;

FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, May 9, 2003

0830

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

0835

Mr. Gerald Beck (President and Coordinator, Richibucto River Association)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

0840

The Chair

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

Mr. Gerald Beck

0845

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

0850

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

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

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gerald Beck

0855

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gerald Beck

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

0900

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Beck

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray (Executive Director, Botsford Professional Fishermen's Association)

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

0905

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

0910

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Smallwood (Botsford Professional Fishermen's Association)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Donna Murray

0915

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Bob Wood

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

0920

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Donna Murray

Ms. Pauline Smallwood

0925

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

0930

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

0935

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Donna Murray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Ms. Donna Murray

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool (Executive Director, New Brunswick Seafood Processors Association)

0940

0945

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Angélina Cool

0950

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Angélina Cool

0955

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Angélina Cool

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Angélina Cool

1000

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

Ms. Angélina Cool

The Chair

1005

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr (Director General, Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels)

1010

1015

1020

1025

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1030

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1035

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1040

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1045

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

1050

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1055

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

1100

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

1105

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Chase (Vice-President, Government Affairs, Atlantic Salmon Federation)

1115

1120

1125

1130

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Chase

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Stephen Chase

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Stephen Chase

1135

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Stephen Chase

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

1140

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Stephen Chase

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1145

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Chase

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché (Director General, “Association des crabiers acadiens”)

1150

1155

1205

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

1215

1220

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

1225

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

1230

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

1235

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Robert Haché

1240

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Joël Gionet (Spokesperson, Association des crabiers acadiens)

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1245

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert Haché

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

1250

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Haché

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 038

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Friday, May 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0830)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)) Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on Atlantic fisheries issues. Our first witness today is from the Richibucto River Association, Gerald Beck, president and coordinator.

Welcome, sir. Please go ahead and make your presentation.

¾ (0835)

Mr. Gerald Beck (President and Coordinator, Richibucto River Association): This is more or less a summary of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' perspective on integrated management as it relates to watershed management and its correlation to coastal zone management. Integrated management, or IM, is an ongoing and collaborative process to bring people together to plan and manage human activities in coastal marine and freshwater areas.

Important elements of IM are flexibility and transparency, and where decision-making is done, it's not behind closed doors; rather, it's aimed at working within a process where partners are involved. It is also important to identify who the partners are: industry, community groups, all levels of government, first nations, etc. There is a need to be inclusive and to encourage everyone to participate and be part of the consensus-building process.

The importance of the IM advisory body is to put core people in place to work in the long term and to implement the plan.

Components of the strategy are summarized as assessing the area-determining boundaries; engaging effective interests; development of the IM plan with goals, objectives, and work plans; endorsement of the plan by authorities--for example, DFO, the provincial department of fisheries, etc.; and implementation and monitoring.

As it stands today, there are no specific funds in place other than internal ones, which are occasionally tapped into by different groups. DFO is advocating community-led IM initiatives for which there is no identifiable financial support. This in turn is creating a lot of confusion within the department itself. A lot of thought has been given internally into the funding required, and a pitch has been made to cabinet already, but no funds were allocated in the last federal budget to that end.

The New Brunswick water classification program, which involves classification of all the fresh water, is structured in such a way that it will eventually include the classification of the marine environment. Incorporating the N.B. water classification with the new strategy on how to implement the Oceans Act leads to an integrated management approach and is the obvious next step.

From the perspective of the Richibucto River Association, the RRA, a lot of initiative and good momentum has already begun. The Richibucto has been specifically chosen as a potential pilot project for IM because of its long-term involvement in watershed management. DFO has expressed interest in collaborating, but a lack of funding is the obstacle delaying and holding up the process.

My purpose here today is to bring this issue before the standing committee in the hope that core funding will be allocated specifically to work with community groups that are interested in the IM process.

The Chair: Thank you, sir. That was a nice tight brief.

Mr. Gerald Beck: It's short and sweet.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Before I ask my colleagues if they have any questions, could you just tell us about the Richibucto River Association--who you are, how many people you represent, that sort of thing.

Mr. Gerald Beck The Richibucto River Association is a watershed group. We've been in existence since 1994. We represent all the communities along the Richibucto, some three different nationalities and two different races. We have the two Indian reserves and the French and English culture that exist there.

A lot of the problems have existed for quite a long time, and that was the reason for the formation of the group. We got together with the citizens and had many meetings to discuss the problems. We got together with the University of Moncton and the other science branches to find out what the problems were and how to prioritize them.

Since then an action plan has been formed, and we've been working off that action plan. Since we've been involved for so long and are aware of all the problems we're working with on the Richibucto, we have tried to work over the years with DFO, and they really would like to collaborate with us. We have collaborated on many issues for which funding was not an issue, but there are many issues out there for which funding is an issue, especially with this new integrated management approach.

We have had meetings with all the different departments--provincial and federal--and everybody has bought into the idea of this integrated approach, but the obstacle is the funding. It seems there's no funding allocated, either for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or for Fisheries and Oceans to delegate to watershed associations like ourselves.

So that's basically where we are.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Very good.

I'll call on Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I have at least two questions for you. The first one relates to the management of the Richibucto River watershed. What sort of fishing is done in this river? Is it a salmon river? I really have no idea. I am not familiar with this river.

When you talk about managing the watershed, are you referring to measures to deal with pollution or forestry activity? When we talk about watershed management, we are talking about a series of measures.

My second is question is as follows: How much money does your association require on an annual basis in order to be operational and meet its objectives?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Beck: We have been accessing funds from different departments--for example, the environmental trust fund from the province of New Brunswick and the EcoAction program, which is federal environmental funding. There's another wildlife fund that's available. We have used all these for many of the initiatives we have.

We've found priorities--for example, the septic systems on the river. There were many septic systems that were flowing directly into the river. Since then we've corrected some 120 faulty systems.

We've been working with farms. We've cleaned up some 19 farms, kept some 6,000 cattle out of the streams. We've been fencing. We have done sanitary surveys to identify pollution sites. We've correlated our work and data with Environment Canada to make sure everybody knows the problems exist, and we've brought the board of health to the sites. Many of them have been corrected.

We're at a point now where many things are looking good. We've really tried to do things, but there are many issues on the table, especially issues that involve the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Right now there's a proposal that has been sent in to ACOA to access money for the clam fishery. Our clam fishery, as you may or may not know, is in crisis. We have 54 fishermen currently out of work because of that. We've found some money through Parks Canada. Basically, ACOA doesn't want to be the only agency on the table putting hard cash out. We have no cash. This is just one incident, but it's an ongoing thing.

There's another issue with our eel fishery giving our trout a bad problem with the bycatch situation. But for the sake of $8,000 or $10,000, we could have a bycatch exclusion device implemented and monitored by our association. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has no money for that.

There is another situation where the open-water smelt fishery affects the striped bass in our area, so striped bass fishing has been closed commercially, and as of late it's even been closed to recreational angling.

So there are issues out there that involve money that DFO has no money to take part in. We have tried to bring this to their attention, and it's always the same story: their hands are tied; they don't have the funding and they don't have the personnel.

We are trying to put in an integrated management body to deal with those specific problems. We have formed a technical committee, and basically the way we are approaching this is we go back to the community. We have already gone in this case. We have identified a lot of the issues. Then the issues go before a technical review. Scientists are there, the technical review is there, the problems are identified, and then that's where it stops, because the funding is not there.

¾ (0845)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Let me be more precise. What is your annual budget and what would you like it to be? You must surely have budget forecasts. What is your annual operating budget and how much more would you require, let us say for next year, in order to meet your objectives?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Beck: Regarding the projects on the table right now, we need $388,000 to carry off this survey of the clam flats. This is $388,000 per year. Parks Canada has contributed $125,000. We are hoping ACOA will kick in. If there were another $150,000 made available from DFO, that project could fly.

Our funding to keep our office going every year.... We require three core people, and the salaries involved in the office work probably are less than $100,000 a year. It's not a whole lot of money, but we have to scratch every year to try to find that money someplace, and it really becomes difficult. We know funding has been made available to watershed groups like ourselves on a yearly basis in other provinces. They know that to keep core people in place there has to be funding there, so funding has been made. I think in Quebec now there is a standard of funding that's been put out there for watershed groups like ourselves to operate every year and to make sure the key people stay there.

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Does DFO sit at the table with your organization?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: You talk about flexibility and transparency. Do you find it's there with the Department of Fisheries, or do you run into some roadblocks?

Mr. Gerald Beck: They certainly want to be flexible and transparent, and I think this step with the integrated management approach has brought a new transparency to DFO. We held a meeting recently where the community and all the relevant departments, provincially and federally, were invited to the table. Everyone sat. Everybody was ecstatic about the way the cooperation and the transparency took place that day.

That basically is where it has stopped. We hope to keep this up, but without the funding in place, I see this ending up as a blind alley.

The main thing for DFO is they just do not have the funding to take part. I think they want to be transparent. They want to be part of a consensus-building process rather than try to make rules and regulations that involve people's lives without consensus-building.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do you know if they have a lot of other organizations on their priority list ahead of you, or are you fairly near the top?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Actually, we are the top. We've been specifically chosen because of our long-term watershed management and data collection. So everybody is hoping this will be a pilot project that leads to a province-wide way of doing things.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have one last question. Just how many people are involved in this? How many people are we talking about in your organization? I know you've mentioned some of them, but how many bodies?

Mr. Gerald Beck: The last meeting with the relevant departments had 65 people involved. These were mostly department heads--not all, of course. We had representation from all the industries, all the businesses of the area, the local service district, and town councils and so on.

All the town councils and local governments are depending on us to look at the watershed problems. They are all involved in their own municipal laws and so on, so they don't have time to look at the watershed problems specifically. They see we are doing a good job and they have given that mandate over to us.

Mr. Bob Wood: What kind of funding does industry throw into this, if any?

¾ (0850)

Mr. Gerald Beck: We really have no funding from industry at all. We've approached forestry and fisheries, but I think they've been reluctant to throw their weight behind it. I don't know if they really have any. I think the only funding we've ever got through industry was through fines that had been levied on the industry and we were made the recipient of those fines to do the environmental work.

Mr. Bob Wood: Does some of the stuff involve private industry? I was more or less thinking of private industry, for matching funds or something like that.

Mr. Gerald Beck: Not really. We haven't really had that experience so far.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, it always amazes me. I could just picture Saturday mornings with the rubber-boot brigade out there cleaning up the rivers and monitoring all the sites.

I think your approach of integrated management is a good one. I think that's the direction we should be going in right across the country--B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia. But of course it always costs money.

Are you looking for funding on a year-to-year basis, or would you prefer something like a five-year management plan? Are your plans based on a five-year outlook or year to year, as you go along?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Basically, we have identified and prioritized a list. That is an ongoing list. We certainly have tackled and cleaned up many of those things we've identified. It's just an ongoing thing.

This clam project is a four-year project--the one that's right on the table as we speak. It means going out there, studying the health of the clam, finding out what we actually do have there in standing stock. It would be part of reseeding, reallocating clams, closing, and involving.... DFO has just come up with their own management plan and they're actually hoping this will go through so we can make recommendations to them on how to put better management practices in place.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you also work at the local school associations?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Yes, we've done presentations at many schools. We've funded scholarships. Many of the people who have been funded in this way come to work for our organization, only to be lost to other departments because the funding is not there to keep them. That's a shame, because really, we have kids who come out of our schools who know the problems of our area and they can't stay because the funding is not there. That, in my mind, is a real crime.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: From my experience with ACOA, they usually look at tripartite funding. They would do one-third, hopefully the province would kick in one-third, and then the municipality or the region would kick in another third. Do you have assurances, say from the province and the municipalities, that if one-third of the funding came from ACOA, they would follow suit?

Mr. Gerald Beck: We're just getting to that stage. The proposal went before ACOA. They didn't want to take the whole thing on, as I mentioned.

We went to Parks Canada, and because of the fact it's one of the only parks that still have fishing rights left within the park, Parks Canada has to try to employ those fishermen in some way. The fishermen really have made a big stink, for lack of a better word, in the park. They feel their resource wasn't managed properly, and now they're out of work and out of their right to fish within the park. I think Parks Canada, in order to sort of cover their rears, have gone out and found the money to make it part of this project.

ACOA has meetings scheduled later on this month, I think on May 22, to try to bring appropriate money lenders and people to the table--for example, the Atlantic innovation fund, the skiff project or whatever's there--to see if we could make a presentation and show them the science involved in reversing the clam situation.

That's as far as it's gone, but we haven't been offered any compensation and there's been no initiative from the province itself to be involved. I think the province is really reluctant to involve themselves in just about anything. We've had a hard job getting money out of provinces, especially with this last government. I don't want to point any fingers; nevertheless, it has been our experience that they're not taking part in the watershed groups as they should be, other than through this water classification process, which is their program. We're working for them. In other words, they want to know what the fresh water looks like across the province, and we're out there doing the work to find out what classification our waters are. So they've been involved in that process, but as far as anything that involves the marine environment they seem to be hands off.

¾ (0855)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You also mention that there's an aboriginal component to your organization. Has your organization gone to the northern and aboriginal affairs department for possible funding in order to assist that? And it probably wouldn't hurt to go back to Bernard Lord and his government, seeing how there may be an election on the horizon. Maybe they'll just tweak their interest again and have a commitment for you.

Mr. Gerald Beck: We've certainly considered that idea.

We have gone to the Department of Indian Affairs. Last year there was money made available through Parks Canada for native initiatives, and we did write a proposal, only to find out.... And you know these proposals are time-consuming. This last proposal took well over a month to put together. It's a document that thick, and we just worked like dogs to put this together. That proposal went to Parks Canada, and just when the proposal got in they said they had taken the funds out of there and allocated them someplace else. So all that hard good work we went through to get the natives on line to agree to this proposal just went down the tubes.

We have tried to include the natives in all the work we do while presently trying to include natives in the protection aspect as well. We've gone out there and trained natives to try to work in the protection area. We feel that a lot of times natives were maybe not informed about the importance of that protection work, and by getting them involved in it was another way to increase their awareness of what was really out there. So we have done that, and we continue to work with the natives.

I think we're one of the groups that have a real good rapport with the two native communities. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and CFIA have called on me many a time to go there and act as a liaison to talk with our native people because we do have such a good relationship.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Beck, I have a few questions.

You said your operating budget is around $100,000 a year.

Mr. Gerald Beck: Right.

The Chair: Where do you get that money?

Mr. Gerald Beck: That money comes from the environmental trust fund, the EcoAction program, which is an Environment Canada program, and the wildlife council. Those are the only three sources of funding that we have, and they're not always stable. We do propose every year for projects to be done.

The Chair: Who is the first one?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Environmental trust fund.

The Chair: What's that?

Mr. Gerald Beck: That comes from the funding that's made available through lottos and so on in the province. Money that comes in through those lottos is--

The Chair: So you've got some provincial money, you've got some federal money through EcoAction, the environmental, and the third aspect is...?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Is the wildlife component.

The Chair: And what is that?

Mr. Gerald Beck: It's money that's made available to projects that have anything to do with enhancing fisheries--

The Chair: From where?

Mr. Gerald Beck: The province.

The Chair: From the province. So far I don't hear of any private money coming in.

Mr. Gerald Beck: None at all.

The Chair: All right. Don't you find that troubling?

Mr. Gerald Beck: I certainly do. I'd love to see any funding we can get our hands on. We're only stopped short of doing all these projects by the funding. There are many more things we could do.

It's very obvious that if we look back over the years, the years when the good funding was there we accomplished great things, and the years when we had to skimp by, projects stopped.

With all these funding agencies, there's no guarantee. We propose every year, and we're just out there with many groups that are vying for that same pot of money.

The Chair: Mr. Beck, here's my problem. You quoted what the integrated management is, and the integrated management as I see it is a group of partners.

