PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), in consideration of chapter 4, “Fisheries and Oceans—Managing Atlantic Shellfish in a Sustainable Manner” of the April 1999 report of the Auditor General of Canada, we have as our witnesses, Mr. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, and Mr. John O'Brien, principal of the audit operations of the Auditor General's office. From Fisheries and Oceans we have Mr. Larry Murray, associate deputy minister; Mr. Jacques Robichaud, director general, resource management directorate; and Mr. Howard Powles, acting director, fisheries research branch.

Welcome, gentlemen, and as usual, Mr. Desautels, we'll start off with your opening statement.

Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present the results of chapter 4 of our April 1999 report entitled “Managing Atlantic Shellfish in a Sustainable Manner”.

• 1535

As you said a few moments ago, I'm joined at the table by John O'Brien from our Halifax office, who was in charge of this particular assignment.

In chapter 4, we raise serious concerns about the way Fisheries and Oceans manages the lobster, scallop, snow crab, and shrimp fisheries in Atlantic Canada. In 1997, the landed value of all shellfish was $920 million, or 81% of the value of all fish landed in Atlantic Canada.

In October 1997 we reported on problems associated with the department's management of the groundfish fisheries, many of which were not operating at that time. Atlantic Canada's shellfish fisheries are operating and for the most part are lucrative. However, there are many similarities between the issues reported in chapter 4 and those we raised previously on the management of the groundfish fisheries.

For example, in 1997 we raised concerns about the need to clarify fisheries objectives in legislation, the absence of a national fisheries policy, and the need to establish measurable indicators and performance expectations. In addition, we reported on the need to improve fisheries management practices, such as scientific stock assessments, fisheries management planning, catch monitoring, and enforcement.

Finally, we reported that attempts to address the overcapacity problem in the groundfish fisheries have been largely unsuccessful. In the current audit, we again found that the department has not yet developed a fisheries management framework that considers all aspects of sustainability. Further, we found weaknesses in fisheries management practices in the shellfish fisheries.

Finally, we raised concerns about the implementation of co-management, a form of power sharing with stakeholders.

Should Canadians be concerned about the problems we found in the management of the shellfish fisheries? After all, as I've already said, these fisheries are lucrative; therefore the full impact of the problems is not obvious. In our view, as we reported in 1997 on the groundfish fisheries, these concerns are significant and must be addressed to ensure the shellfish fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner.

We believe that part of the reason for the continuing problems we noted rests with the existing framework for fisheries management.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, it is not clear what the Department is trying to achieve through its management of the shellfish fisheries. In its reporting to Parliament, the Department has stated that its objective is “conservation” of the fishery resource, and that it also has an economic objective, for which, however, no expected results have been specified.

The Department has informed this Committee that it does not have the responsibility or the resources for managing social and economic outcomes. Yet, we have provided examples of decisions in the shellfish fisheries that are directed toward achieving such outcomes. Indeed, most fisheries decisions that we examined were heavily influenced by social and economic factors. We recognize that the consideration of social and economic factors is important in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fishery. We believe that it is necessary for the Department to clearly state the role that these factors play in its decision making.

Our report also includes case studies that point to decisions that do not appear to be consistent with one of the underlying objectives of the Department's Fishery of the Future strategy—achieving economically viable fisheries.

We discuss the problem of controlling harvesting capacity and provide examples of growth in the industry's harvesting capacity. This growth has occurred at a time when the government has expended considerable effort and funds to reduce overall capacity.

Even within its acknowledged core mandate, the Department has not set out clear, measurable objectives for the “conservation” of the fisheries resource—the primary stated purpose of the fisheries management function.

It is difficult to see how we can move forward with cost- effective management of sustainable fisheries if the Department does not first set out what it is trying to achieve from the fisheries.

Sustainable fisheries require the balancing of interdependent biological, social and economic factors with a long-term perspective. Decisions made on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis rather than as part of an overall framework are not acceptable if we want to ensure sustainability, not only of the stocks but also of the people and communities that depend on them.

• 1540

[English]

We also found that the department's fisheries management practices needed further improvement. Problems were identified in the following areas: first, the absence of clear and measurable conservation objectives for individual fisheries; second, weaknesses in information needed to decide the use of the resource; thirdly, gaps in the monitoring, control, and surveillance of fishery activities; and finally, co-management arrangements that are largely cost-sharing arrangements and involve little sharing of decision-making.

To conclude, we fully understand that fisheries management issues are both sensitive and complex. We believe the development and implementation of a new fisheries policy is an important aspect of a sustainable fisheries framework. Furthermore, as we indicated in October 1997, we believe there is a need to clarify fisheries objectives in legislation as part of the development of an overall fisheries policy.

In its responses to our recommendations, the department has indicated that the recently established working group on the reform of the Atlantic fisheries policies will be mandated to deal with our concerns about the need for a sustainable fisheries framework. Your committee may wish to seek clarification on the mandate of this working group and obtain assurance from the department that its work will be completed on an urgent basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Brien and I will be happy to address your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels. Now we'll turn to Mr. Murray for the opening statement on behalf of his department.

Mr. Larry Murray (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm also very pleased to have this opportunity to meet with your committee. I have with me today two members from our management team who will assist me in responding to your questions. As you mentioned in your welcoming remarks, they are Jacques Robichaud, who is the director general of fisheries resource management, and Howard Powles, the director of the fisheries research branch.

In these brief opening remarks, I want to provide you with an overview of Fisheries and Oceans today, our goals, what we're doing to achieve them, and some of the challenges we face.

[Translation]

We have seen many changes over the last eight years, changes that have affected the resource, the industry and DFO itself. One of the most dramatic of these changes has been the decline in groundfish stocks and the resulting moratoria which had a devastating impact on people and communities on the East Coast.

This decline came at a time when DFO was coping with major reductions in staff, dollars and assets as part of the government's efforts to reduce the deficit.

This forced us to find ways to increase efficiency and develop better working relationships with those involved in the fishery. To do this, we have had to review, evaluate and adapt our policies to ensure they reflect current circumstances. At DFO today, conservation is our first priority. As Minister Anderson has said, conservation must come first because, if we do not protect and preserve fish stocks, we will have no fishery at all.

In keeping with this, we have fundamentally changed the way we look at resource management. Conservation comes first, and we will not compromise it to achieve allocation targets. We always take the precautionary approach when setting harvest levels. Allocations are based, first and foremost, on the state of the resource.

[English]

This can be difficult, as we have seen over the past year. People's livelihoods are affected by these decisions, and we appreciate that. Nevertheless, we must put the well-being of fish stocks first. With this in mind, we are working toward achievement of our vision for a fishery of the future that is both environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

The fishery of the future must also be a smaller fishery, in which fishermen, government, and industry work together to bring harvesting capacity in line with the capacity of the resource to renew itself. We are working on several fronts to achieve this vision. For example, in order to balance harvesting capacity with the availability of the resource, we are supporting licence policy reforms, licence buy-backs, and early retirement initiatives. We are working in partnership with the industry to develop more cooperative ways to manage the fisheries. We want those who work in the fishery to have a real voice in its management.

• 1545

One way is through the co-management approach. About 30% of the 140 key fisheries in Canada currently operate under some form of co-management approach. Co-management represents a fundamental change in the way we manage the fisheries. The co-management approach is a key aspect of the new relationship between DFO and the fishing industry. This approach may not be appropriate for all fisheries, nor is it mandatory, but we know there is keen interest in virtually all sectors of the fishing industry.

We still face a number of challenges, some of which you may be familiar with. I know you have read the recent Auditor General's report, including DFO's responses to its recommendations. Since you have this report, I won't go into it in detail here. I would simply like to emphasize that in all cases where the Auditor General has made recommendations, DFO has either agreed to take action or has noted that initiatives are already currently underway.

[Translation]

In addition, I would like to point out that we recently established a Working Group to reform Atlantic Fisheries Policy and to clarify our management policies.

The Group's mandate is to create a cohesive and consistent policy framework to allow the establishment of biological reference points and more comprehensive rules for taking conservation-related decisions.

As to our management of Atlantic shellfish, I want to stress that sharing of shellfish resources has adhered to the principle of “no permanent increase in harvesting capacity”.

New participants, who are existing core fishers, are in the fishery on a temporary basis only, while the resource is abundant and values are high.

[English]

In closing, I would like to observe that the news about the fisheries is not all bad. Many of our fisheries are doing quite well, and we are optimistic that Canada's fisheries can be rebuilt, based on a new level of cooperation and shared responsibility between government and industry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased, with my team, to respond to questions from you and your committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murray. We'll find out if the news is all bad. We'll start with Mr. Lunn for eight minutes, please.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Murray and the Auditor General, for appearing before the committee.

