FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 13, 2002

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

Mr. Matthews

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

CANADA

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 13, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0940)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We don't need to be in camera to deal with this. I think this should be public information, that we're dissatisfied as a committee, and the minister's response. So open it up.

    Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Sure. Just to reiterate again, in light of the effort and the work that members of this committee put into compiling this report, the effort of the witnesses who appeared, and the strength of the evidence that was provided to the committee, especially the evidence given by Mr. Pat Chamut, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and head of delegation to NAFO for Canada, I think it's unacceptable that the minister so lightly dismiss this report on the day it was tabled, without having read the report. I think the committee should call him before it and have him answer accordingly.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

    Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Matthews very much for this motion.

    What we in opposition want is some consistency among cabinet ministers. A couple of weeks ago we presented the defence committee recommendations on the future of the military, and that report was handed to the new Minister of Defence. He was asked to comment on the report, and he said very clearly, “I don't want to appear stupid. I've just got the report. I'll make my comments after I've read it.” That's a fair statement for any minister to make when they have a very comprehensive report that had the support of all the federal parties.

    When Mr. Thibeault made those statements, completely dismissing...and not just the opposition.... To dismiss us in opposition is one thing, but to dismiss the work of nine Liberals on the committee and the work of the chair is simply unacceptable. We know he hasn't even read the report. It would be interesting to have him appear before committee and ask him, “Why did you say that, and what are you prepared to do?”

    I thank Mr. Matthews for bringing this forward. He has our support in this regard.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): I have just one short point to add to what Mr. Matthews and Mr. Stoffer have said.

    In his response, the minister also said that he deals with facts. We deal with information presented to us. I would, I think, depend on the information presented to us from people directly involved in and affected by the fishery rather than facts provided to him by people who have never left an Ottawa office.

    Mr. Chairman, I certainly support Bill's motion.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments anyone wants to make?

    Mr. Cummins, and then Mr. Roy.

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I support the motion too.

    I think the issue here is that the committee worked very hard on this issue. It gave it considerable thought before it moved ahead with its recommendations. I think that's the important point here. The recommendations we made were not made lightly. They were made with due consideration. Consensus was sought on this issue because we did feel it was so important, and consensus was achieved, again, after considerable thought and discussion.

    I think it would only be appropriate if the minister did appear before the committee to explain his response.

    The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too support the motion tabled this morning by Mr. Matthews, for two reasons. First, I view this as a fundamental lack of respect on the part of the minister toward the witnesses who have come before the committee. It's ludicrous, in my opinion, to behave this way after many witnesses have asked us to produce a report and to initiate some changes. To dismiss this report out of hand is totally unacceptable, not only because it shows a lack of respect, but also because fundamentally, it means we have lost a very good negotiation tool. Among the recommendations contained in the report was the resolution calling on the government to withdraw from NAFO. To reject this recommendation out of hand is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. This might have been a very good negotiation tool. Therefore, for both of these reasons, I will support Mr. Matthews' motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

    Mr. Burton.

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

    I just want to say, as a new member of this committee, this being my first experience with a report, I travelled to the east coast with the committee and I was extremely impressed by the information we gathered. I think it was good information. I just have to say that I was totally disappointed with the reaction of the minister.

    It perhaps points out a bigger problem within the whole operation of DFO. My riding is a coastal riding on the west coast. I get more complaints--I have more difficulty with DFO problems--from the little guy who just wants to go fishing and from the commercial fisherman. I recently wrote a letter to the minister outlining some of my concerns. I haven't received a reply.

    I think the problem is endemic throughout the whole of the DFO operation. I'm not blaming the minister so much as the bureaucrats--not all bureaucrats but some bureaucrats. Of course, ministers obviously listen to them, and that's another problem.

    I honestly feel there's a huge problem within the whole DFO operation. This is probably indicative of some of the difficulty.

¿  (0945)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lunney, and then we'll go to the vote.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the honourable member for bringing the motion forward. I reflect the views that have been expressed around the table.

    This is a very important issue, certainly to Newfoundlanders, to all Atlantic Canadians, and it's important to all Canadians. The regional economy is certainly threatened by the matters that we are discussing in this report, and it affects international relations.

    The implications of this report are very important for Canada beyond the regional consideration, and I think it's very significant and serious that the minister would dismiss it out of hand. We want to find out why he would do that, but the fact that it may require action on behalf of the government is the very reason we deliberated over this very carefully and that all parties came to the conclusion that this is serious enough that we need to take action. All of us are in agreement on that. I think it's very appropriate that we ask the minister to come and have a frank discussion about why he has done this and where we want to go with it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The last comment, Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: I think one other thing that bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the minister's statement that overfishing was not the problem when it came to the recovery of the cod stocks. When the minister comes before the committee, I think that's another comment of his that I would like to see him respond to.

    The Chair: The question is open. The motion is basically that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be called to appear before the committee next week with regard to his comments on the report.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: You can transmit that this afternoon, Andrew, and we will talk to him as well.

    On future business, Peter.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: For further discussion, I'll be writing a more formal request to the committee that the committee undertake a case study of a community like Canso, for example, which was very successful for 100 years in the fishing industry and now is on its last legs--or Burgeo, whatever community you like. I think we should do a case study of what has gone wrong with the so-called corporate control of our fisheries.

    Yesterday, after the news that Mr. Tobin has some very good friends in the crab industry...this is an example of what happens when you take a public resource and corporatize it. The small fishermen in those small communities throughout the country suffer greatly in this.

    It would be interesting for us to do a case study on a particular community, either on the west coast or the east coast, and discuss that further: this is what has happened, this is what has gone wrong, and here are the recommendations to correct it for the future.

    The Chair: Okay. We'll go in camera on this.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]