FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 11, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I see that the minister is here and we have a quorum. We'll call the meeting to order.

Welcome, Mr. Minister.

Today's hearing is really a continuation of a study under Standing Order 108(2), a study on the implications of the September 17, 1999, Supreme Court decision on R. v. Marshall on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: —

The Chair: As the official critic for the Canadian Alliance has indicated, as well as the clarification that has come forward... In any event, today's hearing is on what has become commonly known as the Marshall decision.

Before we start, Mr. Minister, there are votes, I understand, this evening, and we have about 15 minutes of other business to do at committee. So the committee will have until about 5:15 p.m. to deal with questions to the minister. I understand you're available until that time. Are you, Minister?

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes. Absolutely.

The Chair: Okay. You have an opening statement. Then we'll go from there.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here before you.

As you know, I too served on the fisheries committee. Certainly it was a very challenging position, and I know the good work that committees do when they work together. I've had the opportunity to serve with Mr. Bernier and others when I served here from 1993 to 1995.

To provide any technical assistance, I have Jack Stagg, the associate deputy minister of fisheries and oceans; and Pat Chamut, whom I think all of you know as well, is with me to refer to any technical issues.

What I'll do is I'll have an opening statement, which will go about 15 minutes, and then we'll open it up for questions, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank all the honourable members for your report regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's Marshall judgment. I have often mentioned your report to various audiences. Your recommendations gave me both guidance and support.

I'd like to start with some brief remarks, and these remarks will be tabled both in French and English for tomorrow, Mr. Chairman.

In most cases, we agreed with your recommendations, including those on the need for a voluntary licence retirement program, the importance of enforcement, and the primacy of conservation. Even when we differed on some specifics, we generally agreed on the overall direction, and we are taking action. I know every member of your committee seeks the same goal I do, which is the successful and peaceful participation of treaty beneficiaries in the commercial fishery.

Ever since the Supreme Court handed down this judgment, I have urged people to talk with one another and to air their views. Your hearings gave them that opportunity, and I thank you for that as well.

I would like for us to highlight our response to some of your recommendations and then review current progress, which, as you know, has been significant.

The conditions are coming into place for a successful, orderly, and regulated fishery in the Maritimes and in Quebec. We have now made interim fishing agreements or agreements in principle with almost half of the aboriginal communities. We expect that most will be in place before the end of May.

Our strategy has been the same since day one, and it is working. We have made progress, not out of luck, but as a result of a balanced approach of consultation, dialogue, and cooperation. We'll work with first nations and industry toward a successful commercial fishery, and a firm and fair enforcement will apply for all fishermen.

• 1540

Let me begin with your report. To make room for aboriginal people in the commercial fishery, your report called for a voluntary licence retirement program. You also suggested that we acquire complete multi-species packages, and, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we are doing. We have received some 1,300 applications and acquired 300 licences so far, and the approach is working well. We appear to be matching the supply and demand, but as you can understand, it's not simple. It's very complex to meet the supply and demand and make sure they're complementary. The overall number of aboriginal entrants remains low relative to the 23,000 vessels and 44,000 fishermen in the Atlantic fishery.

You emphasized conservation and you emphasized enforcement. We have also said since day one that conservation will be our priority, and that remains our priority. We are strengthening enforcement for all those who participate in the fishery. Following the recent budget, I was able to announce an additional $13 million for enforcement for this fishing season and an extra-large class of some 50 fisheries officers will soon graduate to enter the field.

The Supreme Court decision confirmed that I, as Minister of Fisheries, have the right to regulate the fishery, and, as I said right from the beginning, I will do so. Not only do I have the right to regulate, but I believe I have the responsibility to regulate.

In the aboriginal fishery and in all fisheries, licence conditions will specify appropriate conservation-oriented levels of fishing effort. You recommended more training and more powers for aboriginal enforcement officers. We have consulted with aboriginal groups, we've reviewed our program, and we are now discussing with them how best to strengthen their enforcement and related activities.

In regard to our fisheries management, you suggested that any particular fishery have a single set of rules, but you also recommended “that a co-operative, co-management and community-based approach to management of fisheries should be promoted”. In our negotiations with aboriginal communities, we have worked toward an overall consistency.

You told us that the aboriginal commercial fishing should take place within the regular commercial season, and this is an integral part of our negotiations. All agreements—and I emphasize all agreements—signed so far provide for commercial fishing to be conducted in the regular commercial season. In these interim agreements, we're also looking toward co-management, just as we have in the regular commercial fishery. This sometimes means adapting the rules to suit the needs of individual fleets, as long as we also protect conservation and protect the interests of other fleets.

I know you are all well aware of recent developments in the co-management on both coasts, and I appreciate your support for this flexible approach.

For the food, social, and ceremonial fishery, you recommended we control it as a genuine food fishery and that we examine possibilities for conducting the food fishery during the commercial season. We are working in those directions. We aim to ensure the integrity of the food fishery as a genuine food fishery. Licences will be in place, and aboriginal people will be able to fish for food without interference, under a clearly defined set of conservation rules. This fishery will be orderly and regulated, and in some cases where there is new commercial access, it will be smaller than before.

No doubt some individuals, whether non-native or native, will try to test the enforcement system—as a few have already done, to their cost. We are ready. When the headlines exaggerate a local incident, I ask you to remember the larger picture.

• 1545

That covers some of your key points, and I believe you will find that in most other recommendations as well we are either in full agreement or reasonably close.

Before reviewing the status of agreements, I will just remind you of the Supreme Court decision that prompted these negotiations in the first place. As you all know, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down the first Marshall judgment on September 17. My department had prepared for many scenarios, but the complex judgment gave us pause. The situation caused fear and it caused uncertainty.

We immediately started intensive consultations with first nations and with commercial fishermen. Since day one, my department and I have been actively involved in these issues. Days after the Supreme Court decision, I met with all my provincial counterparts to discuss the Marshall decision. They supported me in my call for calm, as many of you did as well.

I then met with the Atlantic Policy Congress in Halifax. I met with the Maritime Fishermen's Union in Ottawa and with many other interested groups. In October I appointed the chief federal representative, and in November the assistant federal representative, in order to hear the views of both sides. We made it known that it was our intention to respect the treaty right, but we also said the native fishery, like all fisheries, would be orderly, regulated, and conservation-oriented. Indeed, we took enforcement action against native and non-native fishermen alike.

Throughout this period I appealed for dialogue and cooperation. The great majority of first nations and commercial fishermen behaved in a responsible manner, and I want to compliment them. We also had some difficulties, mainly in the Miramichi Bay. That story dominated the news and it left scars we're still trying to heal today.

On November 17 the Supreme Court issued a related ruling, which reaffirmed our position. In a nutshell, the two rulings mean that first nations in the Maritimes and some in Quebec have a communal right to fish commercially towards a moderate livelihood.

I also have a clear responsibility to regulate for conservation and to ensure an orderly fishery. We have to combine those two principles of respect for the right and regulation for the common good. This requires goodwill. As I said and as the Supreme Court reaffirmed, it is better to negotiate than to litigate.

After extensive discussions with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations, they suggested that negotiations would best take place on a community-by-community basis. We respected that request, and Mr. James MacKenzie is carrying out those negotiations as the chief federal representative.

DFO's role is to set up interim fishing agreements without prejudice to long-term arrangements. In addition, the assistant federal representative, Mr. Gilles Thériault, consults on an ongoing basis with commercial fishing representatives and brings their point of view to the table. We have provided funding to assist their participation in the consultations. Some people have suggested that fishermen also be part of the actual negotiations with first nations, but the treaty was with the crown and we have an obligation to negotiate face to face with first nations.

That being said, we're trying to bring people together by other means. I have encouraged fishermen's representatives and community leaders to reach out and talk directly with first nations. This happened in Nova Scotia with the Acadia First Nation. It happened in Prince Edward Island with the Lennox Island First Nation. It has been extremely helpful in our negotiations.

I have a couple of sheets to hand out showing agreements and licence proposals to date. I wonder if those can be distributed around. You may have them already.

Earlier I promised to sketch the current situation for you, but it may have changed since I got here. Agreements are coming in rapidly. Over the last two months we have made 16 interim fishing agreements or agreements in principle, accounting for almost half of the aboriginal community. The first nations that have signed include Horton and Millbrook in Nova Scotia; Fort Folly and Saint Mary's in New Brunswick; Abegweit and Lennox Island in P.E.I., and Gaspeg and Malecite de Viger in Quebec.