Mr. Gerald Beck: Right.

The Chair: I underscore the word “partners”. You've identified them: industry, community groups, all levels of government, and first nations. What are they supposed to do? They're supposed to be encouraging everyone to participate. One presumes that must include participation in terms of funding. It can't all be the federal government, surely--or even the federal government and the provincial government. I would think there has to be some private participation in these very worthwhile projects. Would you not agree?

Mr. Gerald Beck: Right. I think the only thing we've seen in terms of private contributions is in-kind funding, where the people in industry or whatever private concern are putting their time in or let's say they have equipment to offer. That's where the only funding comes in play. I haven't seen any dollars come--hard cash right on the table--from any part of that industry.

Provincially, as I told you, there are those two agencies, and federally, from the Environment Canada end of things. That is not a great deal of money. This year, from Environment Canada, there was only $18,000 there. If you can't put a whole lot money--

¿ (0900)

The Chair: Mr. Beck, we've been hearing from people on our trip, all of them asking for money. As I understand the evidence, your one-year clam project over four years is $388,000 per year for a clam project. We've had people asking us for significantly lesser amounts of money to run a complete organization for a year. So out of this $388,000--which I view as a lot of money, actually--you're getting $125,000 from Parks Canada, which is great. Where else are you getting the money again?

Mr. Gerald Beck: There is no other money at this point. We're trying through ACOA, but I should tell you--

The Chair: But that's only one project for one year. You have other good projects you need money for too.

Mr. Gerald Beck: Right, exactly. Again, Fisheries and Oceans want to take part in some of these projects. The funding is not there. I'd like to specify a little bit first about--

The Chair: You're asking us to kick-start the process, I understand, but surely you can't be asking us to fund it 100%? At best, DFO would be able to contribute, one would think, but you have to have some contributions from the other partners, I would suggest.

Is there any plan to go out and get the community and industry and the first nations financially involved?

Mr. Gerald Beck: We're trying right as we speak. This upcoming meeting with ACOA will involve these other provincial organizations as part of it--DAFA, United Maritime Fishermen, these things. We are trying. And let me say, just to make clear about the $388,000, about why the funding is so big on that end, on that one particular project: it's because we're employing the fishermen themselves. It's such a huge thing to go out there and survey all those clam flats that it's necessary to have a lot of people on the job. It could never get done if we just had one or two people. So we're employing the clam fishermen, who have no job at this point, to go out there and do the work. This leads to good stewardship on the fishermen's part. It's going to lead to a management plan where the fishermen are involved in the plan and where they're involved in the process.

That's the reason why this project looks so big at the time; it's because we're taking these fishermen who are now unemployed and making them part of the plan.

The Chair: All right.

Are there any other questions? Good.

Thank you so much for your evidence, sir.

Mr. Gerald Beck: You're certainly welcome.

The Chair: Have a good day.

We now call on the Botsford Professional Fishermen's Association. We have two people from that group, Pauline Smallwood and Donna Murray, if you'd be kind enough to come forward.

Ms. Murray, shall we wait for your colleague?

Ms. Donna Murray (Executive Director, Botsford Professional Fishermen's Association): Yes. She's going to get a copy of the report.

The Chair: No problem. That's all right.

Ms. Donna Murray: Pauline, would you like to bring my bag here, and I'll get you a copy.

The Chair: Are we ready? All right. Who would like to begin?

Ms. Donna Murray I'll begin.

¿ (0905)

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Donna Murray: My presentation today is on the access and allocation of rock crab and snow crab. We are presenting it on behalf of the Botstord Professional Fishermen's Association. These are our ideas for today and tomorrow:

Each core fisherman should have the right to an equal financial share of rock crab and snow crab on an annual basis. Each incorporated organization of core fishermen should participate with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in a yearly draw for fishermen designated to fish the allocated quota.

Our goal is the adoption of the Shediac Valley and the Baie des Chaleurs as the inshore rock crab zone for the province of New Brunswick, and the adoption of a permanent management plan for a rock crab fishery in lobster fishing area 25.

Each core fisherman should have the right to an equal financial share of snow crab on an annual basis and each core fisherman should have the right to participate in a draw for either an individual licence or to participate in communal licences for rock crabs.

Rock crab licences that are presently temporary and that are held by fishermen who have been active for more than three years in the rock crab fishery, and temporary communal licences that respect the same conditions, should become permanent licences beginning in 2004 if the biomass warrants it.

The precedents of permanent, temporary, and communal licences have already been set and should be allowed to continue until permanency has evolved.

The number of licences and quota should be determined from the statistics based on both the snow crab and the rock crab landings by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Access to rock crab must adhere to protecting rock crab as a bait fishery and a bycatch fishery during the lobster fishing season. Should the stocks of the additional crab or rock crab warrant an increase or a decrease in quota it should be dealt with across the board with equal access to all licence holders.

Fully 100% of TAC--total allowable catch--for the inshore fishery should be divided equally among core inshore fishermen in the form of communal snow crab licences for the province of New Brunswick. The number of licences and TAC for rock crab should be determined from the statistics based on the landings by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Currently, we are submitting recommendations for a new management plan for rock crab for 2004 to 2006 inclusive. The inshore fishermen from the province of New Brunswick do not have a permanent snow crab allocation, and I'm sorry about that one, but one was presented after I did this brief. So I'm a little behind on it.

How did we get here? In the rock crab the BPFA Inc. were the first fishermen's organization to submit a management plan. In fact we sent in several, until, with the help of DFO, we were given a pilot project. The BPFA Inc. also submitted and won a resolution at a policy convention in Fredericton for an inshore zone and allocation of the snow crab for the inshore fishermen from New Brunswick. It was turned down by the province.

The BPFA Inc. has three temporary rock crab communal licences. The BPFA Inc. finds the boats, captains, diesel fuel, pays the licence fees, pays for repairs, the Receiver General, bait, and dock-side monitoring. The expenses and profits are equally divided among the participants as fishing income. This is a service provided at cost by the association. The association does not have an income. The association also acts as a broker and finds sale for whatever fish our members sell, thus cutting down the costs so that our fishermen receive a better profit. Fishermen or their local community representatives are quite capable of proper management of the resource.

Available options: let fishermen's organizations profit from the snow crab financially, or let fishermen's organizations set up the access and allocation and let the fishermen manage their own resource.

Fishing in the area of the Confederation Bridge is in dire straits. The fishermen could use whatever profit after expenses themselves.

Recommendations:

The BPFA Inc. recommends that the Gulf region of New Brunswick be divided into regions for distribution of allocation, and that the area directly adjacent to the Confederation Bridge be allowed to be managed by the BPFA Inc. core fishermen, who should be responsible for the co-management, conservation, self-reliance, stability, and employment in both the snow crab and rock crab fishery, in partnership with DFO and buyers.

A snow crab allocation as well as a rock crab allocation should be in partnership with DFO, buyers, and fishermen through their association and respective sub-regions.

Fishermen's organizations should not be allowed to profit from any fisheries resource. Fishermen's organizations should represent fishermen in regard to the resource and provide a service, not make money from the resource.

The BPFA Inc. would like equal representation and recognition by all levels of government. This would be an advantage, enabling our association to deal directly with DFO in regard to access and allocation.

Thank you.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Do you have anything that you wish to add, Ms. Smallwood, or make a presentation?

Ms. Pauline Smallwood (Botsford Professional Fishermen's Association): No, I'll wait for your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate the fact that you submitted your comments in writing and in fact made recommendations as well.

Mr. Wood, would you like to start off? Do you have anything you want to ask in particular?

Mr. Bob Wood: Sure. I'm wondering, how did we get here? You submitted and won a resolution at a policy convention about this, about the inshore zone and allocations of snow crab. Was this approved by the federal government and turned down by the province? How does that work?

Ms. Donna Murray: No. it was at our convention and it was voted on by the delegates at the convention. It was voted on unanimously. There was nobody who voted against it. It was supposed to be introduced as legislation provincially, but it was not. The Minister of Fisheries at that time and the premier at that time did not want to go into a permanent inshore fishery in snow crab for the inshore fishermen.

Mr. Bob Wood: Could you--for myself, anyway--clarify what you meant in your last submission where you say “The fishermen's organization should not be allowed to profit from any fisheries resources”. Can you elaborate on that, on what your line of thinking is there?

Ms. Donna Murray: All right. Can I give you an example?

Mr. Bob Wood: Sure.

Ms. Donna Murray: My husband just got his name drawn to fish snow crab. The MFU, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, usually has a draw each year. They had a draw this year and the area is divided into five different sectors. From Little Cape down to Cape Tormentine is one sector. In each sector there are ten boats, and out of those ten boats three of those boats get to go fishing. In each boat there are four core fishermen. Out of those four core fishermen, each boat is given 44,000 pounds of quota.

Out of the 44,000 pounds of quota, the MFU gets to take the 15% off of the top before any expenses are paid or anything. For example, using $3 a pound, if it should be that--I'm just using that as an example because it's easy to figure out--they would get $19,800 per boat. That's a little bit much for administration fees.

They have their own quota that they fish to make money for the MFU in order to keep up their medical plan and the other things they are involved in. So this is money they're taking off the top of the fishermen.

The fishing is not very good in the area. If the fishermen can manage it themselves, I am sure it could be managed at wharf level. It doesn't cost that much to send a boat out.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Bob Wood: Does this happen every year, and does your husband get—

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, it does. You only put your name in once, or you only get drawn once. After you have gone out and fished, you're not allowed to fish again. If you get 15%, the floor fishermen get 15%, and the boat you have to hire to go out to fish gets 25%.

Mr. Bob Wood: So you obviously have to have a second income for your home. Do you?

Ms. Donna Murray: Well, yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: You may need two or three incomes.

All right, thank you, for the time being.

The Chair: I just have a couple of clarifications: 15 and 15 and 25 is 55.

Ms. Donna Murray: No, no.

There are four fishermen: 15 and 15 is 30, which is 60, plus 15 and plus 25 gives you 100%.

The Chair: Okay.

I'm glad you asked that question, Mr. Wood.

Ms. Murray, I thought you were referring to your own organization and other organizations like yours when you said “fishermen's organizations”.

Ms. Donna Murray: I meant ours.

If we did something like that, we shouldn't be allowed to.

The Chair: Right. So it's really “union”.

Ms. Donna Murray: No, not really. Any fishermen's organization could do such a thing, and I don't think they should be allowed to. I'm not specifying a union, but just gave it as an example.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you for your presentation.

Madam, the last time I was in New Brunswick, I heard from some groups here and in P.E.I. that the fishing was not very good in and around the Confederation Bridge.

Ms. Donna Murray: That's right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I heard that before the bridge was built, we actually saw shirts saying “Sink the Link”. There was evidence saying that the bridge would not affect fish stocks, clam stocks, lobster, crab, and whatever you have. I've heard anecdotal evidence that the bridge has in fact caused a decline in the fishery. We raised this informally with one of the heads of science for DFO and with my colleague Mr. Dominic LeBlanc, who were going to look into it. How they were going to look into it, I really don't know, but we plan to follow it up.

Is it your evidence or is your association or the fishermen part of your association saying that the bridge has had a detrimental effect on fishing in that area?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, it certainly has.

In our area right now, in order for our fishermen to be able to make a living, they have to be mobile. Our fishermen have had to go.... Right now, some of them are fishing for herring in Eskiminac and some in Cassie Cape. After the herring season is over, they have to go to the Island to fish mackerel, because we don't have any any more. Lobster fishing in our area is roughly between 3,000 to 4,000 pounds a year, which is not enough to sustain the fishermen.

We also have three communal licences for rock crab, as I mentioned in this report. We divided them up among 57 fishermen. We have more fishermen than that in our association, or 65, but there are 57 fishing the rock crab. It gives them approximately $1,500 a year. But if we had the snow crab, we could have a quota for our own association; on account of what has happened from the bridge, we could turn around and divide it up on an equal basis by just charging them at cost.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I want to narrow down my focus.

Again, is it your evidence that the bridge has had a detrimental effect on fish stocks?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, it definitely has.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Have you any scientific evidence besides anecdotal evidence that this is indeed the case?

Ms. Donna Murray: Just landings.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Have those landings been recorded before and after construction?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, we have landings.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: At a later time, would you be able to present this committee with a copy of those landings? It's something I'd like to pursue, to get DFO to do a study on this to see if that has indeed happened. The reason I say this is that there are still people in Canso who think the causeway was the cause of their problems.

Ms. Donna Murray: It didn't have any effect.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Unless you have hard scientific evidence, it's hard to say one way or the other if that bridge has had that effect. The fishermen obviously have a view that it has. This is just one of the things I wanted to recommend.

You had indicated that your organization had a plan, but are there aboriginal components in your organization?

Ms. Donna Murray No, there aren't. We don't have any aboriginals in our area.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you be advocating support or non-support for the Marshall plan when it was implemented?

As you know, with the recent announcement in Shippegan, what happened is that the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reduced the quota. Part of the downturn in the quota was given to temporary aboriginal and non-aboriginal individuals. Of course, we saw the explosion of anger over that.

Ms. Donna Murray: We have no problem with that. In other words, we basically think that we have a lot to learn from them. One of the things we learned with our rock crab is that fishing on a community level is a good thing. At first our fishermen really didn't want to, but by working together like the natives we found that we really didn't want to go back. They now prefer fishing it that way rather than having individual licences, because it helps the whole community.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You had indicated in your last quote that fishermen's organizations represent fishermen in regard to the resource and to provide a service, not to make money off the resource. In my conversations with FFAW in Newfoundland or the MFU here, they suggest that they don't make money. What they do, in order to provide a medical plan, areas of that nature, they need not only to collect dues, but to charge certain surcharges, like the one you had indicated--the 15%--in order to provide an insurance level for other benefits that may be part of it. I think they would argue--and we'll ask them later on this afternoon--this is indeed the case.

So are you indicating then that they're actually making money, or are they just collecting money to turn it into another sort of service?

Ms. Donna Murray: I'm just indicating that I think it could be done cheaper.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: I love short answers that are to the point. They're just great.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I said it yesterday and I'll say it again. I don't know what it is, but when we have women talking about fisheries issues across the country, it's quick, it's short, it's concise, and it's bang on.

Thank you.

The Chair: Excellent, excellent.

Mr. Roy, s'il vous plait.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I would like to know how many fishermen your association represents. You mentioned this earlier, but I was wondering which species your fishermen harvest? You mentioned herring earlier on. You also mentioned other species.

Do you currently have access to snow crab, yes or no? That was not clear.

[English]

Ms. Donna Murray: Our fishermen's organization represents approximately 65 fishermen. We have 57 paid-up members right at the moment. Not everybody pays every year. Sometimes we have different ones paying each year.

We fish herring, lobster, groundfish, scallops, rock crab, oysters, smelts, and pollock.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Is it the association that shares out the funds you are allocated, amongst the fishermen?

[English]

Ms. Donna Murray: The association finds sales for whatever species they are fishing. Right at the moment we are buying herring from the fishermen, and then we have buyers we sell to. The money is divided equally among the fishermen after expenses. Our expenses are minimal. All that we take off.... Pauline, you could answer that one, because you're the one who does it.

Ms. Pauline Smallwood: Yes, we just take off money for the Receiver General and their monitoring fees, and if there's any trucking involved. After that, it's divided equally among the fishermen.

We try to work on approximately a cent a pound. If we're getting 13 cents a pound for herring, we try to pay the fishermen 12. There is nothing left for the association. We're non-profit.

¿ (0925)

Ms. Donna Murray: And we don't have access to snow crab.

The Chair: I have just a couple of questions, ladies. To go to your presentation, it's an occupational hazard of mine, being a lawyer, that I like to know what we're talking about, and I just want to make sure we are all speaking in the same language.

What is your definition of a “core fisherman” here?