I will direct my first question to the Auditor General and will focus on something you brought out. I read the report earlier, and you stated it is not clear what the department is trying to achieve through its management of the shellfish fisheries. They are claiming there is a conservation mandate. I think what I'm getting out of the report is you're raising these red flags and there is a comparison to what happened in the cod fisheries, where we saw the destruction. Questions are being raised as to whether we're on the same track in the shellfish sector.

I want your comments with respect to a couple of areas. I've travelled with the committee extensively on both coasts, and there appears to be a loss of confidence through the fishing communities in all sectors. I'd like to have your thoughts on that.

I think what this really leads to, at least in my view, is that the department is reactive in virtually all these cases. It is not proactive; it's reactive. Of course, when we saw the collapse of the cod fishery, everything was reactionary as opposed to proactive.

I appreciate you raising these red flags with the shellfish industry at such an early time, but I would like your comments. Do you think that is a general attitude the department has, that it's not proactive enough in formulating its policies? Does that fall in line with your observations? I'd like your comments in those areas.

• 1550

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you. I think our comments about the objectives of the department not being clear and its decisions not being totally consistent are due to the fact that we feel that when we look at the official documents published by the department addressed to Parliament, there is a recognition in those documents that conservation comes first, and maintaining a viable industry is also important.

There's not as much recognition really of the social dimension of the department's mandate. Indeed, at this committee in the past, the department also indicated it felt it really had neither responsibility nor resources to really worry or be responsible for the social aspect.

So these are the official statements of the department. On the other hand, when we look at what they do, we see that the social objectives are indeed quite important and play a real role in the decision-making of the department. We don't say that's bad. We're just saying there's something incoherent about the official position of the department and what actually takes place.

Similarly, as you can see in the report, we find that certain decisions seem to be taken on a more ad hoc basis, and sometimes it's difficult to see the consistency between one decision and another. All of this is due, we think, to a problem we raised a couple of years before about the lack of a proper framework for managing this particular department's business and the fishing industry.

Decisions are not being made by reference to some kind of framework that would be well understood by all stakeholders. Therefore, it's difficult for people to understand the logic of some of the decisions made. I believe and understand they are tough decisions to make, and I understand the minister must be under a lot of pressure from all kinds of people when he's making those decisions.

So we would advocate a clearly laid out framework and some principles and objectives against which those decisions would be made, which would be well understood by everyone. I believe that would reduce or maybe change the impression some people have that either the department is reactive or it's acting on an ad hoc basis and so on. So we had some of those reactions, which I think could be changed if we had what we call here a better framework and policy.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just to follow up on that, this lack of proper framework has probably led right to loss of confidence. That very statement came up in virtually every community on both coasts. My colleague, Mr. Bernier, was travelling with me, and there was this loss of confidence. We heard that the department was full of systemic problems; it had very many good people, but systemically it was dysfunctional and we had to give more control to the regions. In other words, we had to put more management of this resource on the west coast for the Pacific fishery and vice versa for the Atlantic fishery.

Do you think that will help this? The department is somewhat dysfunctional and needs to be reorganized to solve some of these problems you've talked about and gain back some of that confidence. Would it help, in your view, if we tried to manage this more regionally and put greater control at the community level?

Mr. John O'Brien (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): In the first instance, it's important, as the Auditor General has said, to get this framework down to get a better idea, clearly stated, where you're going to go and what you want to achieve. Then within that you can make other decisions from the point of view of managing the resource and making additional management decisions. Our belief is you have to start at the top, in terms of where you want to go and what you want to achieve first, before you start trying to deal with some of these other questions.

• 1555

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that, we didn't spend a lot of time analysing the organizational issues within the department at this stage. We've done this piece of work and we're in the process of doing other pieces of work, and also working on the west coast. At some point I may want to understand better if there are organizational issues that would impact on some of the operational problems we come up with.

Certainly one of the things I mentioned to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is that it might be useful to have a proper objective assessment carried out at some point of the scientific capacity of the department at this stage. There are impressions left with us that the resources on that side have been reduced substantially and therefore the department might have lost some capacity. I can't judge that completely, but I think it would be useful at some point to have an objective assessment of the capacity the department has at this stage versus what it should have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Now we'll have Mr. Bernier for

[Translation]

eight minutes, please.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Magdalen Islands— Pabok, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Desautels and gentlemen from Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Desautels, I listened carefully to your statement today and have gone through your book a number of times, as may be seen from the yellow lines I have drawn here. I wouldn't be inclined to give Fisheries and Oceans a good mark either.

You put your finger right on the problem when you pointed out that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans talks a lot about conservation, but it's hard to see from its management how it implements "conservation"; it often spells it out, but I don't see that it's applied all that much.

I would like to see the part where they talk about that. They talk about prudent management. I believe I read in your report that 1997 and 1998 fishing licences were issued for the Newfoundland lobster fishery, but that there were only landing data for 1996.

Is this the kind of assessment you do? If I understand correctly, you go in with an accounting audit method and apply an analytical system, but you don't necessarily conduct an analysis at dockside. When you give the Department a bad grade or raise a question mark over what it calls doing conservation-based management, does it implement your comments? Does it have all the necessary scientific data, based on the samples you have taken, to support its decision to increase the number of lobster fishing licences, for example, in the Newfoundland region?

[English]

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, the reference that I heard was to lobster, and I don't believe there was an increase. The lobster fishery has been a limited entry, and there hasn't been an increase in lobster. So I don't know if it's the translation that I'm picking up or....

Mr. Jacques Robichaud (Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): It was lobster that was cited, and there has been no increase in licences since 1979.

Mr. John O'Brien: Okay, there has not been an increase in the lobster fishery.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: However, there has been for the crab fishery. I may have chosen the wrong example, but new crab fishing licences were issued in the Newfoundland region.

[English]

Mr. John O'Brien: That is one of the issues we raised. But the issue we raised there was again not directly related to the issue of conservation; it linked back to the issue of the framework and what the department indicates it's trying to achieve.

For example, one of the objectives it talks about in its fishery of the future strategy is economic viability. The concern we raised there was the limited amount of crab that was allocated to individual fishers; from that amount of crab, it didn't appear that an individual could become economically viable.

The reason we cite that example is because we believe there are additional social objectives that the department appears to be trying to achieve that it's not clearly setting out in its policy framework or in its reporting to Parliament. So the objective we're trying to get here in reporting this is to point out the need for the department to identify more clearly exactly what it's trying to achieve in these fisheries after it makes conservation decisions. What are the social and economic factors? What does economic viability mean? What is its social responsibility? Those are the issues we're concerned about in that particular situation.

• 1600

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm looking for my examples. Since there aren't many this year to date, I'll have the opportunity to ask other questions.

Mr. Desautels, you pointed out that molluscs and crustaceans were managed in the same spirit as groundfish at the time, which led to the collapse of fish stocks. What are the main reasons why you issued this alarm? Was it the lack of support for decisions? I'm willing to believe that there is some sensitivity to the economic aspect, and we can see that at the political level, but are there points in your audit which would enlighten me on this aspect and that I should reread?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the main messages we're sending in our report, as Mr. Bernier has just said, are quite similar to those we have previously sent concerning groundfish. On the one hand, there is a certain degree of incoherence between the Department's official objectives and those it appears to be pursuing in practice. Is conservation a top priority or is it other objectives? We're not trying to make a political judgment here. We're simply saying that there is some inconsistency between the Department's official documents and what it does in practice.

We also note that some of the decisions are made on the basis of what may be considered somewhat incomplete information. As we say in our chapter, the Department is facing significant challenges with respect to the information it must have in order to make informed decisions.

The third thing we say, and we raised this for the first time in 1997, is that there are also problems that must be solved in the area of management of fisheries monitoring. These things strangely resemble points we raised in 1997. In particular, there is the fact that the Department was supposed to establish a clearer, more transparent policy. They told us in 1997 that they would eventually adopt one. Two years later, we are disappointed to note that the policy we expected still does not exist.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Okay. Coming back to my search for information to show that there are blanks in the information needed to support decisions on resource utilization. I'm talking about paragraph 18 of your presentation today. What are you referring to? I didn't cite the right example a moment ago when I talked about lobster. This scares me because I experienced the collapse of the groundfish stocks. I wouldn't want to go through that again.

[English]

Mr. John O'Brien: We do have some specific examples in the report where we point out concerns about information.

For example, the decisions in 1998 to increase both the northern shrimp fishery and the snow crab fishery were not supported by formal stock status reports. There was more informal advice used. The department's normal practice when assessing fisheries and increasing the resource allocated is to go through a formal process and have formal reports. So that's clear.

We raised some concerns about lack of information in the lobster fishery. The concerns essentially are that the department is implementing new conservation measures. I think the concern the department has expressed is whether it can determine whether those measures are going to be effective over the long term.

We also raised some concerns about issues related to the inshore scallop fishery in the Bay of Fundy. Some decisions that were made there contradict the advice of the science in terms of going into an area that it was believed would be used to regenerate the stock for the future. So, yes, there are some specific concerns we have about the use of information and about the amount of information that's available and used in certain decisions.