• 1550

The interim fishing agreements provide licensed and orderly access to the fishery under agreed conditions of seasons, fishing effort, and other conservation requirements. All commercial access by these communities applies for the regular commercial season only and follows the same terms and conditions.

Through the eight signed agreements, these first nations will see 31 vessels, of which about half will be used to fish lobster. Their communal licences will include 34 primary licences and 51 others for species that are secondary to their primary licence, making a total of 85. Again I remind you that these numbers are low compared with a traditional commercial fishery.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read into the record the sheet that was distributed and has the heading “Summary of Eight Signed Agreements (April 10, 2000)”. This sheet shows the number of licences and equipment provided. For example, under “Primary Licenses (Total: 34)”, in the eight signed agreements, there are 22 lobster licences, seven tuna licences, two gulf shrimp licences, and three snow crab licences. Under “Secondary Licences (Total: 51)”, there are three herring, one mackerel, two groundfish, two swordfish, two gaspereau, six oyster, 12 eel, three sea urchin, five quahaug, one sea cucumber, one scallop, six smelt, and four clams. In terms of vessels, there are 16 lobster vessels, two midshore vessels for crabs and/or shrimp, two multipurpose vessels, one scallop/groundfish vessel, eight herring skiffs and oyster dories, and two tuna vessels. This outlines up to now the total number of licences and vessels and equipment purchased for the aboriginal communities with which we have a signed agreement.

The rapid pace of agreements is likely to continue. We expect most communities to sign on by the end of May. If some refuse for their own reasons, I would ask you to remember that there is no set deadline for agreements. Communities that have no signed agreement will still receive access to the commercial fishery, but the absence of a signed agreement does not mean that first nations are free to fish where and when they want to, without rules. A communal licence will still apply. Access under that licence will be consistent with the directions of the Supreme Court, and so will the conduct of the fishery.

Until there's a signed agreement, aboriginal communities forego other assistance in the fishery. When they do make an agreement, they may receive assistance toward vessels, gear, training, and fishery-related economic development. As you know, government is providing this assistance in order to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court decision and to uphold the honour of the crown.

Certain parties have charged that giving assistance toward boats and gear is going too far, and that aboriginal people should compete their way into the fishery like anyone else. But the right to fish is obviously diluted without the means to fish. Our economy has left many first nations on the sidelines. As you know, first nations in the Maritimes have up to a 90% welfare rate. They generally lack normal means of financing, and they cannot use land or houses as collateral. Issuing them a communal licence without a boat would be like giving them bus tickets where there are no buses. Providing licensed access without the means to use it would, I believe, be a failure on our part to meet the obligations of the Supreme Court judgment.

Instead, we're trying to provide a realistic opportunity for a moderate livelihood. The assistance towards a vessel and gear will allow first nations to get a foothold on the fishery that would otherwise be unavailable to them. They gain a chance to become more self-sufficient, to improve their economy, and to strengthen their community life. This is not being done at the expense of existing non-aboriginal fishermen, given the voluntary nature of the licence retirement program.

The Chair: Minister, I don't want to interrupt you, but we are down to pretty near an hour for questions.

• 1555

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'm just about ready to conclude, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Please do.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: It is not affirmative action, as some would have it. It is a straightforward response to a Supreme Court decision. Moreover, the provision of a capacity-building assistance is an important incentive for aboriginal groups to negotiate agreements. These agreements are key to ensuring the smooth and orderly participation of aboriginal people in the commercial fishery, which is your goal and mine.

Overall, I believe we are taking a fair, reasonable, and balanced approach. We are acting in keeping with the Supreme Court decision, with most of your recommendations, and with the wishes of Canadians. So far, things are going reasonably well. I've said before that if we look at the Marshall decision with open minds and with open hearts, it can be a real opportunity. We can benefit not only aboriginal communities, but the whole community.

We are putting the pieces in place for a successful, orderly, conservation-oriented aboriginal fishery, without major disruption to the commercial fishery. All we need is the cooperation of the people involved, and generally we're getting it. From my discussion with community leaders, fishermen's representatives, and aboriginal people, I'm confident we will make a smooth transition. Our strategy is working. Seizing that opportunity will require thoughtfulness and cooperation. Your report has helped by giving good advice, and your hearings have helped by spreading information and increasing understanding.

Again, thank you for listening to my statement. I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Before I turn to Mr. Cummins, I have one question that really comes out of the press on the weekend and a CP story on your meetings in Halifax. It was headlined “Natives free to fish”. In your remarks here today, you said the Marshall decision does not mean they are free to fish, but that it will be done within the direction of the court. I had a lot of calls about that on the weekend, in terms of what the implications might be of saying the natives are free to fish. Could you be more specific in terms of the conditions under which natives will fish if they do not have signed agreements?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, as you know, headlines don't always reflect the story and what it says, and certainly that headline did not reflect the content of the story and what I said. Clearly, what I said was that if there are some bands that do not sign an interim agreement, we will provide access through a communal licence. That licence will clearly state the regulations, the details of how they can fish, and under what conditions they can fish.

As I said in my statement, for those who don't fish, we have to provide access, as required by the Supreme Court ruling. But those bands will forego some of the additional help that we're providing in terms of training, mentoring, equipment—all those additional things that we're providing as part of the interim agreement. But we will provide access under a communal licence.

Under the aboriginal fisheries strategy, we have a communal licence in place. But I also said right from day one, after the first ruling on September 17, that we will have an orderly and regulated fishery, and that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have the power to regulate. This treaty right is not an unfettered right, but a regulated right.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Cummins, you have ten minutes.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my questions, I just want to note that the minister acknowledged that he appreciated the committee's support. I just want to remind him that he doesn't have mine, and that I did write a minority report.

He also stated that he was attempting, in these negotiations and in his actions since the September 17 decision, to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court and to uphold the honour of the crown. Essentially, I'm going to take issue with that today in that I do not believe he is meeting the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada, nor is he upholding the honour of the crown.

Before I get to the details, I'd like to remind the minister that his officials were before the committee on March 30. After that meeting they issued a statement to explain why the department had been slow in responding to the Supreme Court decision. They suggested that the judgment was very complex and difficult to interpret and as a result the court had to clarify two months later what it meant on September 17. That was your official who was suggesting that the judgment was very complex and difficult.

• 1600

I would remind the minister that when the decision first came down on September 17, I suggested that he go back to the court, that he seek a stay of hearing, and that he ask the court to clarify what it meant in the September 17 decision. He, along with the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservatives, rejected that notion.

Let's be very clear now. Have you changed your mind? In the factum you issued to the Supreme Court on November 1, you said you basically knew all you needed to know about this case. Have you now changed your mind?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Cummins. Certainly this is a very important question. I also know you did issue a minority report, and I've had the opportunity to look at that as well.

In terms of the Supreme Court ruling that happened on September 17, I know there were a lot of people who wanted us to go back to the courts. Some wanted a cooling-off period. Some wanted a clarification. Others wanted to not deal with a Supreme Court ruling, period, and wanted to move it aside.

I think if you go back and look at what I said... It is a complex judgment. Sometimes it takes months for people to analyse a complex judgment. Within two weeks I came forward and we said this is a regulated right. It is not an unfettered right in that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I have the ability to regulate the fishery. That's what I said. The courts reaffirmed that when they came back in November.

When people were saying go back to the courts, I was saying it is better to negotiate than to litigate. I've been in the business world; I know about going to court. You don't always win. Sometimes you lose. When you lose, you have to accept the circumstances. When you negotiate, you can live with the circumstances you negotiate. So I have said right from day one that we should negotiate and not litigate and we should make sure we try to do that.

Mr. John Cummins: All that's fine, Minister, but I think the issue here is that the court has spoken.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: The courts reaffirmed what I was saying right from day one in their clarification.

Mr. John Cummins: The courts have not reaffirmed. We will go through that in detail, Mr. Minister.