Ms. Donna Murray: A “core fisherman” is a fisherman who has a core licence. To have a core licence, you have to have a lobster licence or a groundfish licence or a herring licence.

The Chair: Out of the 65, off and on, fishermen you represent, how many of them are core fishermen?

Ms. Donna Murray: They're all core.

The Chair: They're all core. Okay.

You say there are presently temporary crab licences. How many of them are there?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes. We have three for the association. They are communal licences for the association. We have a draw on who will fish them for the association.

The Chair: You'd like to see those made permanent.

Ms. Donna Murray: That's right. And we'd like to see the same set-up for the snow crab as well.

The Chair: Right.

You were reading your paper and in it you pointed out that the inshore fishermen from the province of New Brunswick do not have a permanent snow crab allocation. I believe you said that was drawn up before certain things happened. Is that right?

Ms. Donna Murray: That's right.

The Chair: So what has happened? Can you put that on the record?

Ms. Donna Murray: The minister has given a permanent snow crab quota--I think it's 15%--to the inshore fishermen of the province of New Brunswick. It's been allocated through the Maritime Fishermen's Union.

The Chair: That's where I get confused. The minister has given a permanent allocation--is that what you said--

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes.

The Chair: --to the fishermen of New Brunswick for snow crab--

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, for snow crab.

The Chair: --through the union. How does that work?

Ms. Donna Murray: The MFU will help the minister or the government decide who will get the licences.

The Chair: Are you happy with that?

Ms. Donna Murray: No.

The Chair: Tell us why not.

Ms. Donna Murray: Basically the way they are going to be given out, once the permanent part of the licence comes in--because right now they're going to be able to finish the draw until everybody has had their one-time chance at fishing snow crab.... After that, it will be given to those who want to sell all of their core licences, and then in trade they'll be given a snow crab licence to fish instead, in order to get people out of the lobster industry.

They figure there are too many people in the lobster fishery. As far as I'm concerned, one way of getting them out would have been to cut down the traps. Every 250 traps they cut back would have taken one lobster fisherman out, and I don't think that.... Say, for example, if there are ten full snow crab licences to give out--and I don't know how much quota there's going to be, nor do I know how many licences there are going to be that they're going to be able to give away--it's not going to make that big a difference in the lobster fishery. The fishermen in our area don't think so.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Just so I think I understand what you're saying, you fear that this permanent licence, this arrangement you've just told us about, is going to be used to manipulate other fisheries.

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Wood was asking you some questions about a policy convention. What kind of policy convention?

Ms. Donna Murray: It was a Liberal one.

The Chair: Was it federal Liberal or provincial Liberal?

Ms. Donna Murray: It was federal and provincial, both.

The Chair: Okay, I'll go on from there.

Under your recommendations.... In our travels we've heard many times that there should be a partnership between DFO and the fishermen. I think I'm right that this is the first time we've heard that buyers should be included in the partnership. That's kind of unique. Why are you including the buyers in a partnership with DFO and the fishermen?

Ms. Donna Murray: Basically, on account of the snow crab. The snow crab fishermen, the permanent ones, right now own their own factories. If it had been us negotiating with the government to try to get a quota for the inshore fishermen, I would have thought it would have been better to have gone directly to the snow crab fishermen, because they are not only the ones who fish it, but they're the ones who have the factories, who are the buyers. They should have gone to sit down with them to come up with an agreement. Then they should have gone to the government, together with the natives. But that was just maybe a woman's way of thinking. I don't know.

The Chair: Well, quite often a woman's way of thinking is the best way of thinking.

I just want to be clear here. You're saying the snow crab fishermen are also the processors, or the buyers?

Ms. Donna Murray: The snow crab fishermen are also the buyers. They own the factories, so they're processing and buying.

The Chair: Doesn't this go against the philosophy of fleet separation, of fishermen having the licence and then somebody else doing the processing?

Ms. Donna Murray: I don't know whether it does or not.

The Chair: What do you think?

Ms. Donna Murray: What do I think? I don't see anything the matter with it.

The Chair: Okay, fair enough. That's it. Thank you so much.

Are there any supplemental questions out of that?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Madam, again, sorry to stick to this bridge issue, but have you raised with DFO the issue of the bridge and what it's done?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: When did you do that?

Ms. Donna Murray: I've done it on numerous occasions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Was it a couple of years ago?

Ms. Donna Murray: The last time would be a couple of years ago.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Who did you present it to at DFO? Would it have been the regional director, local management?

Ms. Donna Murray: Maurice Levesque was the individual.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is that person still working for DFO?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, he is.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Now, you presented your evidence or your summations to DFO.

Ms. Donna Murray: We presented to a committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And did you get any response from them?

Ms. Donna Murray: We had a response. We accused them of going against the act. Basically, for a while Jim Jones and everybody was sitting up and they thought they actually believed the bridge had had an impact, until he went around with Jacques Whitford's report, and of course it said it had no impact whatsoever on the bridge. They said we didn't know what we were talking about and Jacques Whitford had said this and this and this. So our report was just shelved.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Correct me if I'm wrong; you said Jim Jones assumed there may have been a problem with the bridge.

Ms. Donna Murray At the time he did, yes.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did he say that to you?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And then after Jacques Whitford steped in--

Ms. Donna Murray: Well, Jacques Whitford didn't step in, but Maurice Levesque went around with the report because he was quite upset. Anyway, afterwards they just started quoting from the report, which.... I mean, I have all the copies at home, too.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Correct me if I'm wrong: you made a presentation to DFO, and they then contracted someone with an environmental firm to do a study. Is that correct?

Ms. Donna Murray: No. The contract was done when they were building the bridge. It was Strait Crossing who contracted it to Jacques Whitford. They did a scientific study all during the time they were building the bridge and for so many years afterwards--three years, I think.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So Jacques Whitford did the study afterwards as well. And this report says that it had no effect on fish stocks, and you don't believe it.

Ms. Donna Murray: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did DFO believe you, or the environmental report?

Ms. Donna Murray: They believed the environmental report. But some of them in DFO will say, right to your face, that it has had an impact.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you have copies of those reports, and if you do, would you be able to present them to us at a later time?

Ms. Donna Murray: Yes, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies. I appreciate your candid evidence.

Ms. Donna Murray: Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, we are chugging right along here, and we have had a request from people who are not on the agenda. Since we are a little bit ahead of time, I thought we'd give them an opportunity to present their point of view.

So I would call on the Association des transformateurs de fruits de mer du Nouveau-Brunswick. I believe Ms. Angélina Cool is the directice exécutive.

Now, Ms. Cool, we have one half-hour before the next presenter. Based on previous experience, I can tell you that if you read your presentation verbatim, it will take the half hour and there won't be a minute for questions. So if you could summarize it instead, it would be most appreciated.

[Translation]

Ms. Angélina Cool (Executive Director, New Brunswick Seafood Processors Association): Okay.

I am going to give my presentation in French. Feel free to ask questions in either French or English.

We understand that there is currently a crisis in the crab industry in the province. We cannot ignore the crisis but, as someone involved in the processing industry, I simply want to say that certain aspects could perhaps have been dealt with differently.

Before starting, however, I would like to give you a brief overview of the processing industry. As you know, snow crab processing plants are by and large concentrated in the Acadian Peninsula. In fact, 11 of the 13 processing plants are in the Acadian Peninsula. The two others are in the Westmorland region.

Each plant requires a $3 million to $4 million investment, in addition to the money needed to acquire premises. Crab generates $134 million in sales, 75 per cent of which is related to activity in the Acadian Peninsula. Furthermore, some $6 million are generated in salaries, a figure which corresponds to around 300 to 400 persons-years.

That being said, in terms of economic sustainability, it is important to bear in mind that the snow crab processing industry is just recovering from the recent period of stock declines. Added to that, it was a difficult time for the industry because of the over-bidding in terms of the price of snow crab.

I would also like to speak to you about the fallout. What we, those of us who were involved in the processing industry, want to say is that we are part of all that is going on in the fishing industry. Decisions regarding catches affect us directly, although we are often not consulted.

Now, more than ever, it is important to bear in mind that federal decisions on catches directly affect the processing industry, its workforce, and related markets.

Allow me to give you an example of what is going on at the moment. Some processors, who previously had buyers across the world, are seeing their clients go to other suppliers. At the moment, there is a lot of talk about the impact of the crisis on the fishing industry, but people seem to forget the impact that this is having on the processing sector.

The current snow crab crisis, which we consider to be very serious and possibly irreversible, is proof of this. It has paralyzed an entire sector of the economy and hurt an entire region whose survival is closely linked to this sector.

As regards the impact on the industry of the late announcement of the fishing plans, it is important to understand that processing plants have to get prepared ahead of time. When I say get prepared ahead of time—I have spoken about this with several people this year—, I am talking about almost a quarter of a million dollars worth of purchases that people have to make for their plant, be it for packaging or something else, before fishing begins. No other industry invest so much in equipment while so often not knowing when it will be used.

Then there is the issue of employees constantly phoning to find out when they will start work. Then there are the banks who are reticent, or who indeed even refuse, to lend us money because we cannot say with certainty when fishing will begin.

Speaking of natural resources, we could take the example of mines. In the mining sector, people know exactly where they are going to be able to work. Mines are an actual resource, but they know ahead of time.

At the moment, we have people working in human resources who have no stability and no recourse. They are not even involved in decisions.

As regards processors' involvement in the decision-making process, with the exception of its involvement in the advisory committee, the processing sector is not involved in the decision-making process. We believe that processors have a broad understanding of the sector and a wealth of experience given that they deal with many different stakeholders: fishermen, business representatives, plant workers, creditors, etc. This is no insignificant amount of expertise and, in our view, it would be in the best interests of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take advantage of this knowledge.

We want to be consulted, to be involved in the decision-making process.

Another issue is the way in which plants are supplied with fish, which is perhaps the most important point. As was already mentioned in the overview which was provided, and which you can read, the way in which the resource is distributed is a highly destabilizing factor for snow crab processors. This is because processing is no longer automatically handed over to traditional plants in the region or, at any rate, it tends to change hands quite easily.

The more we allow the fish to be passed around different stakeholders, the more the boats... I think that fishermen are a bit like hunters in that they will go from one plant to the next and sell to the highest bidder. That is the reality.

For many years, when traditional boats held fishing rights... Five of the 11 plants in the peninsula belonged to crabbers, the other 6 did not but, in general, there was a degree of stability. Thanks to that stability, we were able to buy equipment.

This is a highly competitive industry. I read in a newspaper that, in Canada, we are using less and less cutting-edge equipment. These people are trying very hard to develop equipment yet, at the moment, the fish are taken all over the place which is very destabilizing for a plant.

So the resource is allocated to non-traditional fishermen who often move around a lot... The fact that the product for which we have processing equipment may be sent elsewhere means that, particularly in New Brunswick, we end up with a labour force surplus. People working in the processing sector leave to work in other regions where there is a shortage of workers.

You call that competition, but there comes a time when, like any other company, we have to know things ahead of time.

Processors feel that the current resource management system is politically motivated, and that is nothing new. Resource allocation criteria are applied randomly and depend on the political issues of the day.

¿ (0940)

The Atlantic fisheries policy review we were involved in does not seem to seek a remedy to the situation. We think the decision-making structure for access to the resource should be reviewed so that the decisions made in that manner meet clearly established criteria, that are known, considered and accepted by the industry. Otherwise, the processing industry will always be extremely unstable in terms of its supply and unable to streamline its operations on the basis of new global opportunities and fallout that could result.

I spoke fairly quickly, but there it is. You can read the rest.

¿ (0945)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Madame.

Mr. Stoffer, would you like to lead off?

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

Madame, you're not the first person to raise the issue of those very late--sometimes the day before--openings of those plans, and I can appreciate your frustration in that regard. But when you raise that issue with DFO, what do they say is the reason their plans are so delayed, are so late?

Ms. Angélina Cool: As it is, the plans are done with fisheries. What we're seeing is that they're dealing with the fishermen.

It's kind of two worlds. This is what it comes to. Could we live in the same world?

We're seeing that all that has to do with the fishery is with DFO. We are on land. So we can talk it, and they're very polite and we truly work with them, but on the plan, they say things like, well, we deal with the fishermen on that. It's just as if the fishermen will be sending the fish somewhere in the end. But we are the ones who will be processing.

The processing industry employs more people itself than any other industry in the fisheries, but they don't have a say in how it's....

So they might be fighting with fishermen for months, and there's nothing. What about us? What about me? I have equipment. I have a million dollars' worth, and it's no, we deal with the fishermen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We've heard that a lot of people are very concerned about the owner-operator principle and the fleet separation. I'd like you to point out again your views on that.

We've had a lot of evidence, people saying there has to be a division between the fishermen, the licence-holder on the boat, and the processing.

I've heard one expression that I haven't heard before: We don't want the processors to have rent-a-captains on the boats.

Ms. Angélina Cool: To have which kind of captain?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: A rent-a-captain.

Ms. Angélina Cool: A rent-a-captain.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's right--which means the processor would own the processing and the boat, and the fishermen would be part of your employees in that regard. A lot of people have expressed concerns about that, that there should be a distinct division between that. Do you support that division?

Ms. Angélina Cool: Right now I'm working with processors all over the province. Among all our members, we have five plants that are owned by fishermen. But while we're there, it's very clear to us that what they bring to the table is processors' preoccupations. What we're seeing is that processors cannot own a plant, but fishermen can own that. It has something to do with the size of the boat, and all that.

As it is, most of time the processors who are there are managers. Fishermen are there, but very often we even have fishermen who do not have their fish processed at their own plant. It is divided. They bring their fish there to be processed, but it doesn't stop them saying they'll sell it somewhere else.

It's kind of two businesses: they have a business of fishing, and they have another business of processing. They have the right to do that. Processors don't have that right. But if you're asking me, certainly we are looking at how it would be if we could stabilize the resource. How would you ask any other industry to invest as much money as the processors are investing and not sure be of their resource?

If it is in wood, with Irving, if you say you're going to be buying some equipment to cut the wood, you're sure the wood will be there. When you're talking about mining, you're sure the mining will be there. But in the fisheries, we're asking them to invest and to take care of employees, but they are not sure of the results.

Just this spring, they were all ready, they have all the employees, everybody is waiting, and the resource is not coming. It has nothing to do with them. They were ready. They say just bring us the resource and we'll process it. It's not how it gets there, who brings it to us. What we would like to have is more stability, because right now we are risking losing our plants.

This is no joke. We're not crying wolf right now. We have plants that may not be able to open.

There are two components. Right now in the province, there is one place where the plants are ready and they don't have the resource; and another part of the province where the resource is there, but the people are scared to work because they are not sure of the resource. Their way of dealing with reporting the hours is kind of looked upon as banking the work, but it has been accepted for years.

So we have an industry in which we're still dealing with business people who have to compete all over the world, and they're not sure of their resource. They will still expect them to....

If someone is hit, it is the processors, because they're the ones who sell. I've just talked to one. He said his biggest clients may just turn around and buy fish from somewhere else, and if he loses that, that's it.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is my final question.

You raised the issue of the hours. Of course, that has been a huge political issue in this province with HRDC and employment insurance. Could you very briefly explain where that is right now? Are talks ongoing, or are they delayed for a future date?

Ms. Angélina Cool: I'm going to talk about what was written in the paper. I'm not going to go any deeper.

As it is, they met with Ms. Stewart. Ms. Stewart said she would get back to them. Essentially what they've asked, because they are at risk of losing their resource.... We cannot just wait until tomorrow to process when the fish are there. We want to be considered maybe a bit like they did with the fishermen, where your revenue in a year is considered, instead of counting the hours.

