, there is budget allocation in the main estimates, which provides for $33 million over three years. Part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty commitment that Canada made is that we would put $11 million. This would go towards increased data collection, monitoring, providing better information, and also the governance structures that are needed to make sure we deal with the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

The American government was committed to putting $140 million U.S. in a trust fund, which would be managed by Canada and the U.S., to enhance the salmon stock through habitat restoration, habitat enhancement. They have now provided the first deposit of that, which I understand to be $20 million U.S. They are very much committed to continuing to put their fair share into this.

I know some people wanted to make that conditional. There's a senator from Alaska who wanted that. The president rejected that and took the conditional aspects out. We're very happy with the way things are going on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We think this is good for the resource and we finally have certainty on this, which for many years we weren't able to have. That will help us to better manage the resource, both for the Americans and for Canadians.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My second question is regarding freshwater marketing. The Saskatchewan aboriginal groups and the province had meetings last year to discuss ways to better manage their own resource. Manitoba aboriginal chiefs met last week to discuss the very same concern. Just what is freshwater marketing doing to assist those aboriginal groups, especially in the northern provinces, to look after their own affairs in a more efficient manner?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: As you may know, Mr. Stoffer, I was part of the fisheries committee when we made recommendations on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. One of the recommendations was to look at a pilot project where we let those communities that felt the marketing board wasn't doing its job do it on their own. Some felt the marketing board wasn't doing the job for them and they wanted to do it on their own. We did let one community do that on a pilot project basis to see how they could do that.

My understanding is that so far, the experience hasn't been very good up in the north, where they haven't been able to penetrate the markets they felt they could. Therefore, I think they'll be getting back into having the FFMC start marketing their products.

• 1705

One of the problems with those up in the north is the cost of shipping, because our plant is down in Winnipeg. One of the things we need to do is ask if it is economically feasible to have additional processing beyond just Winnipeg. I don't know if it's possible. But that's one of the big challenges—how you ship the raw product from the north into the Winnipeg processing plant to make it feasible, because transportation costs are extremely high from the north. That's the challenge we have.

I've met with many of the groups. We're very interested in seeing what can be done. We have a new CEO, Bob Hand, who was just appointed about eight or nine months ago. He's from the private sector. Frankly, I think there's more we can do to market our freshwater fish, and we need to do more in that area.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. On page 4 of the—

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Stoffer, your time's up.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That was awfully quick.

The Chair: You have an additional ten questions on paper, I believe, so you've done very well.

Just before I turn to Mr. Bernier and Mr. Duncan, on Sunday, Mr. Minister, at a meeting with the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance, I guess it's called, at the Halifax airport for a couple of hours—and they met with you last week as well—I heard that one of their major areas of concern, one of the hot points, is in lobster fishing area 34. There's a concern about the food fishery after June 1. I couldn't answer the question. I wasn't sure what their concern was over.

Is there an allocation for that food fishery in that area? What happens on June 1 if the allocation has been met—or, in the other scenario, if it hasn't been met? And how do we control it? Because we've gotten along very well on the Marshall decision to date. We do not need any more trigger points. Certainly we have to continue to see the commercial fishery and the aboriginal fishery work together.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I had the meeting with the alliance, and certainly they brought the issue of the food fishery to my attention. As I said earlier, the food fishery under the Sparrow decision is the law. We have to provide access to the food fishery.

What we need to do first of all is ensure that the food fishery is reasonable and fair. Secondly, we need to make sure we protect the integrity of it and have proper monitoring of it. I think that was their most crucial concern. They want to ensure we have proper monitoring of it, that when we allocate a certain amount for the food fishery, we have monitoring to ensure those limits are not exceeded. We are certainly committed to doing that. I know about their concern, and it's something we're very focused on—to make sure.

I think what we've found in many of the interim agreements we've signed is that many of the aboriginal communities would rather have more commercial access and have taken a reduction in some of their food fisheries. In some cases we can control it by putting limits on the poundage as well as on the number of traps that can be utilized.