• 1605

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Bernier.

Mr. Myers, eight minutes, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Murray, I want to begin by picking up a bit on the question of the northern shrimp and the gulf snow crab, which I think we were talking about just a minute ago. I wanted to know why in 1997 and 1998 temporary allocations were approved for fishers and community-based people in this area, organizations and such, when in fact social objectives are not part of DFO's “fishery of the future” strategy? I was curious as to why that was the case and I wondered if you could enlighten me on that.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll ask Mr. Robichaud to give you the detailed response to the 1997-98 decision relative to crab. I think a number of the points that have been raised here I'd love to respond to.

In terms of the social factor, I think from a departmental perspective, conservation is key, and I'd be happy to have Mr. Powles indicate how we do reach conservation decisions in a scientific manner. After that, clearly economic and social factors are taken into account.

Economic viability is an effort to attempt to ensure that people in the industry have an adequate income to survive. But as in any decision in this democracy, ministers and those involved in the decision-making do take into account factors beyond the pure economic viability; otherwise we would presumably be heading towards one or two large enterprises on each coast.

Having said that, we also accept the points raised, and indeed the Auditor General's response, that we do have to be clearer and more transparent in that process so that people do have a basis for understanding. Ergo, the policy work that's underway on the east coast is meant to reflect to some extent what we've already launched on the west coast in a policy sense. We have I think four of what will be eight or nine policy papers out for discussion, so that the people in the industry and citizens at large have a good understanding of on what basis these decisions are being made. We're launching a similar policy process on the east coast to try to clarify some of those things.

We also accept comments by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans relative to being closer to the fishers.

So there's a great deal of internal work going on in terms of how we manage the department's strategic planning, business planning, and indeed an effort to devolve responsibilities to the region. Indeed, I'm leading a study to see how many of those responsibilities we can devolve to the areas to have the sort of dialogue that is essential in reaching the sorts of decisions you've raised.

The Chairman: Do you want Mr. Robichaud to give you more detail?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Perhaps briefly if that would be appropriate.

The Chairman: Yes, I would like to keep the answers quite brief.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: On the issue of sharing the resource, there was a tremendous increase in the cycle of the northern shrimp, and possibly some of the reasons that do not help in groundfish are the ones that help in shrimp. What occurred is that in light of the large increase, and the increase was going from 37,000 to 58,000, it was determined that the 17 licence holders' viability was around 39,000. So the issue was how do we share the resource? You could bring in new permanent entrants, but this is the mistake that was made for groundfish, so we didn't do that. A temporary form of access was looked at, whereby when the resource goes up you share and when it goes below the threshold it goes down.

On sharing, consultation was put forward on these principles: conservation will not be jeopardized; viability of the existing licence holders would not be put in jeopardy; and temporary sharing only. That's how the fish were shared among the various individuals from 1996 to 1997, and subsequently as well.

• 1610

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Desautels, given that information—and we know these were not new players, they were core players—when you talk in your report then of overcapacity in shellfish fisheries, is that in fact overstating the case? Or do you stand by that? What I'm getting at is if in fact shrimp and crab are short-lived in abundance, and it's cyclical, and if in fact there is a high value now on those products, which there is, I understand, would we not say then that these core fishers should be able to maximize a benefit to them in this fashion? Would that not seem reasonable? Perhaps, Mr. Desautels, you could comment.

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of issues here. Clearly if the stock is going to go up and there's going to be natural mortality, it makes sense to harvest the stock, to take it out of the water. The issues we're concerned about are issues of bringing in new vessels, of capital investment. That represents capacity; that represents a need for individuals, for the fishers, to make money, to get access to the resource. So the concern we have, and that we'd like the department to focus on over the longer term, is when you know the stock is going to blossom and go down and individuals are going to make long-term capital investments, there's a mismatch here between how long the stock is going to last and how long the capacity is going to be there. That's the concern we have.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, through you, I can get a quick response on that, because there seems to be a bit of a dichotomy here.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll kick it off and then I'll ask Jacques to—

The Chairman: Why don't you carry it all the way through, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray: The point I would like to make is there has not been an increase in the number of enterprises in Newfoundland since the core policy was adopted in 1996. There has been temporary access, as Jacques said, with a clear understanding by everyone that it is temporary, and in most cases we did relax the vessel rules, but that was largely for safety reasons. In other words, the crab and the shrimp fisheries are such that holding people to the size of vessels they had from a safety perspective didn't make sense. So that's the rationale for that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Excuse me, I want to understand the point. You're saying there are no new vessels in the Newfoundland region. Is that what you're saying? I recall, Mr. Chairman—I think it was in chapter 15 of the Auditor General's report of October 1997—that we were talking about something similar to this. It seemed to me that money had been spent, $85 million or so, to eliminate 1,300 groundfish licences, I think it was. But I've heard that there are increased vessels in the Newfoundland region.

Mr. Larry Murray: The vessels may have been replaced by new vessels—and that's where I say the rules on the vessel size were relaxed—

Mr. Lynn Myers: I see.

Mr. Larry Murray: —but the core enterprises have not increased. The other reality is that the buyback program of groundfish licences applies to all licences. So when we buy out 1,300 groundfish licences, we're buying out all their enterprise licences, all their crab licences, all the licences they have in these other fisheries as well. That's part of the deal. So the overall capacity goes down and it works towards the economic viability for those who are left.

The Chairman: One final question.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Murray, you raised the social and economic factors and I want to pursue that quickly.

I'll come back, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions later.

I want to understand why the department has indicated that it is not accountable or responsible for managing outcomes in these areas. First, is that in fact true? Second, if so, why is it?

Mr. Larry Murray: It's difficult in the context of a department our size to know exactly what we've said when, which confirms the need for us to be clearer and to have a policy framework so it's clearer to everyone. When we're talking about outcomes, I believe what we mean by that is we're not running HRDC. We're running an organization that is there to manage the fishery, to manage the fish, and to ensure that the industry remains viable in the future for as many human beings as possible. Obviously, the decisions the minister takes every day have a social impact, but the driving factor behind his decisions is not providing human beings with 10 weeks' work a year. It's to ensure there's a viable fishery and a way of life for those people who are in the industry. But it would be inaccurate to say that the minister doesn't agonize every day over decisions, and the sorts of decisions that have an impact on human beings, ergo, social decisions.

But I accept that we have not been clear on that, which is why the minister has launched the east coast policy review as well, so at least we can define for our own people and everyone else what the ground rules are in this business as precisely as possible. I suspect there will still be some grey around the edges.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers.

Mrs. Wayne, eight minutes, please.

• 1615

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much. It's nice to be back.

The last time I was here, Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General was dealing with the B.C. fishery. I asked him at that time if he was going to deal with the Atlantic fishery. He said “No, but I think we'll have to deal with it, though, because we're dealing with B.C.” So it is nice to see that they are dealing with the Atlantic fishery.

My first question is for Larry. Mr. Murray, I've had calls from our lobster fishermen back home from the Chance Harbour area, and they have major concerns. They asked me to get in touch with the chairman of the coalition, and I've been trying to, but he must be out lobster fishing because we can never get him at home. Have you been dialoguing with those men there? Are they having problems with a new quota or whatever you've set up just recently?

Mr. Larry Murray: From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, we may be talking about the increase in lobster carapace size, which the minister introduced last year as the first of a four-year program to double egg production. That did cause some concerns in various places, although at the end of the first season I believe there was a general comfort level because indeed the lobster intake was the same. But beyond that I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman. Maybe someone else has more information. If not, we will get back to you.

The Chairman: Please give a brief response, Mr. Robichaud.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: There's another possibility. The fishery has started earlier in some areas because of the ice conditions, and landing has not been as good in the first week. So that could be another possibility. That's all I can think of.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. Mr. Auditor General, at the end of your audit you raised some concerns about the department's financial arrangements with a fisher organization and its use of a specific purpose account. Could you please elaborate on those concerns and possibly comment on the department's response to them?

Mr. John O'Brien: The concern we have is with regard to the mechanisms the department has available to implement some of these co-management arrangements. It's fairly technical, but the department has established an account within the consolidated revenue fund called a specified purpose account. There are very specific rules for how that account is to be used.

The concern, basically, is that the department has stepped outside of those rules. I think the concern we have in that area is that there's a need for the department to have the means and mechanisms available to it to be able to fully implement co-management, to put these financial arrangements in place, and to comply with the rules established by the Treasury Board to manage them. That's the concern we have.

In terms of the response, I think it would be fair to say that the department does not fully agree with our point of view on that. Maybe the department should respond to that, but I think they feel that perhaps those arrangements are acceptable.

The Chairman: Do you want a response from the Department of Fisheries?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray: We did have a concern as well. We looked into it, and we have made some modifications for the future. In terms of whether or not it was legitimate and appropriate from our perspective, I believe our position would still be yes. But having said that, we do believe the concerns were correct and that we did need to adjust how we did it in order to make ourselves clearly more arm's length.