Ms. Stewart said she would get back to them. In the meantime, what's happening in the industry is that at the beginning of the season there are plenty of hours, so people are coming to work. But in a few weeks--it even started this week because of the price on lobster--there will be fewer hours. Employees are already saying they will not go there if it means their revenue will be less for the rest of the year. They need a certain amount of revenue, and if working means less quality of life for them, they will not.

So they are very scared about how they are going to deal with it when their resource diminishes, because they haven't received an answer. They were asking for a pilot project, because essentially what they're saying is if you work in tourism, if you work 520 hours.... We are not working after that. The season doesn't permit that. If there is no work, you are allowed to have EI all year long, no problem. But if you work in the fishery 520 hours and there's no other work after that, you'll receive a quarter of what those who are working tourism for 520 hours receive--which is the very same thing.

You are hired, and you're sitting there, and there could be nobody visiting your museum. But still the money comes in, even if you have no clientele.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Even though you did not read your document—I understand you made a quick presentation—, I would like to go back to page 7. At the very end, there is a paragraph that I would like you to explain to me. You say:

The product that is disproportionately expropriated (first nation) or given to non-traditional fishers has a considerable impact on the processing industry in terms of supply safety.

I would like you to explain to me what you mean by that, because in fact, whether it is a traditional crab fisher or a non-traditional one, the resource must be processed.

Ms. Angélina Cool:

Yes, indeed. We discussed that at length. As crab processors, we have the resource.

In New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, there are no barriers. There haven't been any for centuries and we do not want any.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You have free trade.

Ms. Angélina Cool: Ms. Angélina Cool

Free trade, that is the word I was looking for.

In Newfoundland, any product fished in the traditional areas of the province must be processed.

That is a small example. So let's say I live on the coast and I have bought all the equipment—we're talking about millions of dollars—because every year I fish crab. I have been doing so for 10 years.

Any fisherman who owns a boat is a businessman, a nomadic hunter. He can sell his product to someone from elsewhere. We have even heard it said that there were now plans to sell the product in Chéticamp, in various places. Business is business.

That destabilizes the processors. We were especially destabilized when crab stabilized somewhat. Generally speaking, the traditional fishers brought their fish and there was a sort of history. Lobster was processed in the south. I'm not saying that everything should stay the same, but all of sudden, very quickly, there was a change for the first nations and it was certainly the most affected peninsula.

We wanted to share, but when doing so, one has to take into account the destabilization in plants, the equipment that is there and the purchases. We don't know what the effect will be. We bought packaging to process a certain number of tonnes of crab. We were waiting for it. That very morning, we were told that two boats would not come because they went elsewhere. There were all sorts of people waiting, there was the packaging, there was the purchaser. Everything was destabilized. Of course, that is their business, but shouldn't there be some laws saying that we should have to know a few months ahead of time?

If the plan were announced ahead of time, if we had known at least two months before that a given boat would not come, at least we would not buy everything we need for that boat. But that was not the case. It's as if there were a wall.

They have the DFO's winning ticket, which says they can fish and at the last minute move from one place to another. But the fish is expected to be processed. Otherwise it can always be sent elsewhere because we are not part of the decision-making process.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Furthermore, some fishing plans are late. Based on what you are saying, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But how can you force a fisher, an independent businessman, to sell you his product? Essentially, that is my question.

Ms. Angélina Cool:

No, you can't force him. That is what the current Act says, and the fisher doesn't know ahead of time either how much fish he will catch.

But it is still a natural resource. It may be wishful thinking, but if the plan were announced, couldn't there also be a regulation stating that we must know two months ahead of time because it is a natural resource? We could be informed ahead of time of something.

The current legislation says absolutely nothing, but there must be some way for us, the industries, to know. I am not the one who will decide how, but everything would be based on the processing industries. Right now, decisions seem to be made based solely on the fishery. It is as if there were a wall. But where is the processing industry in all this?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes, but there are two facets to your answer. First of all, there are the late decisions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Everyone agrees that it makes absolutely no sense. If you look at what is happening with shrimp, it is absurd. The fishing season has started and even the shrimp fishers don't know the plan. Everyone is willing to admit that this is crazy.

But what you would like is for fishers to know the fishing plan two months ahead of time, so they would know what they could fish, and you could negotiate agreements with them and get ready accordingly. Is that what you are saying?

Ms. Angélina Cool:

Yes, that is just about right.

First of all, we would know how much fish would come. We usually have a good idea of what is going to happen because we are in business, but that is when the risk element is nearly zero. But now, we have to borrow from the bank and try to keep our employees, at a time when the risk element is so high. The bank is not sure we will be able to pay back the money. The bank asks whether I will have any and I have no way of knowing. The employees ask me whether I am sure I will be able to give them work.

In any discussion on the processing industry there is always an element of risk. Also, when you work in the fishery, and only in the fishery, you really have to do the processing very quickly.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: And this year, given the situation, based on your assessment, how long do you think processing plants can wait before we see some bankruptcies?

Ms. Angélina Cool: My members are now telling me they will have to close. They are so stressed out! It is a very explosive situation. When you are in business and you start talking about bankruptcy, it is very difficult to avoid it. I must admit that the people are extremely concerned. They have never experienced this situation before.

In the past, staffing adjustments were often required, but the resource was relatively stable. It may have disappeared forever, and when fishers are allowed to go out to sea, the resource may not even be there anymore.

This morning I heard that we had buyers. The situation is very difficult for the processors. We spent millions to break into a market, Japan for example, which is now starting to go elsewhere.

Newfoundland sells crab. Russia sells crab. Alaska sells crab. We are losing a market we managed to break into at great expense. We had broken into the American market, but it was not yet safe and we are now losing it.

À (1000)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We have three minutes. Maybe I could put a question in.

Just so I understand your evidence, you said--if I wrote it down correctly--five out of the eleven plants are owned by crab fishers.

Ms. Angélina Cool: Yes.

The Chair: So 45% of the plants are owned by crab fishermen?

Ms. Angélina Cool: Yes, that's about it.

The Chair: All right.

I can't remember if you specifically answered Mr. Stoffer's question. What does DFO tell you as to why the decision comes out so late?

Ms. Angélina Cool: When we call, they say “It's coming from Ottawa.” I have been calling, and they say “We don't know; it might be tomorrow.” It has been like that. They'll say, “Well, maybe next week, or maybe tomorrow.” Tomorrow they don't know, but they say they will let us know. They don't say.

The Chair: So the answer is they blame Ottawa. They are waiting for a decision from Ottawa. Is that what they are saying?

Ms. Angélina Cool: Yes, that's right.

The Chair: Okay.

In terms of this certainty, this may be a very naive question, and it probably is, but let me just ask you.

Let's take the crab fishery. There is of course no discussion whatsoever in the snow crab fishery of a moratorium. The only issue is what's the catch. So can you not negotiate preliminary agreements with the crab fishermen and adjust them by contract, based on what is allowed in the final quota, and thereby provide yourself with some degree of certainty?

Ms. Angélina Cool: Yes, and that is done, especially where the plant is owned by fishermen. So that has been going on.

It is an industry that was quite stable. If one industry was stable, it was the crab processing industry, and because of that, they invested a lot of money. But right now, with more coming here, it's getting more and more destabilized.

Right now, on top of the quota, we don't know, but we have more coming. We have inshore coming in. We have first nations. That's fine, as long as we can get it, but right now it can't go anywhere.

Wait a minute. My cell phone is ringing.

The Chair: That must be an important call if they interrupted you, so I'll let you take it.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

[English]

I now call on the Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels, Monsieur Saint-Cyr. Monsieur Saint-Cyr is director general of the Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionels.

Please begin your presentation. Thank you very much.

À (1005)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr (Director General, Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stick to the text I circulated. It will be easier for the translators.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views on the Atlantic fishery management. That is why we were invited. Our document was prepared about 10 days ago. I hope you received it.

The document was prepared using PowerPoint. It was better to do it that way because there was a lot of movement. We will have to stick to the printed section.

The document was circulated prior to the events everyone is discussing now. Its purpose was to inform you of our views on fishery management and the management style for the mid-shore fishery in the southern gulf so that you could better understand the situation.

Rather than bore you with lots of figures and statistics, we decided to explain in simply terms all of the requirements we think should be taken into account when planning the management of an industry that is so critical to our region, the Acadian Peninsula.

Anyone who knows how to drive a car—and I presume that most adults do—should be able to understand our approach. It is based on the principle of traffic lights. We adopted a method used by scientists to summarize the condition of the fish stocks. Just like traffic lights, our management style uses three colours: red, where everything stops; yellow, where you have to proceed with caution, in fact extreme caution; and finally, green, which allows for the flow of management elements.

Before getting to the crux of the matter, I invite you to look at the page entitled “The Private Sector and the Public Sector”. Gentlemen, I am sure you are familiar with the respective responsibilities of each of those two sectors.

We will now present the federation's view point. The Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels represents approximately 500 fishers. We are a federation of family fishing operations and their employees, the crew members.

Over the past 20 years, the mid-shore fishers in the Atlantic Peninsula, with the help of the New Brunswick government, invested $173 million to create the fishing fleet.

In 1989 and 1990, when the crab industry was going through a major crisis, several fishers invested at least another $20 million to buy back the plants that companies such as National Sea, Connors Brothers and a few independent processors had put up for sale, convinced that the crab industry held no hope for the future.

So the mid-shore fishers in the Acadian Peninsula invested a total of approximately $200 million.

I now invite you to look at the page entitled “Four Issues to Consider”. Many work in the fishing industry and in fisheries management. Many facets must be considered before reaching an agreement.

The chart summarizes those issues. They could also be described as requirements that should be taken into account to manage our industry. The red circle, regardless of which option is considered, represents situations that should be avoided to ensure sustainable development. The yellow circle represents situations that require caution. The green circle, in the middle, represents a situation where the conditions are favourable for sustainable development, not only of the resource, but of the industry as a whole.

The biological considerations axis is the northern one, if you will. It is clear that the safety reference points for sustainable development of stocks are well-known.

The most important and most fundamental indicators are the collection of exact data on catches, control measures on the catch methods and a tight follow-up of fishing activities, in close cooperation with the scientists responsible for stock assessment.

If we stray from those benchmarks, regardless of the reasons, we create problems for ourselves both in the medium term and sometimes in the short term.

The economic axis is the east axis. The proposed strategic framework for the Atlantic fishery management recognizes that an industry must be allowed to be viable. It seems obvious to us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would allow us to meet our industry's economic requirements when it doesn't jeopardize the resource.

You can see in the red zone of this axis that there are two situations that must be avoided: the first is when you do not allow profits to be made and the second is when profits are the only consideration.

The strategic framework is clear: if you want the fishing industry to continue to thrive in communities where it already exists, we must ensure the industry can continue to prosper.

As for social considerations, we had to set up organizations whose role is to establish ties with the political and administrative players in the federal government and with the public.

We are fully aware of the intrinsic accountability that exists when you develop public resources, namely fish resources. Accountability represents both a social and a managerial responsibility. It is a management cost because the industry pays all of the costs related to dockside weighing. It is also a social responsibility because Canadians are entitled to know how we use that resource.

We think that if fishing is allowed only to provide access to social programs, we end up in the red zone for several reasons. The greater the number of people involved in developing a resource, the greater the pressure to keep the quotas high.

Moreover, in such a situation, the fishery is no longer self-sufficient and Canadians pay twice: once when providing access to fish resources and a second time by paying for the benefits of programs such as employment insurance, welfare, etc.

To conclude our remarks on social considerations, fisher organizations are also active in training, and try to work in a professional manner. They also invest their human and financial resources in their efforts to cooperate with federal authorities on the establishment of new standards and regulations for marine safety. We think that is part of social policy.

Now let's look at the political aspect. I use the word “political” in the sense of institutions, and not in the sense of partisanship. It is important to note that the Constitution, the Fisheries Act and many of the regulations are part of the green zone. They are mechanisms that cannot be avoided or challenged.

However, the fact that the Constitution states that fish resources are the collective property of Canadians does not necessarily mean that everyone has the right to fish. The same applies to crab, shrimp or lobster. In other words, if everyone had access to the fish resources, we would be in the red zone, because we could not control all those activities.

The responsibilities of the political authorities and the public administration are in the green zone when their role consist in ensuring sustainable development of the resources they are to manage.

It would be impossible to manage universal access to fish stocks. That is why the federal government issues fishing licences, states the conditions for fishing and every year establishes the usage level for those resources.

I have just summarized the content of the document, from page 5 to page 12 inclusively.

On page 14 of the document, there is a chart that provides a sort of summary of the responsibility or leeway the federal government had at the beginning of the 1980s. It was entirely responsible for the costs of scientific research, the oversight of activities and the administrative management of fishing activities.

À (1010)

It also set up a maritime insurance program. At that time, fishermen made only a very limited financial contribution to fisheries management. The federal government even covered travel costs when fishermen attended advisory committees.

In terms of social engagement, social programs provided extensive coverage. Employees only had to work 10 weeks to be eligible for employment insurance, or unemployment insurance as it was called at the time. The federal government paid for training courses and even paid day care for the children of people going through a training program.

However, due to the restructuring of federal public finances, it has been a completely different story since 1996. The graph of page 17 of the document which was distributed, illustrates this point.

In terms of management, the federal government asked the industry to absorb a larger proportion of costs and to take on greater responsibility.

In terms of social engagement, social programs provide more limited coverage. Not only has the federal government reduced its contribution to management expenses, but it also spends less on administrating social programs. Nowadays, fishermen who wish to undergo training have to pay out of their own pockets. People have to work for longer periods in order to be eligible for employment insurance, and benefits have been cut. As you know, not only have benefits been cut, but workers also have access to them for a shorter period of time.

The table of page 20 shows what the Quebec and New Brunswick fleets, the crabbers and the shrimpers, have invested in management. From 1997 to 2002 inclusively, the southern crabbers and shrimpers alone invested more than $30 million in fisheries management, in other words an average of $5 million per year. Sixty per cent of this amount was paid to the federal government as access fees. That did not happen before. In 1983, we paid $2 to be allowed to fish crab; today, we pay either $13 or $15, depending on the quota.

Twenty-eight per cent of this amount is allocated to co-management. Of the 28 per cent, a significant amount is spent on scientific research, and the rest covers some of the costs of air surveillance and fisheries management activities such as data collection, compilation, and sharing.

A further 13 per cent of the $30 million funds dockside weighing and ocean fishing surveillance programs. It should be pointed out that independent dockside weighing and ocean surveillance companies have to be accredited by the federal government. They are also audited by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I want that to be clear because there is a very strict and exact process governing the accreditation and activities of these companies.

On page 22, you will find a breakdown of costs pertaining to social engagement and civil responsibility.

When negotiating the co-management agreements, both in the crab and the shrimp sector, we tried to take into consideration all of the elements that I have mentioned. This brings me to the issue of shared stewardship which is extensively discussed in the proposal on a strategic framework for Atlantic fisheries management.

In the discussion paper on Atlantic fisheries management published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 2001, all the problems relating to fisheries management are discussed. The strategic framework proposes measures likely to mitigate and, in some cases, resolve these problems.

While respecting political considerations, by that I mean constitutional and legal considerations, as well as biological, economic, and social considerations, the proposal puts the onus on increased responsibility for fishermen as a means of improving fisheries management.

I think that it is clear that, since the mid-90s, gulf mid-shore fleets have shouldered their responsibilities. Not only have we set up strict control measures to govern fishing activities, but we have also contributed substantially, in terms of human resources and funding, to developing and implementing these management measures.

On the 24^th of January 2003, we personally handed Minister Thibault the final report from the symposium on southern gulf mid-shore fisheries which was held in Gaspé at the end of October 2002.

Not only did Minister Thibault not allow us to finish presenting our report, but he did not follow-up on the report which details the consensus reached by all the southern gulf mid-shore fishermen's organizations present in Gaspé.