The Chair: Okay. We've three questioners on. I said I would go to Mr. Bernier next.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Time goes on very fast and I have been cut the last time, but while it has been possible to get 3 million dollars in five minutes, let's see if we can do even better this time.

Without any preamble, I have three questions for you. First, Mr. Minister, last week, you announced your groundfish management plan. You are maintaining the status quo in terms of the cod quotas in the area 4T. I would like you or your colleagues to tell me—if you don't have enough time to answer today, you could answer me later in writing—how you can explain the difference between the total allowable catches in areas 4T and 3Ps respectively. The total allowable catches are much lower in area 4T. I guess that can be explained biologically, because what is being done in area 3Ps, that is 20 %, amounts to around three times the total allowable catches in area 4T. The Gaspesian fishermen are concerned by that situation.

• 1710

Here is my second question. You have biologists around you and you know quite well that the redfish stocks, or the Norway haddock stocks, are decreasing in the gulf. Therefore, there are less predators. We can note the same thing in Newfoundland: there are less predators for shrimps. The question I want to ask you before you finalize your northern shrimp fishing plan is the following: Would it be possible for you to take into account the plants in Quebec, particularly those in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which have seen their redfish quotas collapse, while they never had access to shrimp fisheries, since their redfish is no longer there and shrimp has no more predators? Would it be possible for you to take that into account when allocating the northern shrimp fishing quotas?

My last question is going to cost you less, yet it is very important. I want to refer you to the notion of third party. Formerly, any fisherman who had a problem with his fishing licence in the Atlantic region could appeal to the Atlantic Fishing Licence Appeal Board, known as the AFLAB. In the absence of a new bill like bill C-62, under which a quasi judicial court was to be entitled to make rulings concerning conflicts between fishermen, currently, when one of your officials establishes that a rule was violated, it is his immediate superior who applies the sanction.

Last month, the Supreme Court stated that you had no right to do that. There is a legal flaw. There is a problem there, and we must always take into account the presence of aboriginal people, who will have to live with the same laws as we. If we have difficulty to stand the notion of third party, how can we expect the aboriginal people to stand it?

I am asking you to consider the possibility of introducing a new bill on fisheries which would provide for the establishment of a quasi judicial court. Otherwise, are we still going to have to go to the regular courts? If so, in the short term, maybe we could refer litigations to the Atlantic Fishing Licence Appeal Board. It seems that that Board still exists in the Atlantic, but in Quebec, it does not exist anymore. I sent you a letter concerning a fisherman about whom Fisheries and Oceans recognized that he had suffered a loss when his licence was first issued, and it were department officials who decided the kind of compensation he was entitled to for that loss.

I am asking you to restore the Atlantic Fishing Licence Appeal Board in order to deal with that case, Mr. Lemieux's case. I will conclude here, Mr. Chairman. I am asking you to restore the Atlantic Fishing Licence Board in order that at least a fair and impartial ruling can be made in Mr. Lemieux's case. That loss was caused by the actions of your officials.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, Minister, I'll give you what you can do in 30 seconds. Other than that, you're going to have to respond in writing.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think we would be here at least a couple of hours to respond to those questions.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Take it, take it.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We'll take note of those questions and get back to you, because otherwise we'd be spending a lot of time.

Let me just say that the groundfish plan we put forward was very consistent with the FRCC recommendations. I think everybody wanted us to make sure we'd take the conservation measures that are important. The groundfish plan was very consistent with what the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council put forward to us, and I think it's been welcome.

Regarding those other questions you have, we don't have time to answer them. But we've made note of them, and we'll get back to you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: If you want, Mr. Chairman, we have an official who can respond very quickly to this question, if you give us 30 seconds.

The Chair: Thirty seconds is all it will be.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: He's the minister.

The Chair: And I'm the chair.

Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Pat Chamut: On the last question, first of all there are two issues here. AFLAB is an independent body that rules on licence appeals. It's still in place, and if there are any concerns about where to go, fishermen can contact the regional office in Quebec City and get the information about how to deal with AFLAB, which is still an existing mechanism to deal with exceptions to licencing policy.