In fact, you said this morning that the November 17 clarification suggested that there was a communal right to fish for moderate livelihood. What you're ignoring is that the November 17 decision made it very clear that the court was talking about an eel fishery. In paragraph 15, in rejecting the coalition's application, the court suggested that the issues of concern to the coalition largely relate to the lobster fishery, not the eel fishery, and if necessary those issues can be raised and decided in future cases that involve the specifics of the lobster fishery.

We haven't talked about eels at all since the decision came down. You've moved far beyond the court decision. Would you not agree?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: No, I would not agree with your assessment. Clearly the Supreme Court mentioned the right to fish, to hunt, and to gather. We have to—

Mr. John Cummins: No, Minister—

The Chair: The minister is now attempting to respond.

Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me finish. I think you want an answer from me.

First of all, let me say the courts rejected the group that went back to court, but they used that time because some people were confusing the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment. They rejected the group that took it to court and said they would not clarify it, but they used that time to make sure because some people were interpreting in ways which the Supreme Court felt were not appropriate. Therefore they made it more clear.

• 1605

It was perfectly clear to me, and the message I gave out right from day one was exactly what they reaffirmed. The Supreme Court ruling is clear. It says the right to fish, gather, and hunt towards a moderate livelihood. That's what it says. It says that right in the Supreme Court judgment, and that's what we're going by.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Have you considered, Mr. Minister, that the court rejected the application because those making the application were merely interveners? The court had no call to respond the way it did, no reason at all, but it took that opportunity gladly to set the record straight and to draw you and your department back to the world of reality.

Your man, one of your lackeys, Mr. Bevan, was before the committee on March 30. He said the department did not understand the Marshall treaty right as being limited to species fished traditionally. The court takes a different view. They say gathering is to be understood by 1760 negotiations to apply to the types of resources traditionally gathered in the aboriginal economy and which were thus reasonably in the contemplation of the parties to the 1760-1761 treaties. That's paragraph 19. There's no way that species not contemporarily harvested for trade could reasonably have been in the parties' contemplation at the time. That to me is clear.

There are ample quotations here on that particular issue. Do you not agree that the court in fact was talking about eels? It was not talking about lobsters.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I have a point of order.

The Chair: Go ahead, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Prior to the minister speaking, I just want to say—and this is in no way referenced in a personal note to Mr. Cummins—I don't think it's fair that we call bureaucrats “lackeys”, by any means, regardless of what we think of their presentation or what their status is in the department. To call them lackeys is really unprofessional. I think we should strike that term from the record and just call them the bureaucrats that they are.

The Chair: So struck. The individual is the director general of the conservation and protection directorate.

Thank you.

Mr. Cummins, do you have a question in your remarks?

Mr. John Cummins: I'll repeat to the minister and his esteemed bureaucrats that the court said they rejected the coalition's application. They pointed out that the decision did not relate to the lobster fishery but that if the group wanted an interpretation on the lobster fishery, they could come back. It was talking about a very limited fishery, an eel fishery, to be prosecuted in the traditional area of the band.

Do you not agree, Minister?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: No, I don't agree with the narrow interpretation Mr. Cummins has. I think he has to look at the broader language. Let me repeat that it says a treaty right to fish, to gather, and to hunt towards a moderate livelihood. I think those are the key words we should use. Maybe he's referring to specifically gathering, but the treaty says to fish, gather, and hunt.

The other point is that I must say our officials do an excellent job in what they do. They don't always have an easy job but they make every effort. As someone who has worked with the public service, I think they do a superb job and do Canada a great pride in the work they do. I think we should recognize that and not go after them. If you want to go, go after me. I don't think it's fair to go after the officials.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, your time is up.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank the minister for being here. We have been wanting for a long time to get answers to our questions. We wanted to see your representatives, your negotiators, but you are here, in front of us.

I have a first question for you, Mr. Minister. I took the time to glance at the government's answer to our report on the Marshall event, and I wonder about a few things. I may start with the final part of your document, since you say that you are from the business world and that, when you negotiate, you like to know with whom you are negotiating.

• 1610

Recommendation 27 of our report asks whether a mechanism will be established.

The issue of whether treaty rights affirmed by Marshall apply to bands in Quebec must be resolved.

You are telling us that, although you have not yet completed an analysis to find out whether the aboriginals in Quebec—all of them or some of them—have some rights or not, they are involved in discussions and negotiations.

I understand also that you already concluded an agreement with the Malecite de Viger. If you conclude an agreement, it means that you now recognize those bands, whether they were recognized in the treaty or not. Am I supposed to understand it in this way?

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, if you go back to the Supreme Court, it states that those groups that can be benefactors of this treaty are the modern manifestation—that is the term used in the Supreme Court, “the modern manifestation”—of the original signatories of the treaty of 1760. Based on that definition, we have identified 34 bands that can be traced back and are the modern manifestation of the original signatories to the 1760 peace and friendship treaty. It's based on that that we're negotiating with them.

We started with the Atlantic Policy Congress and then went to the individual first nations, because each of the first nations of course has different needs. Therefore we're meeting with them and signing interim agreements with each of them for this fishing season, as we have signed with Viger.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I come back to the ability to negotiate. If we recognize them, the first paragraph of your answer may be insulting. You state that you have not completed your analysis. If you let them take part in the negotiations, what mechanism will you use to confirm that they have rights? If accepting them at the bargaining table is the answer, one should stop telling them that they have no rights. That is my first question.

You will allow me to change the subject because we have very little time. If the chairman allows it, we shall come back to it later.

I would like to take advantage of the first round to talk to you about the answer to the committee's second recommendation, which is on page 3 in your document. I have some questions regarding what is written at the end of the paragraph, just before the beginning of our recommendation 3, where you state:

The licences retired will depend on the aspirations and capacity of the aboriginal communities to enter in various fisheries, as well as the availability of licences and licence retirement costs.

My question relates to "The licences retired will depend on the aspirations". The Marshall decision refers to "moderate livelihood". Mr. Minister, I give you an opportunity to clarify the issue. Does it mean that the moderate livelihood, as you describe it in your text, will be shaped by the aspirations of the aboriginals, whereas my feeling is that moderate livelihood is not only about fishing? Has a committee been set up to define what that moderate livelihood will be? Is any negotiation going on now with the aboriginals on the various other topics?

The main question I am asking myself is who protects the fishermen, who protects the non-aboriginal people working in the fishery? At the present time, the pressure is entirely on the fishery. I want to know how the moderate livelihood is going to be defined.

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, you're right in saying that pursuing a moderate livelihood is more than just fisheries. The Supreme Court says it's to fish, gather, and hunt, so fisheries is only one part of the puzzle. What I am trying to do is get interim agreements for this fishing season.

Of course, as you understand, there will have to be a larger process to determine how the treaty benefit can be met through all three of those functions: fishing, gathering, and hunting. This is a broader process that will be carried out by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He's going to be actively pursuing this to make sure we resolve it.

• 1615

The long-term solution will really come when he brings all those things together in that scenario he's going to be working on. It's going to take some time, but he's very active in pursuing that and wants to move as quickly as possible to look at the broader solution to this. I'm only looking at one part of it, which is the fisheries aspect of it.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for appearing today.

This is a very difficult subject, and sometimes we hardly know how to approach it without appearing to be biased on one side or the other. But you have put forward $13 million for enforcement. I think you mentioned in your opening comments that some of those people are already in a training process. Again, are these people newly trainees? Are they people who are further training in their profession as enforcement officers? Are they native people? Are they non-native people? Where are these people coming from and how many are there, and how many do we need to make this thing really work?

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

Many of you, along with the fishing industry, have said enforcement is extremely important and we need to make sure we have adequate enforcement out on the field. A few weeks ago I announced $13 million of new resources for this fishing season to ensure we have adequate enforcement.

How are we going to fulfil that? It's going to be through a variety of things: monitoring, surveillance, and having more fisheries officers out in the field. We have 50 additional graduates coming through, but we also have a number of fishing officers who work part-time, and we'll be able to put them into full-time as well so that we have more fisheries officers than we had in the past to make sure we have enforcement. We have some new equipment as well.