He interrupted our presentation to tell us that the objective of his policy was permanent sharing of the resource. We tried to make him understand the disastrous consequences of such an approach, but our voices were not heard.

À (1015)

Yet, Mr. Thibault accepted the IPAC's, the Independent Panel on Access Criteria's report.

Should anyone wish to consult the IPAC's report, it can be found on the departmental web page. The following quotation can also be found on the departmental web page. It pertains to access to new resources for non-traditional groups. It seems to me that the minister ought to be aware of what his department publishes. The Independent Panel on Access Criteria's report states that:

The application for the criterion requires that priority be given to environmentally responsible fishers engaging in sustainable fishery practices, subject to verifiable assessment based on past practice [...]

We have been subject to assessment for the past 15 years, our fishing practices can be verifiably assessed. The ocean observation program, as well as the dockside weighing program—the mandatory weighing of each kilo landed in any of the docks used by our boats—, were implemented 15 years ago.

We have worked closely with scientists for the past 15 years, we have reduced fishing activity by means of individual quotas and individual transferrable quotas, we have funded and implemented dockside weighing programs, and we have funded scientific research, monitoring and fisheries management. It thus seems clear that southern gulf mid-shore fishers are one of the best examples of fishing communities whose past practices can be verifiably assessed.

The strategic framework proposes a system of co-management, this is something that we had been doing in the crab sector since 1997 and in the shrimp sector since 1998.

Let us now turn to Mr. Thibault's decision on snow crab. Many aspects of what he refers to as permanent sharing will affect lobster fishers. Lobster fishing generates a higher landed value than crab fishing. What mechanisms exist for assessing lobster fishing practices? Is there a mandatory dockside weighing system? Is lobster fishing subject to monitoring?

I have some articles here. Given its interest in the fishing sector, I would imagine that the department is fully aware of the articles which have appeared in the press, particularly in the East.

I have an article here which appeared in the 1^st of August 2002 edition of Sou'Wester. In it, an official from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency said that in Yarmouth, in the South West Nova region alone, the federal government loses $50 million a year in unpaid tax. As I mentioned, this appeared in the 1^st of August 2002 edition.

Around the same time, on the 1^st of March 2002, Pêche Impact, a publication dealing with the Quebec fishing industry, carried an article saying that in Gaspé around $10 million were lost in this way. The Director General of AQUIP was quoted as saying that his organization has been calling for dockside weighing for five years now, but to no avail. In the same article, Mr. Gagné, from AQUIP, points out that lobster is one of the last species to not be subject to dockside weighing. It seems irrational that a fishery with such a high landed value is not subject to control.

On the 14^th of January 2002, in the Acadie Nouvelle, a retired lobster fisherman—someone, then, who is speaking from experience—decried both the absence of dockside weighing for lobster and the way in which lobster fishing is carried out.

On the 10^th of January 2002, the Presse Canadienne reported that the Nova Scotia investigation on the lobster black market carried between 1996 and 1999 experienced problems. The lobster black market is estimated to be worth between $50 million and $200 million. I am telling you this to show you that there is a serious problem which could be resolved with the introduction of a simple measure.

Why is Minister Thibault giving a group who refused to introduce dockside weighing for a resource with the highest landed value in Canada, access to crab?

À (1020)

Last week, I received a brochure published by the Gulf Fisheries Centre's Science and Oceans Directorate. On page 22, it is pointed out that in 2002, for the southern gulf region, the landed value of snowcrab was $132 million. It is also stated that the crab industry contributed $1.3 million to scientific research. Two pages further on, in the same brochure, on page 24, the landed value of lobster is given as $207 million, yet the sector has made no contribution to scientific research.

How can people speak of restructuring a fleet such as the lobster fleet—the minister refers to the industry downsizing itself—when there is a lack of basic data?

We are very surprised by this, because one of the arguments put forward by the minister and representatives of in-shore fishermen is that they need access to crab due to difficulties in the lobster sector. They argue that crab will help with restructuring their fleets and with fishing activities, and that it will possibly correct resource problems faced by the lobster sector.

But what is the extent of the problem in the lobster sector? Can anyone answer that question? Is it possible to precisely evaluate stock depletion without knowing exactly how many lobsters are landed?

If one compares the work and investment in fisheries management undertaken by mid-shore fishermen with the absence of adequate controls in the lobster sector, it becomes clear that the minister's approach is questionable. To all intents and purposes, he has caused those fishermen who invested the most in cod management, the crabbers, to loose all interest in such an approach. He does not respect the access criteria that he himself approved not so long ago and, before even having officially approved it, he is compromising several of the principles which underlie the strategic framework on Atlantic fisheries management.

We fail to understand why the minister is punishing, for this is indeed what he is doing, fishermen who have responsibly managed their resources, in order to help those who invest neither in management nor in scientific research.

Finally, like many fishers' groups in the Atlantic region, we decry the erosion of the owner operator and fleet separation principles. The minister's recent decisions would suggest that all the work that has been done to implement a fisheries management policy has been in vain.

The minister's discretionary power ought to be used to protect resources but has instead been used to provoke fishermen and destroy an entire community, and here I'm referring to the Acadian Peninsula. We are extremely skeptical about the strategic framework given that the minister's last decision revealed a harsh truth: the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can do whatever he pleases, on whatever grounds he chooses, regardless of the impacts that that may have on a community such as the Acadian Peninsula.

Thank you for your attention.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Saint-Cyr.

Mr. Saint-Cyr, on page 26 of your presentation, you said: “On the 24th of January 2003, we presented a fisheries management approach to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.”

Do you have a copy of that report?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: I do not have it with me, but I can certainly send the standing committee a copy. No, that is going to be presented by the Association des crabiers acadiens later on. Mr. Farrah already has a copy. He is a member of this committee. He was in Gaspé, and attended some of our deliberations.

We talked about how concerned we were that the minister had displayed an utter lack of interest in a report which sums up the consensus reached by all the southern gulf mid-shore fishers' organizations. He simply put it aside. He even interrupted both myself and the Quebec federation. Our two federations had organized this meeting specifically to give Mr. Thibault the report and to discuss with him our approach to the future of mid-shore fisheries management. Both federations were there to meet Mr. Thibault on January 24. We wanted to discuss the principles underpinning the strategic framework which he was about to approve as well as the recommendations in the report on the consensus reached in Moncton in 1999 and in Gaspé in 2002. We had held two conferences on fisheries management.

We saw our work be cast aside before we even had the opportunity to give our presentation. Mr. Thibault told us that he had thousands of reports like ours in his office. He did not react to our report and disregarded the consensus that our sector had reached. Following that meeting, we wrote him a letter expressing our extreme disappointment, and that is putting it politely, in his attitude toward the management approach that mid-shore fishers had proposed. We still have not received an answer.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Stoffer.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: An awful lot of questions.

[Translation]

The Chair: My apologies. Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: No, I am fine.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir, for your presentation this morning. You did say one thing that was absolutely correct: the minister does have the power to virtually do whatever he or should pleases to do. They can take allocation from one community and move it to another, take it from you and give it to them.

I guess the concern we have I'm trying to wrestle with is we have organizations such as yourself that started in the beginning when nobody wanted to fish crab, and you built up the industry. You pay a lot of your own money into science, enforcement, something the government really should be doing. You built this industry up in the markets and now those who are in the industry on a permanent basis can do extremely well in a short period of time. Then you have, of course, the viewpoint that this crab is a public resource, and thus belongs to all Canadians, and thus the minister has the choice, I guess, to try to share that resource the way he or she thinks fit or the way the department thinks it should happen. There lies the conflict: what do you do?

One of the concerns I have is when you make presentations to the department and you don't get a response back in a timely manner, that's disturbing regardless of which department we're talking about. I guess I'm asking you.... You made this presentation, you forwarded it to the minister, and you haven't received a response yet. Is it your opinion that the decision to do what they announced last week was already decided long before you presented your evidence?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: I'm absolutely convinced of that. The decision that was announced.... As a matter of fact, exactly two years ago this committee was here. I'm sure Mr. Wappel remembers. It was the ninth of May, 2001. We were here to discuss if the gulf region should go back to its full powers as a region and why it should. Out of the blue, while MFU was at the table, a member of this committee--who unfortunately is not here today, and I don't understand why--asked.... The first thing he said, and I have the transcript here of what he said, was, “Personally, I believe that in crab there should be a permanent sharing.” Okay? I would like to know what you think of that. That's where the whole story started.

Last week's decision is the conclusion of the process that started here at this committee, because it's the first time--and I've been in this business for at least the last twenty years--it was the first time that the concept of a permanent sharing of the crab resource was put on the table in an official forum. The conclusion of that concept came last week.

So our conclusion is that the minister's decision is not based on what he officially said to the public, but is directly related to the intention of a member of your committee who wanted permanent sharing to service his constituents.

With the effect it has on our industry, not for 2003 and probably not for 2004, but over the cycle of.... Because what you said, Mr. Stoffer, is true, as far as making a lot of money is concerned. It's a lot in some years, but it's not every year. Unfortunately, some politicians, some bureaucrats, take the example of only the good years, and they forget about the down cycle.

À (1035)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I mentioned it in that regard is when the industry started many years ago, it wasn't profitable at all. Nobody was fishing for crab. In fact, crab were considered a bit of a nuisance.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: That's right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And because of the organizations and representations we've heard here and in Ottawa, it was a buildup of that crab--the marketing, the processing, the working toward it, and working in a co-management style. That's one of the reasons the industry is doing so well--obviously before the decision--and that's why in a good year people can make an awful lot of money.

That's what I was trying to get at, the fact of where it came from and where it is today.

My other question for you is, with the permanent sharing that was announced by the minister, the aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who have now been given part of the quota, are they going to have to pay all the expenses you have already been paying for--enforcement, dockside monitoring, at-sea observers, etc.? Are they now being asked to foot some of those costs? Is that part of the agreement?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: I could answer that, but I would rather let Monsieur Haché answer. If you're going to talk about the details of the crab fishery, I think Monsieur Haché, who is one of the witnesses who will come after me, would be the appropriate person to answer that question. I'd rather not get into the details. I would rather leave the details on crab per se.

If we are talking about the general principles of management and sharing, this is what I'm here for. But for the details of the crab, I'd rather leave this to Monsieur Haché and Monsieur Gionet.

The Chair: Mr. Haché will be here in about an hour.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have one final question.

When we were in Newfoundland, the opinion clearly was that the minister had to reverse his decision on the northern cod and the gulf cod. That was basically what they were looking for, to get the minister to change his decision. Is your organization looking to do the same, to get the minister to change his decision, or are you reluctantly accepting the decision for this year and working toward long-term plans in the future? What exactly is your game plan now that the decision has been made?

It's a loaded question.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Yes.

Well, the reason I'm hesitating is that I'm trying to assess the minister's attitude in all that. He has been warned by us. He has been warned by the Minister of Fisheries of the Province of New Brunswick. Because everybody knew what his intentions were. Everybody was trying to tell him what the consequences might be from a social standpoint, but we had already told him what the consequences could be from the resource management point of view and for managing an industry.

This organization, along with Madame Cool's organization, has been fighting for decades to try to get some kind of stability for this industry. What Madame Cool told you a few minutes ago is it doesn't make any sense that an industry worth that much money has to hang on.... We are a month late, and there's no excuse for the federal government to hold us in suspense like that and dangle us--oh, maybe I will; maybe I won't. It doesn't make any sense.

What we're trying to do is bring the political authorities--and I'm speaking here mainly of the Minister of Fisheries, who is responsible for those decisions--to make their decisions in a timely manner and to respect us as an industry, because we have a lot at stake. We have a lot of people we are trying to manage.

There's the weather. There's the biological, like the moulting of the crab. There are a lot of uncomfortable factors that we have to deal with independently of his decision. By bringing a decision late, and on top of that, a decision that destabilizes the traditional industry.... People just blew up. Why? Because in spite of everything they did and despite the fact that there are a lot of people depending on our activities, they don't feel either as an industry or as a community that they have been respected in this process.

À (1040)

The Chair: No more?

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was last week, if I am not mistaken, that the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa. I asked him the following question on the fishing plans. I asked why, year in, year out, he fails to release the fishing plans earlier in the year, and why this could not be changed. His answer was recorded, I can share it with you. He said that it was because everybody wants to see the minister at the last minute. That was his answer.

But that is not my question. I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, watching what is going on, for two or three years now. I have also looked at what took place in fisheries in the past. It seems to me that the industry has been atrociously managed, where it does not seem possible to plan for the long term. I stress that this is what seems to be the case. I have my answer to the problem, but I would like to hear yours. Why is it that for the past 50 years, or even for the past 10 years, there has been no adequate long-term planning in the fishing industry? The first cod moratorium was introduced 10 years ago yet, for the past 10 years, we have been unable to plan, in a way that would allow stocks to recover.

So, as I said, I myself have one or even several solutions to put forward, but I would like to hear yours because you are a very well-structured organization. You have managed to plan your sector. You have managed to work. But there are still obstacles in your path, and I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Part of the problem is the dynamic Mr. Stoffer was speaking about a little earlier when he said that this was a public resource, and so on. There is this whole debate that involves a tremendous amount of pressure, because under the Constitution and the Act, it is up to the minister to make the decision. So he has a very broad discretionary authority and very few guidelines to follow. The objective of the fisheries management policy is to try to provide some guidelines regarding the use of this discretionary authority so that there is provision as to how the fishery should be managed.

In the case of cod, what happened in the first place was that there was an incredible number of fishing firms operating, and I believe the destructive capacity of these firms was underestimated. We were so accustomed to the miraculous, on going regeneration of the sea, that we did not think that technology would mean the end of such an abundant resource. That is part of the problem.

Our data collection at the time was defective, as were our regulations on control procedures. The resource was diminishing, and the technology and fishing practices were adapting to a new context, and we did not realize that there were huge numbers of juvenile fish that were being thrown back into the ocean.

These fish were dead when they were thrown back, but according to the scientific data banks, they were still alive. The scientists took the catch numbers and compared them with the data. There was an projection model used to calculate the potential biomass. The data bank included a great many live juvenile fish. So that too is part of the problem.

In addition, there were the environmental factors, which I think were more an incidental phenomenon than the real cause of the collapse. However, when the stocks are weakened, these particular environmental conditions were not conducive to regenerating the stocks.

All this to say that what the crab fishers did with the scientists from the department is an example that should be followed. However, when people agreed to individual quotas, when they accepted co-management, we should remember that the fishers were not the ones calling for co-management or partnership agreements. We could dig out of our archives all the brochures that the department was distributing everywhere to sell its partnership approach.

We were one of the first organizations to get onboard this project. It was also part of the government's financial restructuring to pass costs on to operators. However, in return for this management approach, we had to have a certain supply guarantee. None of this was easy to set up. The first attempt at rationalization targeted the fishing effort. We started with an overall quota, whereby all the fishing firms were in competition for an overall quota. So what happened at that time is that there was an overcapitalization of the harvest. Fishers wanted the biggest, most high-performance boats to go and fish the largest possible share of the quota. This also led to an over capitalization of the processing system, because in a very short time, there were huge quantities of fish to process, so larger facilities were required. There was no end to it.

The initial rationalization effort was the introduction of individual quotas. With them came mandatory dockside weighing. We said that because of the benefits we enjoyed as a result of individual quotas, we were ready to pay for mandatory dockside weighing ourselves, because we would be better able to manage our fishing season. This brought about some calmness in the industry. That was the first stage.

But, as Mr. Stoffer was saying, there remained the question as to how to distribute the resource and to whom? This is the uncertainty that remained after the introduction of individual quotas, and this uncertainty was supposed to have been offset by co-management agreements or what were originally called partnerships agreements. In return for an investment in the management of the fishery, close cooperation and funding of scientific research, we were supposed to have a supply guarantee that would enable us to stabilize everything, plan our fishing activities, and properly target the best fishing effort for the resource. Actually, the more people are involved in harvesting a resource, the harder it is to control their activities and to limit them.