I don't know, Jacques, if you want to comment.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: There are two components in the elements when it comes to funding. There's one that pertains to agreements that are under the Financial Administration Act. There are rules that each co-manager agrees to follow, and that's under the SPA, as mentioned. Indeed, as you move through that, you progress and you learn.

The second component has to do with what the industry undertakes, such as if they undertake to help plant workers. At the beginning they were not structured for a year. At the beginning of the year we helped them, but we didn't handle the money per se or use it. Now they have the allocation of the resource. They get the funding, and then after that they invest in the programs they want to. So we're trying to keep it at arm's length.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The last issue I want to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is that the department has recently established a working group on the reform of the Atlantic fisheries policy. I would like to see clarification on the mandate of this working group and to obtain assurances from the department that its work will be completed on an urgent basis.

The Chairman: Would you like the department to table that with the committee, Mrs. Wayne?

• 1620

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes. Could they do that?

Mr. Larry Murray: I think, Mr. Chairman, it probably would be quite useful if we were to table the terms of reference and so on of the structure. Certainly, the minister has engaged his provincial colleagues. This will be becoming more evident in the public domain, and we intend to engage the industry. But I think it would be quite useful to give you all the details.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne also wanted an expected completion date.

Mr. Larry Murray: It is quite urgent from our perspective too, Mr. Chairman. We have taken some of our best people, including one of our key players on the west coast, and put them on this team, and we have given it top priority.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Can I just ask one little short question?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It appears that the department uses different methods to calculate the cost recovered from different fleets. Could you please tell me how you justify this?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I believe that would have to do with the licence fee.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: There are two different methods, one for a competitive fishery and one for an individual quota fishery, and it is calculated using different formulas. I won't go into details of the formulas, but essentially it's more for an individual quota because a person has additional benefit. He can fish at his own time, at his own pace, and so on. So the licence is of a different nature depending on whether it is competitive or individual quota.

Mr. Larry Murray: We've also been directed by the minister and have initiated a review of our licence fee structure as well, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'd like to hear from Mr. O'Brien on that, if I could.

Mr. John O'Brien: I believe, Mr. Chairman, the specific reference we have in here is the recovery of co-management fees and the different bases used. The understanding we had was that in some instances the department was recovering only incremental costs and in other instances it was recovering costs above incremental costs, whereas its policy was to recover only incremental costs. We believe part of the problem was that the department hadn't very clearly established what was incremental and what was core. So it's not exactly licence fees.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: If it's not licence fees and if that's the issue, it depends on the fishery. If you have science that is core activity and all your science resources are involved in other fisheries, under the agreement the industry may contribute to the science part of it if it's a new developing fishery we don't have on the books. That would be an example, and it's not the same for ongoing fisheries.

The Chairman: Thank you. It seems to me there's a bit of confusion there over what the AG is pointing out, that your regulations maybe aren't as finite and clear as possible.

I think your time is up, Mrs. Wayne. Now we'll go to a second round of four minutes per questioner. So we'll turn to Mr. Lunn for four minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to direct my comments this time to Mr. Murray. The Auditor General has raised a concern that there's this lack of framework or direction by the department as to where you're going or how you are at least able to portray that vision. This is not a new criticism. Again, it's one you heard a few years ago. Mr. Murray stated in his comments that he accepts many of the comments and recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and that he's participating in another study.

I'm just going to put this comment out there. We're writing another report in our committee right now, and I find it completely ironic that some of the recommendations might as well be taken word for word out of the east coast report.

Mrs. Wayne wanted to know if you were going to complete this in an urgent manner, and your response was that it is quite urgent.

Mr. Murray, you've been there for a long time. I want to focus on why the hell it takes so long to get anything done. No matter where we go, it's years and years, and the Auditor General has to come back two years later with the same criticisms. Why aren't these changes happening? Is it all smoke and mirrors? As my colleague from the Bloc stated, we hear the word “conservation” buzzed around in lots of publications, but is it there in reality? How do we expedite this process in order to make it happen a lot more quickly?

Mr. Larry Murray: From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, although I'm very proud to be part of DFO, where there are many dedicated, professional, and fine people, I've actually only been there a year and a half, so....

Mr. Gary Lunn: Oh, yes. You're correct.

Mr. Larry Murray: Putting that aside—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I remember your appointment. I apologize for that. I had you confused with Dr. Doubleday. My apologies.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'm very pleased to be part of DFO.

• 1625

In my response to Mr. Myers' question, Mr. Chairman, I tried to outline that there was a great deal of activity underway. I have a list in front of me of more than 18 or 20 things that have happened in the last year and a half. Indeed, dramatic things have happened, since Minister Anderson arrived, on both coasts. I accept that we're not there yet, but certainly there is significant movement on all fronts. Very difficult and demanding conservation decisions have been taken. Science capacity was mentioned; we're working very hard to increase our science capacity.

The Chairman: What kind of timeframes are we going to have?

Mr. Larry Murray: We're hiring 82 new scientists over the course of the next year.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Let me interrupt you right there, because I raised this in the House of Commons, and I want your comments on this.

The estimates have just come out for Fisheries and Oceans. The biggest cut to the entire department is in science. It's $52 million over three years, right in the estimates. It's 17% and is the single largest cut in the department. We get calls on a regular basis from both coasts, from people working right in DFO, from the scientists themselves, that they're concerned they don't have the resources to do their jobs.

You're telling us you're about to hire 82 scientists, and it's the biggest cut in the department. How do you reconcile these differences?

The Chairman: Let's hear what Mr. Murray has to say.

Mr. Larry Murray: I presume that has something to do with a program change, but I would like to have the opportunity to get back to the committee with a response to that. Certainly all I can say is that one of the top priorities that Minister Anderson has is rejuvenation of science.

We're spending $6.5 million out of our budget this year to hire new scientists. We are reaching out to universities. We're moving forward with a strategic plan.

The Chairman: Perhaps you can give us a report to reconcile the cut and the estimates and your statement that you're giving here.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'd like to have the opportunity to do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, is there anything else?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, that's fine.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Bernier, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would like to continue along the lines of Mrs. Wayne's remarks on the co-management fees that appear to be imposed on fishermen even though they are not provided for under the act.

On page 4.32, Mr. Desautels, there is a nice shaded table, and I would like you to comment once again on the matter of a solidarity fund. In my mind, that's a synonym for “social safety net”. What exactly is it? In the way Fisheries and Oceans manages, you have found evidence that fishermen are apparently forced to establish solidarity funds, but you don't see any link between that and resource management in conservation terms because that's their ideology. Second, you don't seem to see the legal basis for these actions. Could you comment?

[English]

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, those are many of the issues that we have a concern with, with the solidarity fund. The public documents...the information that has been provided is that these funds were to be set up at arm's length from the department. They were to be separate from the department. The announcement of the funds was that there was to be no departmental involvement.

The concern we have is that departmental officials were clearly involved in decisions of ensuring money was collected to go into these solidarity funds and then departmental officials were also involved in sitting on the boards of directors of these funds and helping make decisions on the use of the funds. Our concern in that is twofold. Essentially only Parliament can authorize the collection of a fee. This fee has not been authorized by Parliament, and yet in fact departmental officials are heavily involved in ensuring that the funds are collected.

The second issue is the fact that the department is reporting that it's operating at arm's length from these funds, and therefore there's little accountability within the department for actually how these funds are being used and spent. So those are the two concerns we have with the operation of those funds.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I understand your view of the matter, Fisheries and Oceans did not have legal authority to force this money to be collected and does not appear to be able to manage it or does not have the tools to do so. This is not provided for in the act; that's what I'm reading and I would like to understand this. I would then like to have Fisheries and Oceans' reaction.

• 1630

[English]

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, the concerns that are raised are the concerns we have. The only body that can say this is illegal or not authorized is in fact a court of law. But we clearly have concerns about the way the department has been involved in the collection of this. We could find no legal authority that gave the department the authority to ensure that these funds were collected. Indeed, everything the department has put forward has indicated that these funds had no official direct connection with the department.

Yet when we went out and looked into the audit, we could see clearly that the department was involved in ensuring the fee was collected from fisher groups by not authorizing the transfer of quota to individuals until the fee was paid into a bank account, then not permitting the authorization of the transfer of those funds from the bank account to the solidarity fund until the solidarity funds had established goals and objectives to the satisfaction of DFO officials. Then in certain instances DFO officials were involved actually in decisions made to expend funds from solidarity funds. So we have concerns about that, both from the point of view of the law and the point of view of accountability.

The Chairman: Mr. Murray, are you going to respond to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: As I indicated earlier, the industry specifically requested at the outset that the Department gather funds until structures had been put in place.

Second, the purpose of an individual's participation was to obtain a technical view because the funds were intended for the purchase of goods to extend plant work. I indicated that the allocation of 2,125 tonnes was made this year to an entity which will have to handle everything; the Department will not be collecting any funds.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier.