All of these things will help to make sure we have better enforcement than we had in the past and that we have people out in the field to ensure that if anybody is fishing illegally or if there's unauthorized fishing, we'll be taking steps against them.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Are these non-native? Are some of these native people?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Some of these, yes, would be native people. I couldn't give you the exact number, but yes, native and non-native people as well are going through the fisheries officers school and getting certification as full fisheries officers.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I have some difficulty in understanding how the spoils of this fishery are going to be distributed to the native communities. I understand also that the quotas, the boats we are buying back from the non-native community of people, those who are relinquishing licences... Is this value going to continue to be owned by the Government of Canada, or will it become some personal value to a native chief, or does it become a personal value to the band council or to the native peoples of that particular band? How is that being done, and how are we ensuring that the value that comes from this fishery doesn't become singularly a personal benefit to a few out of the many who are part of that band?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: You strike a very important issue, Mr. Steckle. It's very important that the treaty benefit benefits all members, that this treaty benefit truly resolves and benefits for all members of the community. That's extremely important. We have to remember this right is a communal right. It's not an individual right; it's a communal right. When we provide access, we're providing it for the community, not for any one individual. We're providing it for the community when we provide vessels or training or equipment.

One of the things that's extremely important is that the first nations must be successful. If they're not successful, we're going to have a bigger problem in the long term. We must ensure they're successful in the fishery. That's why we need proper training and proper mentoring and to work with them. If they're successful, our long-term solution will be a lot easier.

We also have to ensure there's transparency so that all members can realize who is benefiting, what they're making, and how that's being done. In the end, the aboriginals will have their own governance and they'll make that decision, but it's extremely important that there be transparency. I've asked our people to include that transparency in the interim agreements. People want to know how the distribution is. This is important for the long term, that they be successful in the fishery and that we do this with the least amount of disruption.

• 1620

Mr. Paul Steckle: So what you're saying today is that the licences, the quota, will be owned by the government for native communities to use into perpetuity, until such time as there's reason to move it to some other location. Either the fish aren't there to fish or else there is no interest in the fishery... rather than this becoming a value that can at some future time be bought back again by the government. I hope this doesn't happen again.

Can you give some assurance to this group today that this is the direction we're going in.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, any assets provided are based on a communal basis. It goes to the community, not to an individual.

Secondly, it's the Government of Canada that provides access to them for this fishing season. So it's the Government of Canada that owns the licences they are providing access for.

They can be transferred to the community, but in fact any licence and access we provide is with the Government of Canada.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'm trying to get to the point. These are now owned by some individual fishermen.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: By the whole community.

Mr. Paul Steckle: No, no. In the non-native community, some person owns this quota now. We're buying it. We're buying the boat. We're physically buying from some individual. So we've done that. We've put value into another individual's hands. I want the assurance that down the road we're not going to have to buy them back again. That's my point.

Can you give that assurance, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I'm sorry I missed your point. You're referring to the non-native fishermen out there who have a licence.

When these fisheries licences were issued they were not of significant value. They developed a market value on their own out there, and we're buying them back in a variety of areas. We bought back licences just to reduce the fishery on the west coast and the east coast. When we wanted to reduce the fishery by 50%, we bought back the licences. We will not be issuing new licences again, only to have the problem of buying them back.

This concerns me as well when we're spending taxpayers' dollars to buy back something that we issue without any real value. The problem is that as the licences trade out there, they develop their value, and then it's always difficult to remove people because they feel now they have a right to this because they bought this licence. That's what the difficulty is.

I think whenever we want to remove people out of the fishery or buy access, we really don't have a lot of choices.

The Chair: We have to leave it until another round. I'm going back to the original motion on questioning, which is the order that was established in the beginning. It will be CA, NDP, Liberal, and then Conservative.

I see you shaking your head, Gerald, but that was the original order we agreed to by motion, so I'm sticking to it today.

Mr. Cummins, five minutes.

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

Minister, my understanding is that you've given a lobster licence to the Maliseet Band near Fredericton, to the Oromocto Band, and one to the Indian Brook Band near Truro to fish lobster near Yarmouth.

Lobster would not be a traditional species for either band, I do believe. Certainly, the Oromocto Band as an inland band would not normally be fishing on the sea. I think you're more likely to find lobster in a restaurant in Fredericton than you are in the river.

So how was the transfer of a lobster licence to the Oromocto Band or the Truro band based on Marshall?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I can't answer the specifics of the interim agreement. I don't even know if we have an agreement with that band.

Let me say, first of all, we need to make sure there's diversification. In some of the local areas there's a lot of pressure in certain areas, so you have to go beyond one species to other species as well.

When we purchased these licences, many of them were multi-species, number one, because that's how they came as a package. Number two, we had to take into consideration the pressure that happened on the inshore so that we could provide diversification for these communities.

• 1625

The Supreme Court doesn't mention one specie or the other. It says to pursue a moderate livelihood. We need to have flexibility. If there are a number of different species, they think it's important for them, and that works. We're looking at all the possibilities that exist out there, particularly when there's more pressure on the in-shore and sometimes in specific bays where there's tremendous pressure. We need to make sure we look at all the possibilities and the options that exist out there, but we're not saying we're sticking to one specie.

Generally speaking, the first nations want to fish in their traditional area and in the area around where their band is. Most of the access is provided within their neighbouring area, but there can be some exceptions.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Minister, the court does not use the word “diversification” or even suggest that diversification of species is an option. It says very clearly that the court case was about eels. In paragraph 17, it says if you were talking about a prosecution in lobster, for example, the onus would then switch to the accused to demonstrate that he or she is a member of the aboriginal community in Canada with which one of the local treaties described in the September 17, 1999, majority judgment was made, and that he or she was engaged in the exercise of the community's collective right to hunt or fish in that community's traditional hunting and fishing grounds. So it's very restrictive.

You're not restricting at all. You're neither restrictive in species nor are you in area. Your negotiations, which are ongoing now, are not based on Marshall, are they?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes, they are based on Marshall. Mr. Cummins, you and I will have to disagree. Where you're saying that the court only refers to the eel, I don't agree with that. If you read what the court says, it is to fish, gather, and hunt to pursue a moderate livelihood. I think that's the point you're failing to recognize.

The other thing is that in terms of diversification, as I said, generally speaking the access that is being purchased is within the adjacent areas. This is the preference of all the aboriginal first nations bands. We have to make sure we're flexible to meet that goal of making sure they can fish towards pursuing a moderate livelihood. This, by the way, is for one season, for this fishing season. It's an interim agreement without prejudice to the long-term solution to the treaty benefit and to the Supreme Court ruling.

The Chair: A very short question, John.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, Minister, the fact is that I'm not so much interested in your interpretation of the words of the court. The words of the court are very clear that it's traditional species in the local area. It rejected the coalition's application because it didn't deal with that. It said “You're concerned about lobsters; this decision wasn't”. That's what the court said.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Obviously you're missing the main intent of the court. The court clearly says it's to make sure we can have a treaty right, a benefit to fish and hunt and gather towards pursuing a moderate livelihood. It doesn't say anything about this specie or that specie. It does not specify.

I guess we can always go back to the courts and ask for each specie and say “Is it eel? Is it lobster? Is it crab? Is it that?” My preference is that we negotiate at the table. My preference is that we sit around the table and resolve it. Otherwise we could spend all our time in court. I think the courts themselves said “Do not litigate; negotiate”. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the minister and his assistants for arriving today.

Sir, you didn't mention the word “adjacency” in your preamble. If the Indian Brook Band signed agreements, for example, would they be allowed to fish off the tip of Cape Breton?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I don't know if I can give you a specific answer. Let me say, in a general way, that the access we're providing is within the adjacency areas, which the bands are, because most of the bands prefer that. But we want to be flexible and look at situations where... because there's a lot of pressure on the inshore close by, that we have other options available to make sure we deal with their needs. We can go to the midshore area, but certainly people don't want to fish way out from where their band is. They're very much interested in fishing in the immediate area where their band is located. That's where most of the access is being provided, but there may be some exceptions.

• 1630

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I ask this, in terms of when you say there are some exceptions, is that a lot of the non-aboriginal groups are very concerned there could be an extra effort placed on their particular bay or their area where they traditionally fish, and if you put too many extra fishermen in that area it could deplete the resource that's in there.

You also mention that bands can fish without federal agreements. Right now the stocks are fully subscribed. Does this not put an extra pressure on the resource itself?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, Mr. Stoffer, what we said from day one is that we will not resolve this issue on the backs of traditional commercial fishermen, and that's why we're doing this through a voluntary retirement program where we're buying access. We're not pushing people on with a fully subscribed fishery unless we work with that local fisheries group, which has happened. In St. Mary's, Southwest Nova, the commercial fishermen agreed to provide additional licences for the Acadia First Nation last year.