The second issue you raise is about a court case dealing with the application of sanctions to fishermen who violate fishing rules. We did lose a court case. The Supreme Court has said we do not have the authority to unilaterally impose licence sanctions; therefore we're no longer doing that. The only course we have is to deal with charges under the Fisheries Act, which will mean charges that will be taken through the courts.

• 1715

In the longer term, as you know, we've tried to deal with alternatives, with, as you mentioned, a quasi-judicial body that would deal with licence sanctions. That's very much a matter that I'm sure will be looked at as we move through our review of Atlantic policy.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Matthews.

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

Mr. Minister, it's good to see you and your officials here.

Just as a first question, you've indicated additional funds for research and science in this year's budget, which I think is very positive, because in order to make sound management decisions we need adequate research and science activities, but what will those additional funds mean, say, in this fiscal year? What changes are we going to see? Are we going to see beefing up of research in some areas? I'd just like some indication of what it's really going to mean on the ground in the fishery.

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

I know that this is of tremendous interest to this committee, because I very much agree with Mr. Matthews: in order to make good decisions, you need to have good science.

Out of the $320 million that has been allocated over three years, there is $39.3 million over the three-year period. This is going to more reliable analysis and information on east coast stocks, to ocean monitoring to track the dynamic changes in the marine ecosystem and the consequences of these regime shifts on productivity of salmon, groundfish, and invertebrate species. It's also going towards stock assessments for species and stocks in fisheries that have never been assessed and for which there are serious conservation concerns. Also, there will be additional efforts and resources to assess and monitor east coast lobster stocks.

In addition to that, one of the things I think is extremely important, which I've put forward as important to me, is looking at new opportunities, at emerging new fisheries. As you may know, with Minister Efford from Newfoundland, I recently signed an agreement to work together on new opportunities that exist in emerging fisheries. I think that'll be very important. I think this is good news for fisheries and good news for science.

The Chair: You can have a very brief question, Mr. Matthews, because Mr. Duncan has one as well, and we have to go and vote on the estimates yet too.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on the research funding this year, just a few short weeks ago, you announced a decrease in crab quotas for this year off Newfoundland and Labrador. All indications are that the catch rates so far in the crab fishery have been very good, very healthy.

A question to you or your officials: do you feel comfortable that surveys done last year were adequate to justify the reduction in the crab quotas that we see for this year?

It seems that if the trend continues with the catch rates, it would certainly question whether or not.... I know we have to keep conservation in our minds, but if the trend continues—and I'm told that there's a strong indication of small crab in the catches as well—I'm just wondering if you did enough surveys to justify your decision.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We feel that there was a variety of information taken into consideration, not only from the test fishery but from the recoupment. In the latter part of the season last year, at the end of the year, the recoupment fell quite a bit, so sometimes you cannot judge from the beginning of the season. I understand that the beginning of the season is always very good, but it's near the end of the season that you have a drop-off.

But we're committed to doing more to make sure that we have good sound information. We're doing more observer coverage, and we're also looking at the seasons when the softshell crab is there to make sure that we have better conservation rules in place. We're very much committed to doing more in that area, but we feel very good that the test fishery gives us sufficient information to provide the decisions, to make the decisions we did for this season.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Duncan, with, I think, a follow-up to a previous request we had to the minister.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I have two questions. I'll just ask them both in the interests of time.

The first is on the prawn fishery. We had a recommendation in our west coast report in 1998. That recommendation was never responded to. When we were in B.C. in February, the question on the sustainability of the resource came up again. We were promised a response. To my knowledge, we've yet to receive a response on that question. It's now May. That's my first question.

• 1720

My second question relates to comments you made about the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Alaska caught somewhere in the order of 350,000 northern coho. Basically, our sockeye fishery in the Prince Rupert area suffered big time. We're concerned that DFO is basically closing its eyes and ears to the unfairness, in that the sockeye fishery can't proceed as long as there's this concern about coho.

How are you going to ensure that the Prince Rupert area can fish sockeye so we don't end up in that surplus escapement situation again where we had the disease happen to us last time?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, on the prawn fishery, we will get back to you on that and make sure you get an answer.

On the sockeye in the northern part of British Columbia, maybe Pat can answer that.