We have to work together closely, as the crabbers or shrimpers did. I think that the situation with the shrimp in the gulf is quite good. Crab is the most lucrative resource. Take a look at what is going on in the region where Mr. Thibault was born, for example...

À (1045)

[English]

The Chair: Could you wrap up the answer, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: I think Mr. Roy understood what I was saying.

[English]

The Chair: Because Mr. Wood wants to ask a couple of questions.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to know a little bit of history. I'm fairly new to this committee. Mr. Cyr, when you were holding your strategic framework meetings in 1999 and 2002, were the Department of Fisheries involved in that?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: They were invited.

Mr. Bob Wood: Did they show up?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Oh, yes. They listened to what we had discovered. There was a fishermen's meeting, organized by the fishermen's organization.

Mr. Bob Wood: But they were there. Did they have any input in what you came up with or anything like that?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Not at the meeting, because the fishermen are in constant relations with the department. Obviously it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that is our main concern if you want it from....

Mr. Bob Wood: What I'm trying to get at is whether you were given the impression that things were moving along fairly smoothly and then when the new minister came on board everything fell off the tracks.

À (1050)

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Not that quickly, because--

Mr. Bob Wood: Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Last year, in 2002, the minister.... The Acadian Peninsula said at long last, here is someone who understands how fisheries work. He gave, if we're talking about the crab.... The TAC was 22,000 tonnes, and the industry had made the point that to secure everybody in the industry it takes about 20,000 tonnes. There was enough work for the plant workers so that they could work long enough to be eligible for EI and all that. Everybody in the Acadian Peninsula was very, very happy with last year's plan because it was the first time in many years that the plan that was announced was the one that was proposed by the industry. Everything went smoothly. We didn't have any demonstrations. We didn't have unhappy workers in the streets. Everything was smooth. We were very happy at first, but then it took a turn for the worse.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at—why it took a turn for the worse. Was it the fact that, as you say in your brief, the minister tried to impose on us his vision of the fishery—how it should be managed—without listening to people and at least discussing things? I guess what I'm trying to get at is how did this fall off the tracks, and how did we get to where we are today? There is something missing. There is something wrong there if all this stuff has happened. In your opinion, what is it?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Minister Thibault is, to be honest, to be just, ultimately the one responsible for it.

Mr. Bob Wood: Absolutely.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: But I think that either he was ill-advised by his staff around him or he didn't listen to good advice, because I know, as I said earlier, the Province of New Brunswick had told him what could possibly happen if he went ahead with what we anticipated to be his decision for 2003 and beyond, and we had tried to tell him. But it seems some people think—not all people we meet, but there are some—that people like me who work for fishermen's organizations are spin doctors. Instead of looking at what we are telling them as a report of a collective experience--

Mr. Bob Wood: Straight from the heart.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr —from the industry and what we went through and what we think is better for the industry—they have been told that, and we don't like that—they're telling us, “Well, that's a spin. That's just your point of view. There are other points of view.” Essentially, that's what he told us in Quebec City: “Well, that's your point of view. Of course you think like that. But there are other points of view out there, and I happen to differ from your point of view, and here's what I want.” He did get what he wanted in terms of the plan put on the table, with the results that we all know.

We don't know all the results because essentially what happened, and contrary to what some media have reported, the fishermen and the community of the Acadian Peninsula didn't protest against the decrease of the quota; it was the whole arrangement that was announced. The consequences we see are not just for this year--the industry is not worried about this year--but further down the road, three or four years down the road.

We know through experience that every time you bring in a new group, even though it's a small percentage, there's never enough. They always ask for more and more. Now the minister has brought in, or he wants to bring in, new actors with a small amount. Obviously that won't...with what's available to them, and we're at the highest level of the resource if we're talking the crabbers' zone as well. From now on, from 2005--you'll meet the biologist a little later, I guess, and he'll tell you what the situation is—it's going down. When it's going down, it's going down for a long period of time.

The principle of adding new participants at the peak.... And I asked him on January 24 in Quebec City, “Well, what will we do? We already know that two or three years down the road, the crab is going down, and when it declines, it declines rapidly and then it grows back slowly. What are we going to do with those new entrants?” He says, “Well, they'll just have to rationalize.”

Well, what kind of plan is that? You add people, and they told us in Quebec City--I don't know if it's still his plan--that not only the new entrants would have to rationalize, but the traditional as well. I fail to see the logic of such an approach. Maybe if you see that logic, you might explain it to us, because....

À (1055)

Mr. Bob Wood: Well, I don't see the logic, because I've had an opportunity to meet some of the crab fishermen, and they say it's a cyclical business. It goes up and down, and you have to be prepared for those things. Nobody knows exactly when. But the people who are out there fishing seem to have invested a lot of their own money in scientific research, so they—correct me if I'm wrong—actually prepare for this decline, and they're able to withstand that dip.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: They don't like it.

Mr. Bob Wood: They don't like it, but it's part of the business.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: It's part of the cycle. That's why it's important not to focus only on the years they made that money, because they will need that money. If a fisherman's engine in his boat blew up 20 or 25 years ago, he would go to the provincial Department of Fisheries and say, “Today my engine blew up.” The bureaucrat would say, “Okay, here are the forms. How much is it—$200,000? Okay, sign here” He signs there. He would go get his engine, put it in his boat. The debt on his boat would be added onto his debt but his payment would stay the same. It was 20%. We're not in this system any more, okay? The guys have financial commitments, financial obligations that they must meet. There's no more flexibility and no more government-funded financing for the operation.

So they have to.... It's a fishing enterprise, and what I deplore--and it's been said as lately as last week--is that people are saying they don't mind cutting into someone who is making $500,000 a year to give it to smaller fishermen. Well, this is demagoguery. This is political spin, and it doesn't make any sense.

For us, the crab industry is l'épine dorsale. It's what holds all the economic activity of our community. Now, if you erode that based on playing on perceptions, denying what's the dynamic of the industry and la banalisant.... How would you say that? It means to oversimplify, or trivialize. It's extremely damaging, because if our main industry is being impoverished by those types of decisions that have no rationale that hold water.... We're trying very hard in our community. I mean, the provincial government is trying with le programme de relance économique, because from an economic standpoint we are not very strong at this point.

So the crab industry is really like the backbone.

Á (1100)

Mr. Bob Wood: The cornerstone of the thing?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Yes.

The Chair: We are running behind and I have a couple of questions, just a couple of things, and I'll try to be very brief.

First, on the approach you presented to the minister on January 24, did that approach have the support of the provincial fisheries minister?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Good question. I'm not sure if we asked them if they were supporting it or not. From the people we were working with, yes. They were at the conference, and the provincial government said.... In there we have principles of management. We didn't invent those principles; we took them either from the IPAC report to the minister or from the.... You can find them also in the accord stratégique, the strategic framework for management. So we didn't invent those management principles.

I have just been told that the provincial government is supporting our approach, yes, officially.

The Chair: Okay, thank you for that.

Now, you said something else, and I just want to be clear on this. You indicated that the crabbers were not protesting or upset, or whatever word you want to use, about the reduction in quota. The concern was what? Was it that temporary licences were made permanent, or was it that more temporary licences were issued or more permanent licences were issued? In your view, exactly what is it that is upsetting people about this decision, precisely?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: It's very simple. First, the decrease of the quota is an artificial one. It has nothing to do with conservation, and we can prove that to you.

The Chair: But didn't you say that wasn't what they were concerned about?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: The decrease in the quota, because of the nature of the decrease, was upsetting, but it's not that.

The Chair: What is it?

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: Well, Monsieur Haché later will explain to you in detail what it was.

The Chair: I'm asking you.

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: What is it? My interpretation is that on top of putting new players in the game, he decreases the quota for artificial reasons and he more or less slaps us in the face and says “I'm the one who decides, and if I say there are more people there, there are more people there. I don't care about the consequences. You will have to deal with it and you'll rationalize your industry after that. You'll have to deal with my decision.”

It's the attitude with which we were treated that created this blow-up.

The Chair: I just want to confirm that the approach you presented was in writing, and that you have not even received an acknowledgement to this day.

Á (1105)

Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr: That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your evidence. It is very much appreciated, and we are sorry we kept you. We'll look forward to hearing what Monsieur Haché has to say, who you keep mentioning.

I'd like to call on Mr. Stephen Chase, from the Atlantic Salmon Federation.

Á (1101)

Á (1104)

The Chair: Sorry for the brief break, Steve. Go ahead.

Mr. Stephen Chase (Vice-President, Government Affairs, Atlantic Salmon Federation): Mr. Chairman, committee members, and ladies and gentlemen, thanks for inviting me here to meet with you today, to speak to you on the subject of community watershed management.

My objective in speaking to you is to outline a situation that is threatening the viability of another significant fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. The industry I'm speaking of is the recreational fishery for wild Atlantic salmon. It's been with us for generations. In fact, it was one of the original industries of New Brunswick, contributing much to the opening up of the province in the early 19th century, and helping pave the way for investment and other economic development in it.

I have left with you a book, Mr. Chairman, which is illustrative of that. Hopefully, you and the committee will have happy reading.

The fact of the industrial nature of the fishery is as true today as it was then. The recreational fishing industry of wild Atlantic salmon currently contributes well over $200 million each year to the regional economies of Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It supports thousands of good, permanent jobs. In addition, cities, provinces, and many businesses actively present salmon fishing as an incentive and reward to tourists, customers, and prospective employees, serving as a major drawing card in promoting the lifestyle of these regions. I know for a fact that New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Gaspésie all utilize the salmon as a draw, whether it be for tourists or for getting businesses to locate in the region and to create jobs.

But this fishery, like other fisheries, is facing major challenges. It needs leadership and support. This fishery is still viable, unlike some fisheries, and we believe that with proper husbandry it can be nurtured into an even better economic contributor to the Atlantic and Quebec regions.

The husbandry we propose is neither complicated nor expensive, especially compared to the benefits that would result. What we propose is to guide the Government of Canada into implementing established policy, implementing a strategy to build partnerships with community stakeholders, and putting in place the necessary resources to maintain and restore the recreational fishery for wild Atlantic salmon and other native fish species.

At the same time, we propose an adjustment to the prevailing federal view of how the recreational fishery for wild Atlantic salmon should be treated in its development scheme. We think it's vital that the federal government overturn every possible stone to ensure that all economic contributors to the regional economy are protected and nurtured. We believe this is especially true of environmentally sustainable industries that can survive and prosper with reasonable support and leadership.

Several federal departments are actively promoting the importance of partnerships with communities and the need for sustainable economic development. The fishing industry of which we speak—of the wild Atlantic salmon and other native species—and the partnerships we propose are perfect examples of environmentally sustainable industry. We have to get past being tossed back and forth between federal departments, which has characterized our efforts in the past. Now, more than ever, we need focus and leadership. We believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans understands this, and we are calling on him to make it happen.

First, I would just like to say a little bit about the Atlantic Salmon Federation and who we are. We are an international non-profit organization that promotes conservation and wise management of wild Atlantic salmon. We have a network of seven regional councils: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Maine, and New England. We have a membership of over 150 local river associations, with approximately 40,000 volunteer members. Our regional councils cover the freshwater range of the Atlantic salmon in Canada and the United States. So we are an international organization.

We are also a science-based advocacy organization, with clear credibility with governments and the public through scientific excellence, public awareness, and advocacy initiatives. We have contributed significantly to many research and development programs and to school-based and public education programs.

As an example of that, Mr. Chairman, I have included in the package a sheet outlining that ASF has contributed $1.2 million since 1999 to joint projects with DFO. This is volunteer-raised money. We contribute willingly to joint ventures with the government; we don't go to the government with our hand out, without having something to contribute. We have a very good record of partnership with government, and that's what we would like to build on today.

Since the $1.5 million contribution in 1999, we have also made a contribution in kind and in effort. We have some figures that DFO pulled together for the gulf region, which estimated that conservation of Atlantic salmon through community projects exceeded 140 person-years of volunteer labour, with $2 million in direct expenditures. We believe other DFO regions would reflect a similar picture. The volunteer contribution is significant, and has much greater potential if our proposals are accepted.

Over several decades, populations of wild Atlantic salmon, brook trout, and other freshwater fish species have declined significantly, and in some cases populations have been extirpated. There are many causes of this situation in both the marine and freshwater environments. Most of this change comes as a result of human activities in ways that are obvious and subtle.

In the freshwater environment, the impacts of pollution, damaged spawning beds due to silt, lost habitat from dams and impoundments, elevated water temperature and runoff from deforestation, and other causes of habitat injury result in profound impacts on habitat. In turn, there's an adverse impact on the production of wild fish.

ASF is of the view that we need to address these problems wherever and whenever we can. Unfortunately, our historical approach to management of the fisheries has been unable to fully address these issues.

The decline and loss of some fish populations have also undermined the important social and economic benefits the recreational fishery provides to Canadians. Many parts of eastern Canada's economic, social, and environmental well-being depend heavily on the sustainability of these diverse and rich aquatic ecosystems. It's clear that a well-managed recreational fishery contributes significantly to local and regional economies.

In Atlantic Canada and Quebec, recent DFO statistics indicate that expenditures wholly attributable to recreational anglers are well over $300 million annually. I emphasize “annually”. According to a recent study in New Brunswick--this was done through the Department of Finance--the recreational salmon fishery alone has been assessed to contribute approximately $50 million to the New Brunswick economy every year. This is serious money by any standard. It is landed value that is greater than the landed value of several of the traditional commercial fisheries combined.

Like the traditional fisheries, the wild Atlantic salmon recreational industry sustains thousands of good permanent jobs across regions of eastern Canada. These jobs are found mainly in rural communities, where newer forms of economic development are difficult to establish. This is the best kind of sustainable economic development. It has contributed significantly to the economy of many parts of eastern Canada, and it has done so for generations.

There's great potential to protect this important economic and social contribution, but we need leadership and action now. Right now we're facing serious loss in federal scientific capacity and management expertise from fiscal cutback and attrition. Many of the experienced scientists and managers are retiring and they're not being replaced. This comes at a time when we most need to protect this existing industrial base and work to restore this industry to its former full potential.

The loss in federal capacity has happened for clear reasons. DFO and some other federal departments are cash-strapped. We know that. They've been forced by federal fiscal policy to cut programs and reduce expenditures. To a great extent, DFO has been forced to concentrate on traditional commercial fisheries and on development of the aquaculture industry to the exclusion of the recreational fishing industry.

Having said that, we are grateful to the many DFO staff who have been extremely supportive of the need we've expressed. We appreciate that. But they need help in order to help put this industry back on a secure footing.

Our premise is that the federal government cannot afford to overlook the recreational fishing industry for wild salmon and other native species. The significance of jobs and economic and social contributions provided by the recreational fishing industry should place it on at least the same footing as any other commercial fishery with recognition as an industry, and not just as a pastime.

Á (1115)

The recreational fishery is an industry in every sense of the term. However, it's an industry that has clear redevelopment potential. It warrants reasonable fiscal appropriations to fund scientific research and management programs to help sustain the wild salmon populations and their habitat and to protect the economic and social contributions.

I pointed out some of the problems, but I'd like to come to the committee with some possible solutions, Mr. Chairman.

We believe the centrepiece of an initiative to protect and restore wild Atlantic salmon population rests in a significant new thrust to conserve, restore, and manage freshwater fish habitat. The freshwater environment can be seen, touched, and improved, as compared to the difficulties faced in addressing the issues in the ocean environment. It's much easier to deal with the issues in the freshwater environment.

Conservation and protection of fish is a clear provision of the Fisheries Act. Responsibility for leadership and direction in carrying out the mandate belongs to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Fisheries Act contains the necessary provisions for conservation and protection of fish habitat, sustaining freshwater and marine fishery resources, and includes the mandate for protection.