[English]

Mr. Myers, four minutes, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want the department to talk a little bit about monitoring, control, and enforcement. The Auditor General, on page 22, paragraph 4.66, indicates that there is—well, he puts it pretty strongly—“a lack of co-ordination” in this area. I wondered what response you had to that. What strategy do you have to deal with what the Auditor General points out is a problem?

Mr. Larry Murray: I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that we agree in general terms with the Auditor General's concern in this area and have taken a number of steps prior to this report and have plans in the future to do that.

We have implemented a national recruitment strategy for fisheries officers and are hiring 96 new fisheries officers over the course of last year and this year. We're developing new training courses in forensic auditing, and in fact have had some successes in the eastern part of the country and are expanding that into the western part of the country. We've increased operating budgets for conservation and protection to the extent we can. In the last few years we have acquired new surveillance equipment, computers, and patrol boats.

That's not to say we're there yet. Indeed, we share the Auditor General's concern with regard to integration and are working on a system we are calling integrated monitoring control surveillance and so on, in which we take all our various inputs, be they observer reports.... Indeed, we're examining observer reports this year as well in response to both the Auditor General's concerns and our own in this area. But basically we're trying to come up with a system where we take fisheries officers' reports, dockside monitoring reports, observer reports, and whatever information we acquire from these things, and integrate it all and ensure that fisheries officers at the coal face across the country have access to all of that.

So there are a number of activities underway. We're not there yet, but we think we have had some recent successes in the last year or so. But there's a ways to go, and part of it is professionalism as well.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Now, Mr. Murray, speaking of reports, I want to talk a little bit about at-sea monitoring. I noted the Auditor General in paragraph 4.74, on page 24, talks about the different coverage targets, especially existing for fleets fishing the same stock. I'm a little unclear on that. I wondered if you could elaborate as to why that's the case. What's happening in this area? It seems a little bit inconsistent.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: First, the monitoring control, and surveillance is all part of an integrated management plan. It is negotiated and discussed within the department and with the industry. It's a suite of measures, depending on the level of control you have at dockside—weighing the fish and sampling—and what you have at sea can vary even from the north of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the south. If the industry opts for 100% in one area at dockside, you can have 5% observers at sea. It is a mix of components that is used to have effective monitoring, control, and surveillance. There is also air surveillance, boarding, and so on. So it can vary from one fishery to another, and it's done in discussion with the stakeholders.

• 1635

Mr. Lynn Myers: Okay, thank you very much.

I want to move on to co-management. I'm very interested in that. Is this in fact a downloading to the industry of some of the cost? Is that really what's happening here? Is that what's at stake?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Co-management is based on three principles: one, a greater say of stakeholders in the management of their fishery; two, shared accountability and responsibility for objectives such as conservation of the resource, sound management, and so on; and three, sharing of benefits and costs. There is co-management where there is no sharing of dollars, where the industry is not contributing, such as the East Port lobster in Newfoundland. There are no dollars paid by the industry. It's up to both sides that come together at the table to decide. And it is voluntary. No co-management is imposed on anyone.

Mr. Lynn Myers: To the Auditor General—Mr. Chairman, I know my time's running short—we're moving, then, as I understand it, from a command-and-control traditional method into this co-management area.

You point out in paragraph 4.99 on page 28 that you have real concerns with this. I'm looking at your concerns and I'm saying, okay, I understand some of that. In light of what the department's saying and what you've heard today, do you see any benefits?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we've also referred to the need—I can't find the exact paragraph—for the department to move away from micromanagement and to very much be involved in it. So we do in fact believe that co-management has some real potential to improve fisheries management. But again, the issues come back to getting the mechanisms in place to clearly define what the roles and responsibilities of each party are and to hold the parties accountable when they engage in a co-management agreement.

But, yes, in principle we think there is some real potential there to help get stakeholders involved, to help them get much more involved in making the decisions, and to have a real commitment.

In principle, certainly we support the idea.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That's very encouraging, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important to note that.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Myers and Mr. O'Brien.

Ms. Wayne, you have four minutes, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

I would like to ask, Mr. Murray, with regard to the seals—we know the seals are playing a major role when it comes to the cod—do they have any impact on the shellfish?

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll ask Mr. Powles to answer that, since he's an expert on shellfish.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

Mr. Howard Powles (Acting Director, Fisheries Research Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm trying to remember the numbers. We always get asked about seals and cod, but we hardly ever get asked about seals and shellfish. They do eat shrimp—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. Howard Powles: —and I can't remember what the proportion is. The total consumption by seals of all fish in the Atlantic waters of Canada is something around 4.5 million tonnes a year. I just can't remember what proportion of that is shrimp. I don't believe they eat crab. Fishermen tell us that they eat lobsters, that they see them eating lobster, but we find no evidence of that in the stomach contents. It's probably a fairly small proportion, if anything, of their diet. But it's very visible when the fishermen see it, so of course they take it to heart.

But I believe the consumption of shellfish is a small proportion of the diet. It's mostly fish.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm hoping that if you're engaging 82 scientists, some of them are going to take a look at this. And I say this because when I went to the UN meetings with Brian Tobin in New York City—they had to do with overfishing at the 200-mile limit—we had a private meeting prior to going in and I brought forth a lot of stats and information that I had with regard to the seals and what they were doing to the fishery. At that time, Brian asked me to please not get into this, because they were trying to deal with overfishing. I kept it out, but the people who were in that room that night from our embassy agreed with me totally. They said it is something that someone is going to have to have the courage to address.

• 1640

I pray to God, Howard, that you and some of the scientists are going to address it, because if it's the shrimp and if it's some of the lobsters....

There is a problem, as you know, with the whole fishery, whether it's shellfish or otherwise. When I look out my window at home...never before have I seen this. When I'm sitting at the Hilton Hotel in the restaurant and I see seals all over the place...that never was there before.

Also, the Irvings built a beautiful nature park back home. Mother of God, you want to go down and just sit there and take a look! I'm telling you, those seals....

Greenpeace can go home, okay? We'll give them a cup of coffee, because it's about time we had enough courage to stand up for the fishermen. We have to do it, Mr. Chairman. We really and truly do.

So I pray that your department will look at the role that the seals are playing when it comes to the Atlantic shellfish industry as well.

The Chairman: In addition to praying, Elsie, do you want to ask them if they're going to follow through on that?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes. I'm asking, Mr. Chairman. I'm back again, so I'm asking that you really look at it and please report your findings back to us.

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, as I think you're aware, the minister is considering recent recommendations from the FRCC as well in this area, and I'm sure he will be coming forward fairly publicly. We do have some more detail, and we understand the concern.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: But for more detail, a series of endeavours have been taken on this year, along with a complete survey of the seal population, as well as the study of the consumption, with international experts, and so on, including some of the representatives from these groups, all of it to lead to a new policy for DFO in the fall, after we have the data from the survey, and so on.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On that, Mr. Chairman, I saw a video—I don't know if everyone saw it—from the fishermen from Newfoundland with regard to cod. As you know, they put divers down there. If we do the same thing when it comes to the Atlantic shellfish and put the divers down there, we're going to be able to see.

They have it right on video. It was heart wrenching to see what was happening when it came to the cod, because some of the fish were coming on shore and trying to get out of the water to get away from the seals. I could not believe it when I saw on that video what the seals were doing. If they're doing the same thing to some of our Atlantic shellfish, then we have to address it, and we have to have the courage to do it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

If the seals are consuming 4.5 million tonnes of biomass, whatever that may be—most of that is harvested, or could have been harvested—I think that's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.

But looking at the Auditor General's report, I find throughout here...for example, in paragraph 4.20:

In the 1998-99 Report on Plans and Priorities, none of the expected results for fisheries management refer to the Department's overall economic objectives.

In the next paragraph, he says:

These objectives are not fully reflected in the Department's 1998-99 Report on Plans and Priorities.

The document refers to the Fishery of the Future strategy.

It goes on in paragraph 4.24 to say:

The purpose of these temporary allocations was to strengthen or support initiatives by the organizations....

And it isn't happening properly.

In paragraph 4.25, he says:

In other lucrative shellfish fisheries, however, no attempt has been made to engineer a sharing of the fishery's wealth.

I'm concerned about the leadership in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because I remember when I first came down here the Auditor General pointed out that he felt that DFO did not have the authority under a specific act to downsize the fisheries. Then we had the collapse of the stocks of the codfish. Now he's saying we have the collapse of the shellfish, and you're telling me you're only going to start with a working group to reform Atlantic fisheries policy. It's ten years overdue at least, I would think, to get some focus on the planning.

Let me ask a few questions. I'm looking at the diagram on page 4-14, where it talks about the allocation of the northern shrimp quota. It says:

For example, prior to 1997 there were 17 licence holders fishing Northern shrimp...with a total allowable catch of 11,050 tonnes. In 1998 there were an additional 300 licence holders...with an additional total allowable catch of 35,000 tonnes.