So we will work with the local commercial fishermen's association in those cases where it's difficult to provide sufficient access within a small area. But, generally speaking, we're able to fill the supply and demand. We're getting enough interest out there where people want to sell their licence. As I said, 1,300 applications are in and they are interested in us buying their licences. We have purchased 300 and we're getting more interest in it.

I think overall we'll be able to meet the demand through a voluntary purchase program, and that's the way we're pursuing it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of incorporating the non-status, off-reserve aboriginals into the fisheries, will that decision be made by the chiefs and band councils of the nearest reserve, or will that decision of who fishes and who doesn't fish be made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think the actual decision—and my officials may correct me—of who fishes is with the band and council in terms of how they distribute that benefit. In terms of those groups who are not part of the band, we're requesting that the band should include those people who are status but off-reserve in their list.

The other one is the native councils, which you're referring to. We are trying to deal with the native councils through our aboriginal fishing strategy, as we have before, through the allocation transfer program, where we are trying to include them into the commercial fishery through an existing program that is there now, through the aboriginal fishing strategy and through the allocation transfer program where we buy licences and try to include the aboriginal community.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question, sir, deals with one of the bones of contention they have in the non-aboriginal communities, which is the food fishery. A tremendous amount of stock has been caught from the food fishery, and there is wide speculation and belief that a lot of this fish was sold and not actually consumed by the reserves in question. With the Marshall decision now coming into play, what is your department going to do to regulate the food fishery to ensure that it is indeed a food fishery and not a de facto commercial fishery?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think, Mr. Stoffer, you are very correct that a food fishery has to remain a food fishery, and we have to make sure the food fishery is a reasonable food fishery. First of all, these negotiations have given us the opportunity to reduce some of the food fishery. In some of the agreements we have signed, the food fishery is smaller, but at the same time we'll make sure we have regulation and enforcement to ensure that we're having a real food fishery and that we preserve the integrity of the food fishery. It's through enforcement, and it's through negotiations now in the interim agreement, where because we're providing more commercial access, it gives us an opportunity to reduce the food fishery.

• 1635

As you know, the food fishery came about as a result of Sparrow, and it's the law. We have no choice; it's the law. They're allowed to have a food fishery under Sparrow and we have to abide by that, but I think this gives us an opportunity to look at how we can improve the way the food fishery works.

I may also conclude, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Stoffer has always made an attempt to try to calm things when things were very difficult.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Amongst others.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Yes, amongst others. I'd like to thank him, along with members who helped. But he specifically has sent out press releases, and I want to thank him for his support.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Matthews, and then Mr. Keddy.

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

There are those amongst us who didn't always call for calm but are still out trying to stir up a little bit of trouble. But it's nice to see you, Mr. Minister—you and your officials.

I have a couple of questions. In your summary sheet of the eight signed agreements, I wonder if someone could tell us what we paid out in total to get those eight agreements. Not to be too specific about any licence but—

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: We don't have that broken down, but we do have a sheet we provided you that shows everything we've purchased to date. That shows a total purchase, but it won't match this because that's a total purchase and it will be more than what's on this sheet. We don't have a breakdown of the total cost of the eight agreements that are signed, but we have a sheet that shows you everything we've purchased to date now. But that of course can change, because we continue to buy up access.

Mr. Bill Matthews: The reason for my question is there's about $160 million budgeted to try to address this problem of voluntary licence buyout. You have eight agreements concluded, as I understand, as per your summary sheet. I'm wondering what the cost of those eight agreements is, because that can give us some idea. If we're looking at having to conclude, hopefully, about another 27, I'm wondering how it's playing out dollar-wise when we apply it towards the $160 million budget.

That's one thing. Then with our constant referral to moderate livelihood or moderate income, has there been, anywhere in this whole discussion, some consideration given to the... There's obviously going to be a positive economic impact on natives because of the fishery. Has there been any discussion about how that's going to affect other regular funding that band councils get? If indeed we're going to get a moderate income from fishing, hunting, and gathering, is there any discussion or consideration that it might impact on other funding to band councils and first nations? Can you respond to that?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Let me comment on the first part, and I'll have Jack Stagg, who can better comment, deal with the rest.

The cabinet authorized $160 million for the next two years to deal with Marshall, and I can assure you that cabinet will hold me to this figure. One of the things I've said is that we want to make sure we pay market value for licences. I've said to some fishermen that this is not a Lotto 649. We will only pay market value, and we're watching this very closely so that people don't think they can have huge windfall gains because of the Marshall case. So we're ensuring that we pay market value, because I know my cabinet colleagues will be ensuring that I stay within the $160 million budget.

In terms of how this affects other departments in terms of the services provided by Indian Affairs, I think Jack can better respond to that. I'm certain it would have some effects, but I just can't answer that.

Mr. Jack Stagg (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I can talk about two areas probably. One is social welfare, and people who are gainfully employed in the first nations communities will not obviously be drawing welfare if they get a sufficient amount of income, just like non-natives. In terms of economic development, most economic development opportunities are provided to first nations communities or native communities not on the basis of need but on the basis of application submitted and the worth of the application. Again, my sense is this will not have an impact on those kinds of funds made available for native communities. But certainly in terms of help programs, like social welfare, based on income, one could only naturally think that those would decrease somewhat because of the greater economic activity happening in the community.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you for the response.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I want one more.

The Chair: You're out of time. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Keddy.

• 1640

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to welcome the minister here. It's always good to see him at committee.

I have a couple of questions. The first one is in regard to enforcement. You've listed in the sheet you've given to the committee... i.e. enforcement, the purchase of 85 smaller vessels for coastal patrol; approximately $2.7 million invested in computers to allow fisheries officers to have ready access to fisheries data; $1 million to be spent on specialized enforcement equipment, digital cameras, video cameras, night vision equipment. You have also stated that the 100 fisheries officers who have come into force in the last two or three years have only been replacements. So we really don't have additional enforcement officers. After that, you did state that there would be 15 additional officers. The problem is, of course, that there are literally thousands of kilometres of coastline in Nova Scotia alone. There are tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline in Atlantic Canada. In regard to the fisheries officers we have now, you can go into any fisheries office anywhere in Atlantic Canada and they're overworked, they're understaffed, and they're having a hard job to keep up.

I would suggest that we're going to definitely need additional officers, and definitely additional officers besides the 100 replacement officers who have been hired.

I have two more questions that I want to get on the record, and then I'd appreciate an answer.

The Chair: You may run out of time if you don't tighten them up.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll tighten them up as much as I can.

The other issue is—and I guess the main issue, and maybe I'll try to stick to two and get time for an answer. The agreement we signed is an interim agreement. You've stated that on several occasions. This is not a long-term agreement. Next year we could be back at the bargaining table trying to sign another agreement. Hopefully, this would progress and evolve into a long-term agreement for all the communities involved.

Of the eight signed agreements, what is the relation of these signed agreements to the proportionality? The fisheries alliance has talked a lot about proportionality. So what is the relationship in proportionality of first nations fishers to their percent of the local population to their percent of the licences held? Have you really looked at that issue? The fisheries alliance has stressed that several times, and I think it deserves an answer and some clarification.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy. As you know, Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world. We have a huge coastline, both on the east coast and the west coast, and certainly we can never get enough enforcement. There will always be a need for more enforcement. But I think this is good news that we're putting in $13 million in additional funding. This has been talked about, not because of Marshall, but before. This has been an issue way before that, that we need to put in more enforcement. And we also need to modernize our enforcement. That's why the equipment, the surveillance, and all those things are important.

In addition to that, we need to make sure we modernize in terms of the techniques by which we get information in real time from the people who are fishing out there, so we can get better information out to our enforcement people and they can make better decisions as to where there are problem areas and where there aren't. Those are things I'm working on. There are going to be additional officers, as I said, but also the part-time people will be full-time, so it will give us an additional opportunity to do that.

In terms of your question on the interim agreement, you're right, these are for one year, one fishing season. It's a step-by-step process. We're not going to resolve this issue overnight. It's going to be a while before we resolve the overall issue in terms of the Marshall response. How are we looking at this? It depends on the needs of the community, the population of the community. Some don't want to fish. Some communities said they're not interested in fishing. Some may be interested in other types of fishing activity.