There is also a very solid federal and provincial policy base on which to move forward. For example, DFO's 1986 habitat policy provides a comprehensive framework for the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish habitat, including delivery of the department's national habitat management program. This policy emphasizes the importance of volunteer communities' stewardship, conservation of fish habitat, and the goal of sustainable development.

There is also the 2002 Canada stewardship agenda endorsed by several federal ministers, which recognizes the importance of increasing participation by Canadians in protecting habitat and contributing to the recovery of species at risk in conserving our natural heritage.

Also, in 2001 federal and provincial ministers endorsed a freshwater fisheries strategy, which recognizes that Canada's freshwater fisheries are important to our economy, society, culture, and environment. This strategy also recognizes the importance of volunteer community stewardship partnerships with governments and is specific to the freshwater environment. It's clear that there is ample policy citing the importance of the volunteer contribution to conservation and management of fish and fish habitat.

The task is to act on these policy statements, to save an industry and several tremendously important fish species and the jobs and economic contribution that goes along with it. While the policy framework clearly exists, it has to be accompanied by leadership, reasonable funding, and the provision of central scientific and planning resources.

ASF believes that DFO is well positioned to assume this leadership. We are calling on the federal government to lead a coordinated effort with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec to link policy instruments and programs and to build on the existing cadre of provincial and NGO programs. A strong rationale and a business case can be presented to support this action, notwithstanding the legal mandate for provision of fish and fish habitat management. However, there is a broad community of non-government stakeholders who share the goal of clean fish habitat and productive fish populations. Community volunteers, non-government organizations, and various industries that rely on a clean natural environment represent important and passionate resources that can be tapped.

We think the potential community of interests extends even beyond those interested solely in fish and fish habitat. Such interests would include those interested in biodiversity, safe drinking water, various other recreational and commercial fisheries, desirable living space, people interested in climate change—we can go on into the Kyoto Protocol and so on—protection of social and cultural values, and dependencies of aboriginal people and others. The challenge will be to engage these interests in a mutually beneficial way to improve conditions for fish and fish habitat. I think you heard something along those lines from the Richibucto River group earlier this morning.

Strengthening existing partnerships between government and community volunteers or stimulation of new ones requires a clear strategy that will address the issues and challenges facing sustained community stewardship. It requires identification of a range of options incorporating flexible approaches that will yield a sustained increase in the collective capacity to conserve, maintain, and restore fish habitat and fish populations in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

Á (1120)

So we propose an effective partnership between community stewards and government, envisaging them working cooperatively to conserve, restore, and enhance freshwater estuarine fish populations and their supporting habitats for the sustained benefit of current and future generations of Atlantic Canadians and Quebeckers. It sounds like a mission statement.

There are, however, important prerequisites that have to be addressed before community stewards and government partnership can be effective. These prerequisites include the following.

There need to be clarified roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities for each stewardship partner. The roles to be played by the two orders of government, aboriginal peoples, and community stakeholders must be articulated and supported.

While I mention aboriginal partnerships, ASF has worked very hard to build a good basis of partnership with aboriginal organizations. It's been a very productive and rewarding exercise and forms part of the basis for this presentation today.

We think that clear articulation of roles and responsibilities will do a lot to minimize overlap, duplication, and gaps in services and activities.

Secondly, enhanced scientific, technical, management, and protection services need to be available to support effective community stewardship. These will enable community stewards to do the right things in the right way. It will help gain the best bang from limited funds.

We would also foresee the need for secure and reasonable sources of funding to be available—and I emphasize reasonable funding—to enable community stewardship to succeed. It's essential that dependable sources of funding be available to support delivery of community stewardship programs. These funds can come from governments, both federal and provincial, but they can also be contributed by the volunteer and private sector. These groups aren't looking for a handout; what they are looking for is a vehicle and leadership, or for something that would create support—but not dependency. We don't think for a moment that moneys should be handed over that would create dependency by these organizations. They have to have some wherewithal of their own.

The ASF believes that DFO's habitat policy should be implemented in Atlantic Canada and Quebec in a manner consistent with the way in which it was accomplished in British Columbia. In B.C., approximately $100 million of the comprehensive five-year initiative for a new directionfor Canada’s Pacific salmon fisheries was directed to enhancement and conservation of wild Pacific salmon, habitat restoration, and development of effective watershed management processes. In 2001 another $30 million was added to the program to create the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund. By any standard, these programs have been remarkably successful, which the staff and officials and the minister of DFO recognize and understand.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, we believe that the heart of a successful habitat restoration program is effective community stewardship organizations. In accordance with lots of policy, these organizations have to be encouraged and supported as legitimate players in forming and executing management plans for fish and fish habitats. Central to their effectiveness will be strengthened science and habitat programs in DFO to provide central support to the wild Atlantic salmon resource in both its freshwater and marine environments.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation has been calling on the federal government to play a leadership role in the following areas.

First, it should create an Atlantic salmon endowment fund in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Interest from the fund would assist conservation programs and community stewardship groups. Such a fund would stimulate greater volunteer action and serve as a rallying point for provincial and private contributions to the trust fund.

Secondly, it should strengthen volunteer community stewardship of fish and fish habitat in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, according to DFO policy and federal-provincial strategies. Simply put—implement the policy.

Third, there should be A-budget funding to the core budget of DFO to strengthen its capacity to conduct its research and conservation programs, protection, and habitat stewardship in the marine and freshwater environments. As I said, that capacity has eroded, and we can't expect community volunteers to come on line without having certain central support services to help them do the right things properly.

Á (1125)

And while we're not relying strictly on governments, I wanted to tell you that ASF has been working very closely with officials from the two DFO regions in the Maritimes gulf region and Scotia Fundy region, as well as provincial governments in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, to prepare a strategy to strengthen and promote community stewardship of fish and fish habitat. This process, which commenced last August and which continues to this date, has been extremely productive in preparing the vision and strategic framework for a new and effective community stewardship program in the maritime provinces. It represents an outstanding example of federal, provincial, and NGO collaboration to address a serious need, and we propose to build on this success and take that initiative to Newfoundland and Labrador, and work in Quebec with the la Fédération québécoise pour le saumon atlantique, FQSA.

The needs for concerted action and leadership for a stewardship program are great. I think the business case has been presented. The modest kind of investment we are seeking to support and stimulate these immense community contributions is small compared to the benefits and payback to the regional economy while securing a future for wild Atlantic salmon and other freshwater fish species.

Thank you very much.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Chase, for the specific recommendations that you make. And also, on behalf of the committee and myself, thank you very much for the book.

Mr. Stephen Chase: I think you'll find it a good read.

The Chair: Thank you.

For questions we'll go to Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chase, going back to page 2 in your brief, you talk about being tossed back and forth between various departments that have characterized things in the past, and you say that now you have to have focus and leadership and you are calling on the minister to help make it happen. What do you want him to make happen?

Mr. Stephen Chase: We'd like the minister to take the solution that we present to government--and we have presented this to him--and to act on existing policy the minister and other federal and provincial ministers have articulated.

I think it's fairly straightforward what needs to be done. I think the main issue is lack of funding and lack of appropriation to enable the minister to do this. He's been fairly frank with us in that regard.

I also come back to the first part of your question, Mr. Wood, and that is getting tossed back and forth between federal departments. We have found that if we make a proposal to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency they'll tell us to go see the minister of DFO; if we go to the minister of DFO they say go see ACOA. I say that on the one hand. On the other, just this past Wednesday I attended a meeting in this very room that was organized by ACOA and several other federal departments. They were talking about the importance of engaging community volunteers and sustainable economic development and they said yes, the proposal you put on the table is a great idea; it's in line with everything that several federal departments, from Public Works to ACOA, have endorsed.

We have the platform. It's just to make that next leap forward we need to stop the passing the buck and start acting, walking the talk.

Hopefully, that answers your question.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

I think somewhere in your presentation you were saying some of this was because of cutbacks in the fisheries department, but then on the other hand you talk about how DFO is well positioned to assume this leadership. So there are cutbacks, and then you are saying all of a sudden you think they can still do it. Is that what--

Mr. Stephen Chase I think what I'm saying is that DFO has the mandate, it has the policy, and it has a very good group of interested and well-motivated officials. What's missing is the fiscal capacity, the fiscal appropriation to enable them to do that.

We think the DFO is prepared to provide the leadership necessary to do this. We don't think the DFO needs to do it on its own. We think that's where community stewards come into play.

The erosion of DFO's capacity started in the early nineties with the--and I forget what term the federal government applied to it--government's fiscal reorientation. That's when DFO and other federal departments started to lose their budget capacity to do all of the things they are mandated for.

Á (1135)

Mr. Bob Wood: In the recommendations in your concluding remarks, in the second thing you talked about strengthening the community stewardship in the Atlantic provinces according to DFO policy in federal-provincial regions, and you were fairly adamant about this. Simply put, they should implement policy. What's happening now? They are not implementing it? Your suggestions...?

Mr. Stephen Chase: They have the policy. In fact, as recently as last year the federal-provincial fisheries and environment ministers endorsed the Canada stewardship agenda and the ministers responsible for fisheries endorsed the freshwater fisheries strategy. They have the policy instruments. It's extremely good material with extremely good ideas that are perfectly in line with the kinds of ideas we have put on the table today.

What we are proposing to the committee is entirely consistent with what the ministers have said they want to do and in fact can be rolled out by the provinces and the federal government as the basis of implementing the policy. We have made an effort to make sure that what we propose fits perfectly with the agenda the ministers have endorsed.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's nice to see you again, Mr. Chase. Thank you very much for your presentation; they're always thoughtful. It's very refreshing that you're not asking for one aspect of funding but you are saying that this funding could trigger additional funding in the private sector and other areas.

Last night we had the privilege of sharing dinner with the Miramichi Salmon Association, and they had talked about their good working relationship with DFO. It's interesting to note how much private money would have been raised last night in order to protect the interests of what they are trying to do in the Mirimachi. I find that fascinating.

I really like the idea of an Atlantic salmon endowment fund. We had a millennium scholarship fund, and of course there was criticism about how many people it would help, but I like this idea, because you're right, it would trigger additional funding from other sources.

If you were the finance minister or the future Prime Minister and you were setting this up, how much money would you say was required to start it up? Because I'm thinking of a private member's bill.

Mr. Stephen Chase: I think reasonably it would be a figure in the range of a one-time contribution of $30 million to $50 million to the trust. I think it would be closer to $50 million, because we are covering a very large region in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada.

I think also the business case, based on a contribution of say $200 million a year back into the economy, is a good business case. That's the business case I speak of.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would the trust have directors from provincial, federal, and private interests?

Mr. Stephen Chase: It would be a trust that would be managed by the various stakeholders and government.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mentioned leadership I think eight times in your presentation. I couldn't help but notice that when David Anderson was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he received an award for his, I would assume, leadership in this regard, and I notice that two other ministers haven't received an award. So am I right in saying that either through budget cuts or through other requirements, or just through circumstances, interest, or action, what you are trying to achieve has waned a little bit over the last few years?

Mr. Stephen Chase: No, I wouldn't infer the fact that we haven't conferred an award on the last two ministers to be indicative of that. I'm confident that Minister Thibault understands our circumstances. I know he's very supportive of what we put on the table, but he is unable to attract the fiscal appropriations to make it happen.

Á (1140)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Your A-budget funding that has threatened DFO capacity, what would you require for that, what amount?

Mr. Stephen Chase: I think it's fairly reasonable. Our estimates, having worked with the three DFO regions in the Atlantic provinces, are that it would be somewhere in the order of $5 million to $10 million a year into their budget. I wouldn't stake my life on that, but it's not a large figure compared to the industry we're talking about.

If I may, I really want to position this fishery as an industry. It's just as much an industry as the crab industry or the shrimp industry. It's an industry and that's the way we need to look at it. Our proposition is that it's not being looked at as an industry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have two quick questions.

You're also associated with the New England states and Maine. Are they doing something in those states that we aren't, or are we better at it in that regard? What is the Governor of the State of Maine doing in terms of what could happen? Because they have a lot of salmon rivers, as you know.

I remember taking a trip with you a few years ago on that. We were looking at that issue. Are they more proactive than we are, or does the same problem exist there?

Mr. Stephen Chase: We have a different circumstance from the United States. In the United States many of the rivers are endangered or they've lost their salmon populations. Notwithstanding that, the government has made huge appropriations to protect what fish there are there.

I'll give you an example. Last year the U.S. government contributed several hundred thousand dollars to enable the buyout of the Greenland commercial salmon fishery, which is of immense benefit to Canada. Also, some of those fish go back to United States rivers. On the basis of that faith, they did make major contributions.

The important difference is we still have important wild Atlantic salmon populations in Atlantic Canada, Québec, la Gaspésie, Labrador, Newfoundland. What we're proposing is let's not let those fisheries go the way some of the other fishing industries have gone. We still have the opportunity to nurture those fisheries back.

If the government can't do it by itself, engage people who are interested in doing it and pitching in their own effort and money to help out--like the dinner you saw last night.

The Chair: You're past six minutes. Is this a real short question?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Real short. Salmon also go through the waters of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Are you working with the French government at all on this concern?

Mr. Stephen Chase: There is an issue there that's being dealt with by NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. That fishery takes about two tonnes of salmon a year. It is an issue for both Canadian and American salmon populations, but it's an issue that the governments working collectively are trying to address.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Chase, would you be looking for any contribution to an Atlantic salmon endowment fund from either Maine or any of the New England states or the federal United States government?

Mr. Stephen Chase: No, this initiative would be specific to Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This is a Canadian initiative that we propose.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation to us. We very much appreciate it.

Now I'd like to call on Mr. Robert Haché and Mr. Joel Gionet from the Association des crabiers acadiens.

Gentlemen, there seems to be some excitement about your presentation. I don't know why, but I guess we'll find out. Welcome again. Nice to see you again. Go right ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché (Director General, “Association des crabiers acadiens”): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, before I forget, I would like to answer the question you asked Mr. Saint-Cyr. You wanted to know what exactly is the problem.

It is very simple. The problem with the fishing plan announced by the minister is the decision to increase permanently the number of participants in the crab fishery in zone 12. That is the basic problem.

Our presentation this morning will be in two parts. First, we will explain the proposed draft agreement in principle for a multi-year co-management plan for snow crab. We tabled this at the Fisheries and Oceans bargaining table on January 20, 2003.

As you know, since the announcement, the minister has been talking about the possibility of entering into a co-management agreement. He says he wants to discuss this with the fishers. We want you to know that on January 20 of this year, we tabled a document for the benefit of the minister. I will now tell you what that document said.

Moreover, I gave you a document of appendices which are pink in colour. For your information, gentlemen, the documents are in French on one side and English on the other. The pink document is in both languages. What I wanted to do here with that document is provide you with some more recent information on development in the problematic situation regarding snow crab.

Before making my presentation on co-management, I think it would be preferable, given that the management plan and all the rest are things that have happened recently, for me to tell you what is contained in the pink appendices, and that I go into more detail on some aspects of these appendices.

At tab 1, you will find a letter that our chief negotiator sent to Mr. Thibault on February 25, 2003. It followed up on a meeting the negotiator had with Mr. Thibault during which the minister told him that he intended to try to resolve once and for all the issue of resource sharing in zone 12. You will find a written version of the reaction of various associations, as expressed through the negotiator. I will not read the letter, Mr. Chairman. It is part of your material. You may refer to it if you wish.

At tab 2, there is a letter that Mr. Bujold sent to Mr. Thibault on April 14 of this year, following a meeting involving the associations and the minister which had been held a few days earlier.