Mr. Pat Chamut: Under the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which was concluded almost a year ago, there are arrangements that govern how Alaska is to conduct their fisheries on coho. When the abundance of coho in the northern Alaskan fishery is low, then there are restrictions that are introduced in terms of the conduct of their fishery that allow more fish to escape through to Canadian fisheries.

In 1999 the abundance of coho in Alaskan waters was extremely high. As a result, provisions in the treaty were not triggered, which essentially meant that they were not obliged to introduce any restrictions on the conduct of their fishery on coho.

In the Alaskan fishery, the percentage of northern B.C. coho that appear in the Alaskan troll fishery is very small. So if we were to ask the Alaskans to shut their fishery down on coho, it would essentially be asking them to forgo extremely large harvests of coho in order to protect a very small number of coho coming back to Canada.

In the conduct of the Canadian fishery, we obviously have an obligation to make sure that coho salmon, which are at very low levels, headed for the Skeena River are protected. It does have an effect on the harvesting of sockeye salmon, because sockeye and coho frequently migrate together. In those circumstances, we cannot harvest sockeye without also harvesting the coho. We have concluded that we must take action in our own waters to ensure that we can protect the sustainability and the future productivity of this stock that once contributed very significantly to Canadian harvests in northern B.C.

We also know—

The Chair: The fact is, we have to vote—

Mr. Pat Chamut: I'm just about concluding.

We know that in 1999 abundance was higher. We have taken that into account in doing our forecasts for the year 2000. We're hopeful that in the management plan we put forward in 2000 we'll be able to find a way to be able to have some increased harvest of sockeye and at the same time protect coho and avoid the problem you talked about with respect to disease in the Babine system.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you, Pat.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

We have three votes on adoption of the main estimates, which are on page 8-2 of the main estimates document and on the paper in front of you.

FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Vote 1—Operating expenditures ...... $905,562,000

Vote 5—Capital expenditures ...... $154,392,000

Vote 10—Grants and contributions ...... $175,911,000

The Chair: Shall vote 1, less the amount of $226,390,500 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall vote 5, less the amount of $38,598,000 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 5 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall vote 10, less the amount of $87,955,500 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 10 agreed to on division)

• 1725

The Chair: Shall I report the estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We're out of time.

Peter, you have 30 seconds or less.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

I've heard from coast guard people that what may be a good idea in the future for boating safety is to start up a coast guard cadet program, similar to what the RCMP have with the ranger program, similar to what the military have with their cadet program. It would give young Canadians in rural parts of the country, and in areas like Winnipeg, for example, the opportunity to actually work on a volunteer basis, especially during the summer and in the spring and fall, to enhance boater safety in small communities, and give children the opportunity to maybe think one day of the coast guard as a future.

It's a coast guard cadet program. You may want to think about something like that. That would be a hell of an idea.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Okay, I'll take that under consideration.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, there's one last point I want to raise with you. We've been having some difficulty completing our aquaculture study. A number of us were in Norway and Scotland last week looking at aquaculture. I would like your view, for the record, in terms of how important it is for this committee to do a fairly intensive aquaculture study, both domestically and internationally, inclusive of Norway, Chile, and so on.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, I think this is extremely important, for coastal communities, for the economy. I would encourage this committee to continue their work and provide a report for me. All the ministers across this country say we should become world leaders in aquaculture, and all the ministers will be meeting again in August in Iqaluit. I would like to be able to take that report. So I would encourage this committee.

I was very pleased with those who could go outside of Canada and have a first-hand view of what's happening in other countries, because I firmly believe this is going to create tremendous opportunities for us as a country. We have the longest shoreline of any country in the world. This is an area in which we can excel.

This government and I, as the Minister of Fisheries, are very much committed to aquaculture. So in anything I can do to help support you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, I certainly would. I'll continue to work with you, but I think you need to move forward. I know the Senate committee is also doing work on aquaculture. I've been before them as well. Your work will be very much welcome, and it would help me to push this agenda forward. So I would urge all the members to do their work and complete this. It's extremely important to me and for the government.

The Chair: Okay. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Minister and officials, thank you very much for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.