• 1645

I did the math. So the 17 licence holders can catch 650 tonnes each, and the 300 new licensees are entitled to catch a maximum of 116 tonnes each, which is about one-fifth of 20%. Are the 300 licensees going to go home poor or the 17 very rich? Which is it?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: First of all, the 17 existing licence holders are harvesting via factory freezer trawlers, large vessels. They require a large amount of fish to be viable. As a matter of fact, for the 17 licence holders, the threshold is around 37,000 metric tonnes.

The Chairman: So you're saying there are 17 large operations and 300 small ones. So they're both viable.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: The 300 small ones are very small vessels that bring the shrimp onshore for processing.

The Chairman: What you're saying is 116 tonnes makes them viable.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: There's no difficulty. Secondly, I would like to reiterate—it was not mentioned—that those 300 licences are issued on a temporary basis, on a yearly basis. The 17 are regular licences.

The Chairman: We've talked about volatility, and we're talking here about the northern shrimp. I understand that shrimp are a volatile resource, and we're going to give these extra 35,000 tonnes of catch, which is way up from what it used to be just some years ago. Are we going to risk the viability of these 17 large factory ships?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: As a matter of fact, right now, in 1999, there's 96,000 tonnes in the overall catch, the overall allocation.

The Chairman: So you've gone from 11,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes to 96,000 tonnes?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: That's right. It was 37,000 tonnes in 1996. Now it's 96,000 tonnes, on scientifically based advice and consultation.

The Chairman: So how many extra licences have you granted now?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: It's still the same 300 licences.

The Chairman: So they're really going to be raking it in now then. If they're viable with 116,000 tonnes and you've given them three times more catch, they're going to be a lot better off, right?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: The 17 licence holders have received additional amounts as well.

The Chairman: Do you agree with this type of allocation, Mr. Desautels, that it seems to be feast or famine, where they get next to nothing or they get a whole bunch, and yet it's all restricted as to who can and cannot fish?

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer that question.

I think there are a couple of issues here. Clearly, the biology of the species, the blossom, is going to drive this decision, in part. So it's hard to argue with that as a decision. The concerns we have with this are, as we mentioned earlier, that you're going to get a blossom with the stock, and on the other hand, people are going to have to make long-term capital investments.

In an earlier response there was discussion about licences and taking licences out. As we pointed out in the chapter, licences aren't necessarily the best measure of capacity. Capacity involves a whole bunch of things. It involves vessels; it involves better vessels; it involves investment and capitalization. So you have this issue of balancing how the stock is going to last and how long it's going to survive versus permanent capacity and permanent investment—long-term investment.

The Chairman: So if we restrict this huge blossoming of supply to 300 extra licensees who are now entitled to participate, they're going to get into major capital investment to take advantage of this huge extra supply, and then, when it's gone, they're left high and dry—pardon the pun. Is that about right?

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I would use the term “high and dry”, but clearly the concern we have is—-

The Chairman: Okay, “shallow water”.

Mr. John O'Brien: I may be getting in over my head.

Clearly the concern we have in this is that as individuals invest in the fishery, there is a long-term expectation that they are going to make a reasonable return.

The Chairman: Mr. Murray, you're saying small vessels, not huge capital investment. We have hundreds of fishermen down there in that part of the world who are desperate for income, and surviving on TAGS and next to nothing else. Why would you restrict it to 300 licensees to have three times the income rather than letting more people get in with small capital investment, rather than encouraging a few people to get into big capital investment knowing it's going to disappear?

• 1650

Mr. Larry Murray: That's almost the other side of the question, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make the point, in relation to capacity reduction, that we agree it's only part of controlling the fishery. The other parts are these temporary licences only.

The Chairman: But temporary means—

Mr. Larry Murray: They're based on a precautionary scientific approach and they're based on conservation measures being taken when possible. In terms of the number of licences, as Mr. Robichaud indicated, there is a framework for these decisions—

The Chairman: I know there's a framework, but my point was—

Mr. Larry Murray: —and it includes an adjacency requirement for safety reasons.

The Chairman: My point was that if you can grant a licence with a permit of 116 tonnes for these 300 licensees, as the Auditor General pointed out, and now you've bumped that up to 96,000 tonnes—according to Mr. Powles, this is based on good science, that you can catch this amount—why wouldn't you let more fishermen participate rather than letting these 300 fishermen licensees catch three times more tonnage?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Simply, Mr. Chairman, that is the size of the fleet that can harvest this resource. I'm not talking about getting big trawlers. You need a certain size of vessel to harvest shrimp. It's not the same as for lobster. If you let more, they would do exactly what you were indicating. They would have to buy new vessels, have a capital investment, and how could you be on a temporary basis then?

The Chairman: Okay. Let me get confirmation. Do they have to buy new vessels and all that stuff to participate in this program?

Mr. John O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, it's our understanding that there was significant capital investment with new vessels and new equipment to gear up for this, yes.

The Chairman: So we can expect some very significant income by these people in the meantime, and we know the income is going to disappear. Are you talking to the Minister of Finance, for example, to get some income averaging, like the farmers have, so that they can save now and use it during the lean years? Or what's your policy when the lean years arrive?

Mr. Larry Murray: The intent of the core licensing policy is to produce fishers with multi-enterprise licences, in other words fishing several species, so that they do have the ability to make a credible living through various fishing enterprises, various licences, various species. That is the intent, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: But do you consider these 300 core, or are they temporary licences?

Mr. Larry Murray: They had to have a core licence to be able to compete for these licences. In other words, these are people who had core enterprises and chose to stay in the fishery and not take the licence retirement.

The Chairman: Changing the subject to making decisions based on societal needs rather than good science, the Auditor General is pointing out numerous instances where you seem to be taking the socio-economic instances into consideration, as well as trying to go with good science. But socio-economic considerations are not in your mandate. How do you respond to that? How do you respond to the Auditor General's criticism that you are taking socio-economic factors into consideration?

Mr. Larry Murray: I would say, first of all, the minister takes conservation and science into consideration in every case.

The Chairman: Of course.

Mr. Larry Murray: But Mr. Powles can give some more details on that.

The Chairman: But my point was that I'm not talking about the science; I'm saying your mandate as DFO is to leave the socio-economic to HRDC, and yet when you continue to have these experimental fisheries for no reason whatsoever.... He has pointed out in exhibit 4.3 three instances where the resource allocation seems to have been reflecting social objectives. So why are you taking social objectives into consideration if it's not your mandate, or are you going to make it part of your mandate? Which is it?

Mr. Larry Murray: In the context of the ongoing policy review, we accept...and I believe the Auditor General has been clear. He is not saying that taking social considerations into account is a wrong or a bad thing to do. It just needs to be more transparent and clearer to everyone what the ground rules are. I believe this is what the Auditor General is saying, and we accept that.

When we use the term “economic viability”, we're talking about producing a fishery that is environmentally sustainable and provides stable incomes to those remaining in the fishery. Clearly, allocation decisions, after conservation is taken into account, do put the minister in the position of having to take decisions that do have social impacts on people and on communities.

• 1655

The Chairman: Mr. Desautels, do you have something to add? Are you in agreement with Mr. Murray's statement that they do have to, in the final analysis, have some socio-economic decision-making?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's essentially correct, and I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that I have no fundamental objection to that. My problem was that there was a contradiction between some official documents put forward by the department and statements made in their own reports to the House that did not really say this. But it is a known fact, as we point out in the chapter, many of their decisions do include socio-economic factors.

As I said, I have no fundamental objection to that. I just want the mandate clarified through a proper framework that would make it clear to everyone.

The Chairman: So we know where we stand.

On the snow crab fishery, again we seem to have two different kinds of licensees, and some getting into again the issue of your mandate. I quote paragraph 4.31:

In general, economic viability means that those engaged in an activity receive sufficient returns to stay in business, and enjoy a “reasonable” living without subsidies from government.

That's the Auditor General's quote.

When I take a look at the diagram on page 4-13, where he's talking about the new entrants to the snow crab fishery getting a quota as low as one tonne, I believe, which will generate maybe $3,000 in revenue. It's hard to live on $3,000 these days.

Mr. Robichaud.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: As Mr. Murray indicated, when we did the policy review across the whole Atlantic, industry favoured a multi-licence approach. The resource is limited, so if you can allocate a fisherman who has a little lobster, a little capelin fishery—there's no cod, but maybe some lumpfish—and that fisherman, who operates a 25-foot boat, gets a few tonnes, those few tonnes are quite good for him. It is temporary. It is seasonal. It is only maybe good for a year, and that's a typical example of what happened to zone 12 crab. We shared temporarily for one year, and the stock went down below a threshold, and we have not shared for two years. Those fishermen don't have it for two years. If it goes up, there will be sharing. That's how it works.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, four minutes, please.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to focus on the science and Mr. Murray's comments, because I am very troubled by them.