What we've done is we've gone to the individual communities and said, what are you interested in? How can we help you? Of course, we have an envelope with our federal representatives, and we say they have to work within this envelope and they have to stay within the envelope. That's based on the number of people in the band, of course, because some are larger populations and some are smaller populations.

So all those criteria have to be taken into consideration. And the needs are different. Some want to fish one thing. Some don't want to fish. Some have boats and don't need boats. They need access.

• 1645

We're trying to take into consideration the needs of each individual band and work on a step-by-step process, whereby we have a real opportunity to help them in a situation that... We all know what the conditions are on many of these reserves. I think this is a real opportunity to improve the lives of the aboriginal community.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I have to ask you a question on enforcement, though. You're saying that part-time is turning into full-time, but is it not correct that the part-time people worked the seasons previously? Are we going to have more manpower on the water at the beginning of the lobster fishing season in May? That's what fishermen want to know.

The block of money, yes, that's fine and well and good: officers, manpower, and vessels. But will there be more fisheries officers in the field to do enforcement on the water, effective May 1? Part-time to full-time is good, but they were already on the water during the season. Will there be more manpower on the water during the season?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: That's what my understanding is, that there will be more manpower on the season.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand there will be more people on the water.

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

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Compared to last year, there will be more people on the water.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

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

Mr. Minister, since day one you've advocated a balanced approach to consultation, dialogue, and cooperation. I think that's great. However, what happens if a first nation doesn't sign an agreement? How can your department enforce against unlawful fishing if there is no agreement?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: That's a very good question. Let me say, first of all, that I'm confident that the vast majority of the first nations will sign an agreement. We've seen the progress we've made. Three weeks ago, I think we had two. Then we went to four. Now we have eight that have signed and eight that have agreements in principle. So I'm very confident that the vast majority will sign.

But there will be some who won't. I want to tell you that there will be some bumps in the road. Some first nations bands feel that I have no power and that under the Marshall agreement they're able to do whatever they want. I've repeated again and again that this is not an unfettered right but a regulated right, and that as Minister of Fisheries I have that responsibility and that right to regulate.

For those bands that do not sign an interim agreement, we will provide access because we are required to under the Supreme Court ruling. That access will be in a communal licence. The licence will clearly outline what the access will be. For example, in lobster it may outline the number of traps. It will outline when they can fish and under what regulations they can fish. We will make sure that we have an orderly and regulated fishery whether they have signed an interim agreement or not.

For those first nations bands that sign, they have other advantages, such as training. The co-chairman of the Atlantic Policy Congress, Chief Paul, said that he was very concerned about the safety of his band members. He wanted to make sure they had the training before they go out fishing. He said that's one of the reasons he signed. He wanted to make sure they were well trained. They want to make sure that they can do this safely and that they can be successful.

This is the thing we're working on with the educational institutions. We're working with the local fishermen, to whom we say, “Can you be a part of this and make sure we have appropriate training?” It's very advantageous in the long term, if they want to be successful, to sign an interim agreement so that we can truly make sure they have the skills and the capacity to be successful in the fishery.

But there will be some that won't sign, and we'll be ready to enforce. We'll make sure we enforce to the communal licence provided.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But whether or not they sign an agreement, they can still fish.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Under the communal licence, which provides them access but not all the other equipment and training and all that... But we will enforce, because we'll set the regulations as well. We'll say under what regulations they can fish and under what restrictions they can fish.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But under a communal permit, will you be enforcing against individuals or against that particular community?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Well, any individual... And I want to tell you that there may be some individuals who don't agree with the interim agreements and who will say they're still going to fish. We will make sure we take enforcement action for any unauthorized or illegal fishing. If someone in the band does not comply with the interim agreement, it's our responsibility to make sure we have enforcement—because that would be unauthorized fishing. We'll make sure we enforce.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1650

I have, in this order, Mr. Cummins, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Bernier, and Mr. Muise.

Mr. Cummins, five minutes.

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

Minister, in talking about pursuing a fishery if agreements weren't signed, the November 17 judgment addresses that issue. It says the treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local:

In the absence of a fresh agreement with the Crown, the exercise of the treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community with which the “separate but similar” treaty was made.

It goes on to say, in paragraph 17, that:

...[the] exercise is limited to the purpose of obtaining from the identified resources the wherewithal to trade for “necessaries”.

Could you tell me what you see that to mean?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, if we start spending time on interpreting every part of that... I'm certainly not a lawyer, but we have legal people who can start talking about the interpretation, about every part of the Supreme Court ruling that exists, and we could sit here for the next three hours talking about it.

What I'm telling you is that in my view what the Supreme Court said is that there's a treaty right there, a treaty right that allows to fish, gather, and hunt... What I am trying to do is to make sure we live within that Supreme Court ruling, that we provide opportunity under the treaty right through buyback of licences. But this is on an interim basis. This is without prejudice to the final solutions in the long term.

We're fulfilling the Supreme Court ruling that came forward. We could spend hours talking about the interpretation of every one. I'm telling you that the broad ruling is as I've told you: it is a treaty right that we're trying to fulfil, and I'm doing it on an interim basis for this fishing season.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. John Cummins: The courts said the treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local. That's simple. What does that mean to you? What does “local” mean to you? How do you interpret that?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the access we're buying, generally speaking, is within the adjacency area, because in most cases that's where the first nations wanted to fish—in the adjacent area. However, in some areas, to buy new access—because the number of fishing licences is very limited—we have to look at other options and be flexible, in order to make sure we seek other ways; that instead of putting all that pressure on the inshore, we look at other opportunities that exist for diversification purposes.

We also have to make sure we don't put a huge amount of pressure on the inshore. I think all the fishing communities wanted that. They didn't want to have pressure in one area. We're trying to be as flexible as possible in order to deal with that situation.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

Gerald Keddy touched a bit on this one about working on long-term solutions. My question is about getting the sort of framework that you feel the long-term negotiations will be worked under.

As a comment, I have to say that unfortunately it takes a court case for people to come to the table and work out these agreements that bands have been trying to get with the government to become part of the fishery. But I guess they have to take this opportunity to bring all these issues to the table.

You said the Department of Indian Affairs is going to be working very closely with the people. Are you saying the long-term strategy to deal with this issue is going to be mainly under the department or not? If not, is it a combination of your department and the Department of Indian Affairs?

What criteria are the solutions really going to be based on? Do you have an idea? And what are the timelines? I know that everyone gets concerned about negotiations taking years and years to do. Have we thought of what timelines we'd like to do this in? Because these terms are one-year solutions, I'm sure you want to start right now dealing with the long-term negotiations.

• 1655

The reason I'm asking what criteria you're going to base these long-term solutions on is that they sound very close to some of the negotiations that bands want to have for self-government. How are you going to balance the two? Are you just going to deal with that court case, and then if a band happens to be wanting to talk to the government about self-government, does that become another set of negotiations? I know that's very broad, but those are the questions I'm sure everybody is going to start thinking of for the long-term solution.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: I think you're right in that we all want to have a long-term solution. It's in everybody's interest to have a long-term solution to this. It's not easy. It's complicated, because some of it also involves the provincial government, for example, for hunting.

I know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already met with the Atlantic Policy Congress. He's very eager to move forward. I understand they're even meeting this week. He could probably answer better.

But my understanding is that he's trying to create a tripartite group to determine how they're going to satisfy this treaty right. It's going to involve the province and the federal government. Obviously, we're going to be involved in the fisheries aspect of it. They're going to try to bring all these things together, the fishing, the hunting, and the gathering, as well as the provincial government, and come up with a final resolution. It's not easy. It's going to be complicated.

I think the Minister of Indian Affairs could probably do more justice to what the long-term strategy is to deal with this. Certainly, we'll be very much involved in the fisheries aspect of it. But it involves more than just fisheries.

The Chair: Mr. Stagg.