The Auditor General has raised questions as to whether in fact there's actually scientific data for these decisions. At least—and I stand to be corrected—there seems to be difficulty as to whether there's actually the data.

Mrs. Wayne has brought up this issue with the seals, and you yourself, or one of your colleagues, stated 4.5 million tonnes. One of your own scientists before the committee has stated 4.5 million tonnes—not four and a half but something of that magnitude. He talked in similar kinds of numbers when you do the math. Yet we understand the population at last count was 4.8 million seals, and the largest fishery ever in the history of Canada in the Atlantic coast was 1.7 million tonnes. So the seals were eating, in other words, three times as many fish as the fishermen ever caught in the history of Canada.

It's beyond me. It's beyond comprehension that we're going into the next millennium and we still don't really know what the seals eat or how much and we're not able to address this problem.

But I want to bring all of that back. It all boils down to science. Mr. Murray comes very quickly out and says “We're hiring 82 new scientists”, etc. I'm reading right from the estimates that were just released this March, signed off by the minister. Obviously they're very current. I'm on page 24: “Fisheries and Ocean Science”, and this is to provide fisheries management, the industry, and the interested public with a reliable scientific basis. It goes on and on, for marine, freshwater fisheries, etc. Here are their budgets: this year, $125.5 million; next year, $115.7 million; the next year $104.8 million; the next year $103.9 million. Then it goes into the key plans and strategies. Again, the ink's hardly dry on this document, and all of a sudden now you're telling me there's no mention in here about these 82 new scientists.

• 1700

I wonder about your credibility when you start making these statements that we're going to have 82 new scientists and all this new scientific data, yet the numbers are going down. Nowhere in the estimates is it even mentioned. So I ask for your comments on that, and I would like the Auditor General's as well.

On one quick point before you start on that. How many scientists are in your department right now?

Mr. Larry Murray: In round figures, I believe we have approximately 2,000 personnel in the science sector of the department. I'd want to confirm that. That includes support staff, technicians, and scientists.

To clarify your first question about the estimates, the reason for the reduction in the science funding you've referred to is the fact that the minister decided to establish an ocean sector that included habitat science and environmental science. In other words, there was a transfer of scientific staff and some policy people from the science sector to the ocean sector, to ensure we moved forward and could report to Parliament in a year or so on a coherent overall oceans management strategy that tied all these various pieces together. So it's not a reduction in science capability; it's a reorganization.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Excuse me, are you talking about the environmental science?

Mr. Larry Murray: I'm talking about your original point in the last round about the reduction and also—

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's right. But you've just stated he's created this other sector. Is that the environmental science side?

Mr. Larry Murray: No. The ocean sector includes environmental science, habitat, and an oceans strategy secretariat.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Those numbers are here as well, and again, that's on the habitat and environmental science side. They're going up by $8 million and on the other side they're going down by $17 million. You still have a reduction.

Mr. Larry Murray: Exactly, because the people in the resources who are in the first $8 million have transferred to the second $8 million, so there has not been a reduction in the science capacity. It's a transfer to another sector to provide a more coherent focus and move forward as a Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's part of the reorganization issues we talked about earlier, to try to bring a better overall strategic focus to the department.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Are they 82 new positions, or are you getting rid of some of the old deadwood and getting some new scientists in there? What's going on here?

Mr. Larry Murray: I would take some umbrage to referring to very dedicated scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as deadwood. In my time there, they have done a superb job for many years, and they're certainly not deadwood.

Mr. Gary Lunn: But is it through attrition that these 82...? Are they filling existing positions or are these new positions?

Mr. Larry Murray: We intend to carry additional scientists above normal complement, if necessary, to rejuvenate, so we have the intellectual talent in place, because it takes time for people to learn about the nature of some of these—

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Murray, but I still didn't get Mr. Lunn's answer. Is this an extra 82 or a replacement 82?

Mr. Larry Murray: Some are additional and I believe some are replacements. I would have to confirm that. But they're being funded over and above...out of the hide of the department, in other words.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Desautels wants to make a point.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I thought Mr. Lunn also wanted me to comment.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I would like your comments with respect to this.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'd like to make a more general comment on the whole science and technology area. Chapter 9 in our April report dealt with the management of scientific personnel. In there we say that through the program review exercise across government in the six major science departments there was a loss of about 5,000 people. On average, they were young people and people with the most experience.

The Canadian government at this stage has an objective or need to find 3,000 new science people over the next five years. Fisheries and Oceans is part of those figures. So it's more than a Fisheries and Oceans challenge. I think the whole federal government has a challenge, in terms of renewing its science and technology personnel.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier, please.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I understand they're having trouble managing the fisheries if they're finding it hard to answer on the matter of the 82 scientists who were hired. These people could all fit into the room. Imagine the problem they have if they find it hard to identify them.

Coming back to Mr. Robichaud's remarks, I'll ask Mr. Desautels to tell me if I correctly understood.

• 1705

Mr. Robichaud says that, with respect to this year's solidarity plan, the Department will comply with the spirit of the auditor's remarks by appointing a company to manage the plan. Aren't they doing with their left hand what you have prohibited them from doing with the right, that is to say creating another agency?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, if I have correctly understood Mr. Robichaud's remarks, he was saying that the situation we identified and reported on was, in his view, a temporary situation. This mechanism was used because there were no other structures to achieve that purpose. Mr. Robichaud told us that, in future, there will be mechanisms or agencies independent of the government which will continue what was started this year. That's what I understood from Mr. Robichaud's explanation. We were told that the situation we raised is temporary and should not occur again in future.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Desautels, if the government writes in its management plan that, to April 1, fishermen will be allocated 12,400 tonnes of crab and then says three weeks later that, for 2,125 of the 12,000 tonnes, there will have to be a new management plan, a new agency and new fees, this means once again that the Department has its hand on the tiller. Aren't they doing with the left hand what you wrapped their knuckles for doing with the right? That's what I'm wondering. You say it's voluntary, but that's not true; if the fees aren't paid, they aren't entitled to fish the 2,000 tonnes. I'm trying to understand.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer on the Department's behalf as to what it intends to do in future. We observed that this mechanism was not consistent with standards of an independent mechanism at arm's length from the government. I hope that what they propose to do in future will have these characteristics, that it will really be an organization at arm's length from the government. This may be seen if we go back and look at it; in the meantime, the Department may be able to provide certain assurances.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The Department appears to be ready to react.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: The Department is indeed ready to react.

From the start, when the total eligible catches are announced, the industry wants a quantity to be identified for co-management. The figure of 2,125 tonnes was made public. Then 130 of the 160 fishermen in five organizations said they wanted to do the identification. They're the ones who will manage and they'll simply identify the fishermen and the allocation. We have no idea of the amounts of money, whether it's for co-management, protection or any other element.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: What about the other 30 fishermen? You said 130 out of 160 fishermen; that means that the other 30 don't agree. What happens then? They're no longer entitled to the 2,125 tonnes, even if they've been allocated to them in the first 12,000 tonnes?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: They're entitled to the first amount. For the second amount, the principle is that, when you have a large majority in co-management, which is normally 70% or more, it takes precedence.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Okay. So you know the facts, Mr. Chairman, and for Mr. Desautels, I will say that, when we try to bring together people from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, we're involving four provinces, and I haven't mentioned Nova Scotia. We're going to call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. I want to talk about the solidarity that is established based on the number of weeks people will have to work or try to work. How can we ask people to take responsibility for the social safety net when a second responsibility is imposed on them? When I want to help the unemployed worker next door to me, I do that through my taxes, but, in this case, we're asking fishermen to take care of plant workers and help them become eligible for employment insurance. I mentioned the four provinces. How can we function in a standardized way when the number of weeks may vary from region to region? The evidence of this is that the number of hours required to be eligible for employment insurance in Gaspé has just changed. It's no longer 420 hours that are required, but 455 hours. In a company, how will this arrangement be adjusted to take the social aspect into account? How can you manage to unify this kind of thing?

• 1710

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have Mr. Robichaud respond, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it's very simple. The idea of contributing to a solidarity fund was announced publicly by five organizations from four different provinces. When they made the idea public, they had consulted each other and were familiar with the considerations of the community. The management of this fund is their responsibility and not the Department's. They publicly agreed to do it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Myers, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening—

The Chairman: I think Mr. O'Brien wants to say something, Mr. Myers.

Mr. John O'Brien: I want to follow this up a little bit.

The concern we have is quite clear. As the legislative auditors acting on behalf of Parliament, it's Parliament that has the authority to impose fees on fishers and other individuals; it's not departmental officials. In effect, what we're seeing here is departmental officials being involved in approving the transfer of quota from one body to another, contingent upon the collection of fees. That's the concern that we have and the concern that we believe has to be addressed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Myers, sorry about that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening closely when Mr. Desautels responded with respect to the problem we're finding in the federal government with respect to scientists, and I think the point was made, and made very effectively.