Mr. Jack Stagg: I think the minister has it right. I think the Minister of Indian Affairs is looking forward to a more comprehensive process. It's likely to take a while to put that together. As the minister said, other aspects of the treaty will be looked at in that larger process. Some of those resources are possibly provincial resources as opposed to federal resources, and that's the reason for their involvement as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Still on our efforts to find out how "moderate livelihood" will be defined, I understand that the minister is alluding to a longer process for his colleague. I would like us to ask his colleague to appear before us because I would like to know who, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will chair a committee and what the work method of the committee will be. I would very much like to know it.

With regard to the jurisdiction of the minister of Fisheries in terms of defining moderate livelihood and how it applies in the area of fishing, I would like to remind the minister that, if I remember correctly, Canada ratified the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, UNFA. Clause 5 states that Canada, jointly with all member countries of the UN, agrees to promote a profitable fishery and a sustainable fishery. In order to help his colleague, the minister responsible for Indian affairs, determine what moderate livelihood will be, can the minister tell us whether anyone in his department can tell us what is a sustainable fishery in Canada?

We are preparing to transfer licences and boats to the aboriginal people. When you get your boat for free, chances are that you will be more profitable than the non-aboriginal person who is paying a mortgage. How will all this be done? I would very much like to know it. I would also like to have a definition of what is meant by "sustainable fishery". Are there any plans to prohibit any fishing gear in the future? Are there any plans to recommend or to favour any fishing gear? I think it would be important to do so, because we would not be doing anything for the aboriginal people if we were to repeat the same mistakes we made in the past.

Can the minister attempt to give us an answer on this issue? Did he read the complementary opinions on our report? There is nothing nasty about it and we are playing this game without hiding behind anything. I would like to hear the minister on this.

• 1700

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Minister, there are three questions there. You have two minutes.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, as you know, UNFA, the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, is something I worked on in 1994-95. In fact, I was in New York recently to see how we could push to have 30 countries ratify it so that it can come fully into effect. It's something I'm going to continue to work on. It's very important.

We're very committed to a sustainable fishery. All the investments we've made in the fisheries, such as CFAR, which has invested $400 million in British Columbia to reduce that fishery to half of what it is, are about building a sustainable fishery so that people can make a reasonable livelihood from the fishery.

In terms of the competition, this is a communal right, whereas you're talking about people who have an individual right. People who have an individual right and who also have a licence can take advantage of when their licence price goes up, which some have. Some licences are worth a huge amount more than what they got five or ten years ago. This is a communal right where it's for the community. The product they harvest has a similar value. It's not like you can create more product. It's the same product out there. So it's not like a business where you can all of a sudden produce more to make more money. You can only catch a certain amount, and the general price is the same. The individual right and the communal right are two different things. This is a communal right, and the licence is given on a communal basis, not on an individual basis.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to Mr. Minister and his officials.

Mr. Minister, last fall in Halifax at the fisheries committee meeting we heard testimony that the food fishery from probably Yarmouth to the head of St. Mary's Bay was in fact more than a food fishery. It was a wholesale underground commercial fishery, a huge poaching operation that has been taking from that bay millions of pounds of lobster over the past four or five years. Mr. Minister, you've said on a couple of occasions that you, as I do, want the long-term economic viability of this fishery well into future generations. Mr. Minister, if that wholesale commercial poaching of lobster continues, it will effectively kill the lucrative lobster fishery in southwestern Nova Scotia. Mr. Minister, I want to know what you're going to do to stop that this summer.

Also, your department is looking at purchasing vessels to give to the natives. Now, I don't have a problem with the vessels being purchased, but I am concerned that when the regular commercial fishery stops, these vessels will go into the food fishery/poaching operation. I'd like to know how you're going to address that. If those vessels are going to be bought to be used in the food fishery to effectively kill one of the major industries in our area, I have a great concern with that.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me thank this member for his continued communication with me and keeping me informed of some of the issues in his area. He and I attended a forum in his riding, and I think it was extremely useful to get people from different parts of the community—opinion leaders, the fishing community, aboriginal people, local mayors, yourself, and others—to sit around the table and talk about the issues. I think this issue was brought up.

What I can tell the hon. member, as I said to him, is that a food fishery shall be a food fishery. But there are people who do poaching too. So we have to ensure that whatever fishing is taking place out there is legal and authorized.

• 1705

For any unauthorized or illegal fishing, we'll have to make sure we have enforcement, one; and two, the interim agreements. Some of the ones we've signed now have created an opportunity to reduce the food fishery, ensure it's a reasonable food fishery, because we are providing commercial access. And it's around the table when we negotiate that we can deal with these things. In some of the interim agreements we've signed now, the food fishery is smaller, but we're providing access. That's why at the negotiating table you can have these types of discussions.

But I want to assure you that every effort has been made to make sure a food fishery remains. We want to protect the integrity of the food fishery under Sparrow.

The Chair: A very short one, Mark. Do you have a short one?

Okay, go ahead Gerry—30 seconds, though.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Back to the food fishery, the entire problem with the food fishery is that your department allows eight traps per individual for food fishery. Eight traps in St. Mary's Bay, in Southwest Nova, on the south shore of Nova Scotia, in P.E.I., or in Miramichi Bay are entirely too many. The capacity to catch fish will average 75 pounds per day, per trap, all summer long. You have to cut back on the number of traps or you have to understand how many pounds of fish come ashore.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: There are a different number of traps for different bands. I don't know the specific area you are talking about, but what we do need to do—and I've said this—is make sure that the food fishery is reasonable according to the need, that it reflects the population and reflects the catch. Under the interim agreement, we're working toward that and making sure it's reasonable.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews, you had a short supplementary.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, just one question for the minister. Just to follow up on Paul's question on the assets and the licences—primary licences, secondary licences, and vessels—the question of who's really going to own the assets is the key, because we're only entering into one-year interim agreements. In a year or so we're going to be back negotiating again.

Wouldn't it seem logical that the Government of Canada would own the licences and the vessels? If we give the licences and vessels to the band council or whoever, it seems to me we'd have a very significant problem. I'd just like clarification on the assets—who's going to own them, who's going to control them.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, in terms of licences that are bought, the Government of Canada owns the licence and they provide access to them. In terms of the assets that we transfer, those will be transferred to the first nation bands, because we expect that this is step one to provide this opportunity for them, and they'll continue to need the equipment and the vessels. But the licence itself, to provide the access, is with the Government of Canada.

Mr. Bill Matthews: They wouldn't be able to use the vessels and the equipment, though, without the licences?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Exactly. Certainly the vessels are only useful if we provide the access to them. As I said, this is a first step of a long-term solution to provide access for the aboriginal communities. We'll be at the table for next year.

What Nancy said is that we need to have a long-term solution, because I'm not interested in doing this every year. I'm not interested in going back and trying to negotiate every year. I'd like to have a long-term solution to this so that we can put it to rest, and that's in everybody's interest.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. O'Brien, you have a little bit of time.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Very quickly, Mr. Minister, I know we're drawing to a close, but how did your meetings go on the east coast last week? Who was there? How do you feel about those meetings?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien. First of all, I'd like to say that we had excellent participation. I was in the Miramichi. I was in Yarmouth when we had the forum, with Mr. Muise joining us. I also had in Moncton the members from P.E.I., and I met with Ernie Fage, the minister from Nova Scotia, as well as the Minister of Fisheries from New Brunswick. I'd like to say both of them are extremely supportive of our strategy, the plan we put forward, and I think they said that in the media as well, that they very much support what we're doing in the federal government on this issue.

I fundamentally believed, right from day one, that communities could work together to resolve this problem. I said that from day one. I think I've been impressed with what we can accomplish when we sit down at the table and start talking about the issue.

• 1710

I think this is a real opportunity. We all recognize the social problems. We hear it in the House all the time—the unemployment, the suicide rates, the welfare. This is a golden opportunity for us to really help and make a change to the conditions that some of our aboriginal communities are facing. I feel very privileged that I have this file to work on. I hope I can look back, that we, all of us together, can look back, and say we made a difference to the lives of our aboriginal communities. That's what we should work toward.

Thank you.

The Chair: Just on the point of unemployment and looking for work, Mr. Minister, one of the things that has been raised with the committee members several times—especially in the crab fishery, where you have five or six deckhands, and on the lobster boats, where you have one or two—is whether anything is being done for those individuals. The captain of the vessel is all right. He's getting paid out for his asset. He's probably getting paid for training. But for the others, the secondary workers who work the vessel, is anything being done for them, or is anything anticipated that will help out those who are facing no work this spring?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, I think that's a good point. But if you look at the actual numbers of aboriginal people who will be going in, in the overall picture it's not very significant. Second, what we're doing is we're working with the fishermen's association and saying, we'll need to have mentoring, we'll need people who can provide support and training. Are there people in your union who want to be part of that program, be part of making sure the boats and equipment are maintained, and that we have proper training in terms of making sure we have maximum value of the harvesting? So we're working with our local unions to see if there are people who are interested, to make sure we have a smooth transition when the aboriginal community goes into the fishery.

I think there might be opportunities in that through their union. But certainly there's enough movement within the whole fishery—and this is such a small part overall—that I'm sure there'll be other opportunities they can tap, apart from the ones we'll be providing for help, in terms of training and mentoring.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have both Mr. Cummins and Mr. Bernier for short ones.

Mr. Cummins.

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

Minister, I want to go back to this notion of local rights. As I quoted from the court, paragraph 17 says:

...the exercise of the treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community...

Now, it seems to me that if the resource is not prevalent there, the only course of action that DFO has is to reduce fishing effort. It does not have the ability, based on that court decision, to transport that right to some other place and displace another fisherman. The right, very clearly, is a local right.

Are you disputing that point? Are you disputing the quotation I just made from the court, that the exercise of the treaty rights will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community?

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, let me say we're not displacing; we're using this on a voluntary retirement basis. The Government of Canada is buying out access and buying up licences. So we're not displacing anybody. We're doing it through a voluntary program where they've agreed to sell their licences. That's how we're providing access. And in most cases, the first nations themselves want to fish within the area in which they are. They're not interested in going further out.

But in order to ensure that we don't have this additional pressure on the inshore... and that's what the commercial fishermen want. They don't want a huge amount of pressure on the inshore. They want to make sure that where there are flexible areas to do other things, we look at those possibilities. And that's exactly what we're doing. But I think we're complying fully with the Supreme Court ruling—

Mr. John Cummins: No, you're not.

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: That's where you and I have a disagreement, Mr. Cummins. You feel we're not. I'm sorry, I disagree with you. I feel we are.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

• 1715

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I try to do it quickly, it is still in order to talk about the definition of a sustainable fishery in Canada. You talked earlier about a comparison between the individual fishing right, a captain operating his vessel, and a community that will get a fishing licence. Both will be faced with operating costs, and both will have to motivate the people working on the boats. We must attempt to define what is a moderate livelihood. It would be necessary to know first what is a profitable fishery, case by case. The community may very well tell one of their representatives to go and operate some boat, a simple prayer will not be enough.

I have a second question. If you do not have the answer today, it is fine, but I would like to know it. What is the definition of a profitable fishery? What fishing gear will be used? Details must be given. People must be told.

We are broadening the way we give the aboriginals access to the fishing industry. We agree on the principle, but there should not be any mistakes. I think that we do not know the answer to those two questions with regard to the management of the non-native fishery. If we want to add aboriginal people, it could be a very interesting working tool.

First, do you find that interesting? If you do not have the answer today, I can understand it. But are you going to designate somebody to look into this matter?

[English]

Mr. Herb Dhaliwal: First of all, I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that in communities where you have 90% welfare, providing as little access as we've been providing is not going to get them to a moderate or reasonable livelihood, whether you interpret it as an average income or whether you interpret it as what the fishery makes. It doesn't matter how you interpret it, they'll certainly not, with the access we're providing, be able to reach a moderate livelihood.

The other thing is that a moderate livelihood would be reached through not only fishing but also hunting and gathering. That's why the larger solution will address that more closely than I will.

In terms of profitability of fisheries, of course if you burden the aboriginal community and say you each have to get a loan, with all these costs, it'll take more access to ever reach that moderate livelihood. You're actually saying, then, if we do that, that we have to provide more access to ever reach a moderate livelihood, no matter what your definition.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will end the discussion—

Mr. John Cummins: I have a point of order.

The Chair: I'll deal with your point of order in a second.

We will end the discussion there, Mr. Minister. On behalf of the committee, I'd certainly like to thank you for coming today on the Marshall decision. I think all committee members recognize that you're back tomorrow from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. to deal with the estimates, so we'll have two hours then.

Committee members, we have some other business to deal with.

Now, your point of order.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, the minister has suggested that the government is complying with the Supreme Court in its policy on this Marshall decision and the ongoing negotiation. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table for the committee's viewing the legal opinion on which he's basing his assertion.

An hon. member: That's not a point of order.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, it is.

The Chair: I don't think it is a point of order. Maybe the minister can consider that by tomorrow night's meeting, and you can raise it again in questioning, John.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, once again.

In 13 minutes there's a vote. They've moved it up.

At the bottom of today's agenda, under other business, is the adoption of the steering committee report.

I don't believe you have it in front of you. I'll just read it:

The Chairman presented the Third Report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure, which reads as follows:

It was agreed, - That the Committee hear the following witnesses on the Oceans Act the week of May 15, 2000:

I might mention to committee members that this was as a result of the committee travelling. We might want to change those dates now.

St. Lawrence Economic Development Council Chamber of Maritime Commerce Shipping Federation of Canada Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition

It was agreed, - That The committee hear the following witnesses on the Marshall Decision, by videoconference, the week of April 10, 2000:

Atlantic Fishing Industry Council Mr. Sterling Belliveau Association des crabiers gaspésiens inc.

It was agreed, - That the dates for the East Coast trip be changed to May 28 to June 8, 2000.

• 1720

That's the report. Is it agreed to?

Before we do, John, your party, the Canadian Alliance, has been stonewalling the committee's work in terms of travelling, or blocking travel to the east coast to continue our discussions on aquaculture. Before I deal with that steering committee report, because of the dates that are included in it, have you changed your position?

Mr. John Cummins: When you guys get serious about this Marshall thing and start holding government accountable, then maybe I will.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Obviously you're very serious...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: So I take it you're going to continue to block the committee's travel to do its work.

Mr. John Cummins: The committee is not doing its work. It's not chasing this issue down the way it should.

I had a point of order to get some documentation that would have made very clear whether or not the minister was in fact basing his discussion on a proper legal opinion. These fellows over here, my friends on the other side, said that wasn't a point of order and was irrelevant.

The Chair: We're willing to deal with it. We'll have the minister before the committee tomorrow for two hours. As chair, what I'm asking you to do, so that we can complete our work, is to reconsider the blocking of the travel.

Mr. John Cummins: I'll take it under advisement.

The Chair: We'll deal with that tomorrow then.

In regard to the committee report, I would seek approval of this on the possibility of the date of May 15 changing as a result of the committee's travel changing, if that can be done, to the week of May 1 instead of the week of May 15. Are we agreed on that?

All those in favour of the steering committee report as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm opposed to part of it.

The Chair: On the second item, we need a motion that the chair be authorized to table the committee's decision to travel to Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, and P.E.I. as their fourth report to the House.

It is moved by Mr. Steckle.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is debate on the motion by Bill Matthews. Do you want to deal with that today?

How long do we have before we vote?

The Clerk of the Committee: You have probably another six or seven minutes.

The Chair: Do you want to leave it to another day, Bill?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, we'll leave it to another day.

The Chair: We'll refer that to the next meeting.

An hon. member: Mr. Chair, if we go to the east coast before we go to the west coast—

The Chair: Order.

We have one more item of business, and that's the notice of motion by Peter Stoffer. Do you want to give us that motion?

Could we have order, please, so that the clerk can read this into the record? This is a notice of motion to be dealt with at a later date.

The Clerk: The motion is:

That the Chair be authorized to write to the Auditor General on behalf of the Committee, requesting the Auditor General to undertake an investigation—

The Chair: Order. Let's hear the motion so we can deal with it tomorrow.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk: The motion of Mr. Stoffer that he wants to move or debate at the next meeting is:

That the Chair be authorized to write to the Auditor General on behalf of the Committee requesting the Auditor General to undertake an investigation of Scotia Rainbow, an Arichat, Nova Scotia fin-fish farm, in connection to outstanding debts to three federal agencies totalling more than $6.9 million.

The Chair: That's the notice of motion. We've had 48 hours' notice, so we'll deal with it at the appropriate committee meeting.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.