As you know, we have our chapter 9, and we've heard repeatedly from other government departments, be it in accounting, be it in computers, be it in good management, or wherever, that we're losing. We often take our federal civil service for granted. You know, these are very good people.

I didn't like the term “deadwood”. I thought it was a gratuitous comment. That having been said, it seems to me that we should in fact be celebrating what the fishery department is doing, because, as I understand it, they're leading a working group in this very area to try to see what we can do in this all-important area of recruiting and bringing good scientists into the federal government. Here we see that we're losing people who are retiring, and some of the younger people are going to better jobs in the private sector and such.

So I think we need to give the department an opportunity, for the record, if for no other reason, to state the fact that they're taking a lead on this important file. I'd like to hear that, because I think it's very important. This, as you know, is of very grave concern for all Canadians, the fact that we're losing this kind of talent and it's hard to get it back. So I'd like to hear the comment on this.

The Chairman: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray: That is in fact correct. We certainly share what Mr. Desautels has said, as well as what Mr. Myers has said. We are heavily involved in a government-wide science and technology initiative, and we indeed are leading the working group that's dealing with rejuvenation and recruiting. As I said, we are recruiting intensively ourselves, and I will clarify for the committee the exact status of the new scientists and technicians.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That's very good. That's a very important area, and we wish you well in that.

I want to go to section 4.104, on the specified purpose account. As I understand it, the Auditor General said it's not consistent with Treasury Board policy. Is there an explanation for that? I wonder if you could respond to that.

Mr. Larry Murray: We'll kick off perhaps. Actually, going second is probably preferable, so go ahead.

The Chairman: Mr. Robichaud.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll ask Mr. Robichaud to respond and then, I'm sure, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Again, in the co-management, there is a component that is called a joint project agreement, for both parties to sign, the department and the stakeholder, the fisher and his group. We need to sign an agreement. We use the Financial Administration Act.

The approach you use is a special purpose account, and essentially the policy requires that the salary be directly charged to the SPA while the pay process, the payroll, and so on.... The transfer in general is done.

• 1715

An interdepartmental working group was established by Treasury Board Secretariat to address this and other administrative issues involving the SPA. As a result, TBS has indicated that they will be releasing an amendment to the SPA policy in the near future so that the approach we're using will be closer to the special purpose account.

Mr. Lynn Myers: All right, that answers the question.

Mr. Chairman, I have two final questions. I want to get to the whole notion of resource-use decisions. I want to understand, and I want the department's view on this in terms of the appropriateness, and more to the point, the desirability, of having biological reference points and conservation guidelines in this important area.

It seems to me you must consult widely with stakeholders, fishers, and other people in this area. I'd like to hear your comments, because I think that's an important area, and I think it's been presented by everyone here today. I'd like to hear your comments on that.

Mr. Larry Murray: We agree, Mr. Chairman, with that concern and that issue and do propose to establish such reference points falling out of the review I've mentioned. I might ask Mr. Powles to add a little technical detail around that.

The Chairman: Mr. Powles.

Mr. Howard Powles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the need for biological targets objectives and reference points has been recognized for quite a while. We have them for many fisheries already. We're trying to refine the ones we have and develop them for the fisheries that don't have them. This is an ongoing process; it's part of the implementation of the precautionary approach. For example, for lobster, the FRCC report, which did involve a lot of consultation with stakeholders and scientists and was published in 1995, put forward this reference point of the egg production—egg per recruit reference point—where they recommended it reach a certain level relative to an unfished population. The minister's decision on better, stronger conservation measures for lobsters was based on a similar type of reference point. That decision was announced in 1997.

This fall we hope to have a workshop on snow crab and look at what we can do in the way of reference points for the snow crab populations. For shrimp we're a little bit further away, I'd say. We need to establish reference points for shrimp as well. We have them for groundfish. We're looking at new ones for groundfish, mainly in either limit and target fishing mortality rates or abundance levels that have to be maintained.

So this is an ongoing process, and we continue.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, do you have specific timelines or targets in place for when you hope these reference points and data are assembled, in whatever form is appropriate? Or is that just simply ongoing, as you point out?

Mr. Howard Powles: It's really ongoing. We had the F0.1 reference point for groundfish, which remains one of the reference points. We've had that one for 10 or 15 years. It's not a perfect one, but it's one we can use for reference. The Pacific herring is a lovely example of use of reference points. There we've had fishing mortality and abundance targets for 15 years as well, I would say.

The invertebrates are a little harder to assess, because you can't age them the way you can age fish. It's a little harder to assess abundance and fishing mortality. We are using the tools we have to set them up. It's more of an ongoing process, I would say. As we develop tools and get data and analytical methods, we move forward on this.

Mr. Lynn Myers: This is my final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Desautels, in the report, on page 16, paragraph 4.41, it points out that the amendments to the Fisheries Act have not yet come forward. I'd be interested in knowing why that's the case, where we're at, and when we can look forward to some movement in that area.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the minister has stated, I think last week, and certainly to his provincial colleagues, there were concerns expressed about aspects of where we were going with the new Fisheries Act, recognizing that it had come forward twice, and he commissioned a study under Dr. Donald Savoie to look at this whole concept. Dr. Savoie came back with quite a comprehensive report and the recommendation to the minister that he felt it was too soon to move forward with panelling. He felt it very definitely had considerable merit and that the department's work in co-management should move forward.

The panelling and the co-management provisions are key elements of the new Fisheries Act. In that context, the minister has decided to proceed with this policy review urgently, as I have suggested, to pursue further consultation and discussion with the industry to determine their perspective, because there are concerns and there needs to be further dialogue. As soon as that is over, I believe the minister would reconsider moving forward with amendments to the Fisheries Act. But it's really a question of further dialogue and sorting out some of the policy issues before a new Fisheries Act comes forward.

• 1720

The Chairman: We have a final question from Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would like to come back to one point, but perhaps not on the same tone. I'd like to help everyone, but I would like to understand what the Department means when it says it is going to take a portion of the crab resource and allow other small fishermen, such as the lobster fishermen, to fish it. Gentlemen from Fisheries and Oceans, isn't this acknowledging that these people need a supplementary income? If so, which of your tools can you use to determine whether these fishermen who ask to fish the resource were really in need?

I know that Mr. Robichaud has vast experience in the fisheries field. Why were individual quotas established for crab nine years ago? Wasn't it precisely to help fishermen who had problems? My implied question here is that: if you have no tangible evidence...

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: ...concerning lobster, why are you now giving them crab?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Robichaud.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: With respect to the sharing of lobster between those who must have the resource, among various components, people must be members of the core of the fishery and there are certain priorities, such as dependence on groundfish only and then other species.

The level is established to ensure the fishermen's viability. To prevent any one group from getting into difficulty, once this level if achieved, there is no more sharing, as we've seen these past two years in the Gulf of St. Lawrence crab fishery. When the established level is reached, the temporary sharing stops. This was different in the case of groundfish; there were 19,000 licence holders and steps had to be taken to reduce that number to 12,000. These people were permanent fishermen. In this case, these are temporary fishermen. When the resource declines to a certain level—and we have concrete examples of this—these people stop fishing.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

I'll just make one final comment before I ask the Auditor General for his closing remarks. He mentions in paragraphs 4.20 and 4.21 that the objectives are not fully reflected in the report on plans and priorities, on both occasions. I know I put a lot of importance on the plans and priorities and the performance documents, so that we as parliamentarians have a full review by the department of what is going on in your department. So I would hope that when you are preparing the performance documents you take issues such as the Auditor General's concerns and respond to them in the performance documents and so on, because that is how you keep Parliament informed.

In closing, Mr. Desautels, we'll have some comments from you.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be rather brief.

First of all, I think the need to develop a framework has been adequately emphasized this afternoon, and this indeed is one of our main themes, if not the main message of our report. I think that's essential to balance the conservation, economic, and social objectives of the department, as well as to ensure stakeholder participation.

We are pleased on the whole with the department's commitment to address this issue. We will, of course, continue to monitor this and we'll report back to the committee and the House at some point in the future on the implementation. We continue to believe that once this framework is developed by the department, it would be quite useful to have that reflected in legislation to a certain extent—at least have some recognition in legislation of the principles the framework is meant to implement.

• 1725

Finally, I think we talked a lot about the scientific capacity. I am very concerned about that in a number of departments. I think in this case it would be quite useful to really assess objectively the level of capacity the department currently has versus what it needs.

I would say we should—as quickly as it can be done—reaffirm quite clearly the predominance of the department as a main source of scientific information in this area. Otherwise, there's a danger that other groups will come forward with their own data, and that makes decision-making a lot more difficult. So to the extent that the department can reaffirm its primary role in that area, I think everybody would be better served.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

Thank you, Mr. Murray, Mr. Robichaud, Mr. Powles, and Mr. O'Brien.

The meeting is adjourned.