The purpose of the letter was to confirm our understanding of the situation and to repeat once again to the minister our concerns about his intentions, or more specifically one of his intentions—and I emphasize that at the outset—namely, the one that involved granting permanent licences or establishing a permanent way of settling once and for all the requests for access to snow crab put forward by fishers who fish other species.

We have always told the minister that he could not make any commitments regarding the discretionary authority of future ministers. In other words, a minister of fisheries cannot compromise the discretionary authority of the next minister by saying that the latter will not be able to issue permanent licences.

By issuing permanent licences this year, the minister is opening the door to the possibility that other ministers will do the same thing in the future. This is a fundamental problem for us. We will discuss this further a little later.

At tab 3, you will find a letter from the minister dated April 25. It is a reply to the two letters sent by Mr. Bujold. The letters have been translated into English for your anglophone colleagues. I would like to point out an amusing detail that has to do with the fact that the letter was sent from the minister's office on April 25. The second-last paragraph reads as follows:

A response, confirming the Area 12 Snow Crab Fishers Associations' position on their acceptance of the permanent sharing in the snow crab fishery between traditional and coaster fishers will allow us to issue a temporary fishing plan for the beginning of the fishing season. This respond should be sent to me by noon, Tuesday, April 15, 2003.

And the letter was sent to us on April 25.

At tab 4, you will see a brief letter from Mr. Bujold replying to the letter April 25th and dealing with the dates. It was problematic; we could not reply.

At tab 5, you will find a document on the reactions of the six crab fishers' associations to the snow crab fishing plan. I would like to read it to you, Mr. Chairman, it will help you understand our reaction. The document is two pages in length, and I will read them quickly, if I may. The English version follows the French version.

After the cod collapse, the snow crab?

Crab fishers from the southern Gulf of the St. Laurent foresee another disaster following a unilateral decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The six crabers' associations from Zone 12 had asked Minister Thibeault not to open the fishery in order to allow a revision of the Management Plan so that the long-term sustainability of the resource and the industry can be adequately addressed.

This decision follows the announcement by the Minister to increase by 40 per cent the fishing capacity in the Zone 12 crab fishery on a permanent basis.

This increase added to the one already made in this stock since 1994 for a total capacity increase of 70 per cent. These repeated increases of the fishing effort will be fatal to our fishery.

“The 130 crab fishers from zone 12 did not hesitate to shut down the fishery in 1989 to save the crab resource from a total collapse.

“That decision allowed us to replenish the stock and to develop a self-supporting industry. We are ready to sacrifice another season in order to prevent ill-considered political decisions from driving our industry into oblivion along with thousands of jobs, as it is presently the case with the cod moratorium.”

Since 1989, zone 12 crab fishers have collectively invested close to $10 million in scientific research and the management of the crab resource. The cod collapse is proof enough that we must manage our resources in a responsible fashion. This is very important with crab, which is subject to natural cycles of abundance and rarity. We must be aware that this resource could get depleted to the point of no return.

The associations want to correct the minister's statement to the effect that he had allocated 15 per cent of the quota to the traditional crab fishers. In reality, he cut 27 per cent of the quota as follows; 3,37 per cent for zone 18 fishers in Nova Scotia; 12.64 per cent for lobster and cod fishers; 10.35 per cent for first nations.

Thus the permanent share allocated to the traditional industry went from 100 per cent into 2002 and to 73 per cent into 2003.

We are asking the Minister to revisit his management plan and to adjust it to the written co-management proposal that we submitted to his department on January 20, 2003 and that he chose to ignore.

Á (1150)

And that is what I am presenting to you today, gentlemen.

This industry proposal provided for the resources needs to honour DFO's commitments to the first nations identify as 2,700 metric tons out of a 20,000 metric tons quota of which 2,000 metric tons haven't yet been bought back by the department.

Those 2,000 tons have been taken out of our quota.

The associations expect the first nations to fish their own quota under the same conditions established by DFO for the traditional fishers.

The traditional fishers agree to provide the department with all the necessary human and financial cooperation needed to provide proper scientific research, co-management and crab protection activities.

This industry proposal stipulates that the zone 18 crabbers will continue to fish in zone 18 and that the other fishers will have access to temporary sharing when the quota is over 20,000 tons.

The crabbers feel that it is totally illogical to try to rationalize the lobster fishery by increasing the number of fishers in the snow crab stock. The minister should rather require the lobster fishermen to take charge of their predicament in the same way that crabbers did in 1989.

We ask that the minister to implement immediately an independent dock weighing system of the lobster catches and a follow-up on fishermen's activities in the same fashion as the ones implemented in the crab fishery for the past 15 years. The minister has the legal obligation to ensure the conservation and protection of the coastal lobster stocks.

Finally, the crabbers' associations hope for a quick resolution of this conflict. In the event of a refusal by the Minister of Fisheries, legal procedures will be undertaken by certain associations and/or fishers in order to invalidate the 2003 management plan.

In closing, the associations do not condone the civil unrest that occurred this week-end and in now way encourage non-peaceful protest.

Those are the main points of our response to the minister's fishing plan, Mr. Chairman.

Now, if we go to tab 6, I will try to help you visualize what happened with the snow crab and tell you why we are so concerned about the increased number of fishers and fishing activity in this zone.

If you look at the map, you will see what is now zone 12. However, if we take only this part of the St. Lawrence gulf, we see that initially, in 1960, the same fishers as are there today, the 130 mid-shore fishers, fished throughout this entire area.

Over the years, the department established some small zones—zone 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, on the lower north shore and on the north shore, where it issued permanent licences. The activity of the fishery intensified following the cod moratorium.

You realize that this year, the minister was forced to establish a moratorium in zone 13, to reduce the quota by 50 per cent in zone 16 and to reduce the quota in zone 17 slighty. In zone 17, the stocks are healthy, because, apparently, these fishers have management practices that are quite similar to those used by the crabbers in zone 12.

Subsequently, in the middle of the 90s, the minister of the day decided to establish zones A, B, C and D, which means that zone 12 was cut off from these other zones. Once again, the minister put fishers into these zones.

In 1997, when the co-management agreement was signed, the minister of the day established two more zones: E and F.

I forgot to talk to you about zones 18 and 19, which you see off the coast of Cape Breton. The minister wants to eliminate the borders of this zone to incorporate the 30 fishers from zone 18 into zone 12.

Since 1994, some 50 fishers have been working in zones A, B, C, D, E and F. They all became permanent fishers last year. They are people who now all have permanent access, permanent licences in zone 12, and they all have quotas that are not viable, Mr. Chairman. They all have little bits of quota, and that is not viable. Clearly, these people will have to tell the minister that they need more.

This year, according to our calculations... The minister did not tell us how many new licences there would be, but we understand that 70 additional licences will be issued in zone 12 proper.

Á (1155)

The next chart explains the fishing capacity, the changes in the number of permanent fishers in zone 12. Of course, zone 12 has become smaller, because artificial boundaries were set, but you know, as everyone does, that crab don't care much about boundaries. As you are well aware, these are the same crab.

So, in 1994, there were 160 fishers. The 160 who started fishing in the 1960s, with the exception of the 30 from Prince Edward Island. In 2002, there were 160 fishers, plus 50 fishers from zones A, B, C, D, E and F, which increased the total number to 210. This year, we have the 160, plus another 110 which makes a total of 270 active fishers for this stock. This is really the basic fear of the industry at this time.

Now that we have looked at the number of fishermen, let us now look at the quota. Until 2002, 100 per cent of the quota for zone 12 was held by the crabbers, as we see from this diagram.

The next diagram shows us that with the decision made in 2003, the quota of the traditional fishers has been reduced by 10.35 per cent to meet the commitments made by the department to the first nations. In addition, 3.37 per cent will be given to fishers from zone 18 in zone 12, and 12.64 per cent is given to non-crab fishers, for a total of 27 per cent. That means that the traditional fleet is left with 73 per cent of the allocation.

Furthermore, the effect of the minister's decision to reduce the quota by 3,000 or 4,000 tons is that this spring the crabbers will be going out fishing even though there will be a reduction of about 45 per cent in the crab they can catch compared to last year, while the biomass in the sea has remained essentially the same.

So perhaps this can help you understand the shock felt by people when they heard the minister's decision, Mr. Chairman.

If we go now to tab 7, you will find a little table I have drawn up for you. Because throughout the winter and throughout our discussions with the minister, he claimed that the lobster fishers from New Brunswick did not have permanent crab quotas in zone 12. That was the argument or one of the arguments, at least, that was very often used by the Maritime fishermen's union.

This is not accurate, Mr. Chairman. In 1980, the following fishers: Allard Haché, Dassise Mallet, Rhéal Haché, Jacques A. Haché, Sylva Haché, Gildard Roussel, Livain Foulem, Merel Chiasson , Adrien Roussel, Eddy Haché and Roméo Cormier were all in-shore fishermen with boats under 45 feet and crab licences in zone 12. However, as we've always said, the snow crab in zone 12 is a mid-shore species. The crab is concentrated in the centre of the gulf, on Bradelle Bank, and it is hard to get to it with boats under 45 feet in length.

In 1980, these guys were starving. They went to see the federal government and the New Brunswick government and they said that they wanted funding to get larger boats. An article in l'Acadie Nouvelle proves this, as do the department's files. These people were in-shore fishers who could not make ends meet because they could not get to the fishing grounds. With new boats, they became mid-shore fishers and most of them are still fishing today. Messrs. Dassise Mallet, Rhéal Haché, Jacques A. Haché, Sylva Haché, Livain Foulem, Adrien Roussel and Roméo Cormier are still fishing. Gildard Roussel's licence was bought back for the first nations people.

My point here is to clarify the perception that the New Brunswick in-shore fishers did not have access to zone 12. They had access to it to the tune of 13.0295 per cent of the provincial crab share for zone 12 in New Brunswick.

So much for those details.

Now, we will proceed with the presentation of the draft agreement in principle tabled with the department on January 20 of this year.

For your information, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we tabled this document on January 20, 2003, but so far we have not received a reply in writing from the department.

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: Just before you go to that, just so that we can be 100% crystal clear, as I understand the situation, you made a proposal and you got no response to it, and the minister made a proposal, but you didn't like it.

Mr. Robert Haché: We responded to it.

The Chair: But you didn't accept it.

Mr. Robert Haché: No.

The Chair: Neither side, therefore, accepted the proposal of the other, and the minister then imposed a situation. In a nutshell, the complaint is exactly as you state in your news release: that the permanent share of the industry has gone from 100% in 2002 to 73% in 2003, and on top of that, because of the reduction in quota, that further reduces the amount the traditional permanent fishers are going to be able to take. In a nutshell, that's the complaint--am I right?

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes--pretty good, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. Carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: You can follow in English the proposal we submitted to the department on January 20 of last year. I will not read all of it, but rather touch on the points I think may be of interest to you. I will read the context, namely point 1; the 2002 fishery management plan, point 4. As regards point 7, I will summarize the seven principles on which we base our management of the crab fishery.

The first principle is conservation. The second is the self-determination or self-sufficiency of the industry. The third principle is conservation, the stewardship of the resource. The fourth principle is accountability; people must be responsible and take the consequences for their decisions. The fifth principle is the historic dependence on the stock. The sixth principle is the economic viability of the fleet and the industry and the seventh principle is temporary sharing. This is one of our principles which states that in light of the political context, among other factors, where possible, it is wise to share the resource. That is a principle that we accept a priori.

We would then talk about point 10, science, a subject which may be of interest to you.

We spoke about co-management, and mentioned that we had invested some money in this; however, we never really told you what that was actually used for. I am going to tell you that today.

Point 11, which covers conservation and protection, deals with the little green men, the officers, with what we pay and the nature of co-management of the resource we share with them. I will then cover the other points, which are the actual content of our proposal to the minister. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will move through this quickly.

First of all, the context.

The following findings regarding co-management approaches with the department and the unfair treatment as regards the midshore and inshore fleets are taken from the final report on the midshore fishery symposium held in Gaspé last fall.

[English]

The Chair: Our interpreter is doing a fantastic job--

Mr. Robert Haché: I'm going too fast.

The Chair: --but you're going a little bit too fast, if you don't mind.

Mr. Robert Haché: Excuse me, Madame.

The Chair: I think she's doing the tongue version of the four-minute mile in about one minute.

Mr. Robert Haché: Okay. That's okay with me.

[Translation]

... and sum up well the current opinion of the six zone 12 crabbers' associations on these two questions.

The following quote dates back to January, it was made some time ago.

Experience has taught us that the various partnership formulas drawn up over the past few years have only been adhered to as long as they have had no real impact on decisions made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Anytime a less pedestrian situation has arisen, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has used its virtually unlimited powers to make unilateral decisions, often disregarding elements of the joint agreements. This is the main problem we face, be it in terms of co-management agreements or in terms of administrations governing the individual quota and individual transferable quota programs.

The midshore fleets are the ones who have been asked to share their resources over the past few years. They have seen a dramatic rise in the cost of fisheries management. The research carried out for this symposium showed that the different management models, that is to say IQ/ITQ or competitive, create a playing field which is anything but level.

The six (6) associations hope that the following draft agreement in principle will remedy these problems and facilitate closer working relations between the department and the traditional snow crab industry.

The proposed agreement in principle is based on zone 12 crab fishing businesses' desire to preserve, in the long term, a self-sufficient fishing industry centered on stock conservation, fisheries co-management, and strict control of fishing capacity.

The businesses wish to strengthen the various attributes of their fishery in order both to protect the health of the species in the long term and to preserve a sustainable and prosperous snow-crab industry in their respective communities across the Acadian Peninsula, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, and Prince Edward Island.

Our proposal also reflects the message that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Robert Thibault, gave to participants at the Gaspé Symposium:

It was in October, and I quote:

One thing is certain, however. As Minister, I'm committed to a co-managed fishery. As I've outlined tonight, co-management is not just a good idea—it's a necessity for a strong, sustainable fishery.

It means industry assuming greater responsibility, and of course, some of the costs that go along with it. It also means maintaining a strong and active government role, especially in those fisheries where the objectives for co-management aren't being met.

But most of all, it means fishermen like you taking control of the future of these key resources, and having a say in the decisions that are made about them.

As Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I'm here tonight to tell you that I'm committed to doing exactly this, and working in partnership with you towards a strong and sustainable Atlantic fishery in the years ahead.

In paragraph 4 on the next page, under the heading 2002 Fishery Management Plan, it is said that:

In 2002, the traditional crab fishing and processing industry determined 20,000 metric tonnes of crab to be the minimum amount of crab necessary to stabilize jobs in traditional crab processing plants.

This calculation is based on two factors. Firstly, on an average of 20 seasonal jobs being sustained by stock supplied from a single boat linked to the plant and, secondly, on an average of 33 pounds of crab being processed per hour per employee. This model has been accepted by the New Brunswick government, and has been used by processors in New Brunswick and Quebec.

This is because the model reflects the reality experienced by these businesses.

By applying this formula to the number of boats linked to the various traditional plants, the associations were able to give the minister clear information as to the quantity of crab required, the number of seasonal jobs to be created, and the number of hours of work per employee to be given in each of the coastal regions dependent on crab. The forecasts supplied by the industry in 2002 were as follows:

In the Acadian Peninsula, out of a 20,000-metric-tonne quota fishers received 11,158 metric tonnes shared between 1,520 workers. This provided 490 hours of insurable earnings. In the Acadian Peninsula, crab processors always work four weeks in herring processing, which gives an average of 560 hours. This means that, through the new employment insurance program, people have what is considered to be an acceptable access to unemployment benefits. Employees and industry agree that, wherever possible, seasonal workers should be given 560 hours' work.

In the southeast of New Brunswick, in other words in this region, which includes the federal riding of Beauséjour, fishers get a traditional quota of 1,502 tonnes and 197 jobs for around the same number of hours. In Gaspé, Mr. Chair, it is around 5,897 tonnes for 820 jobs and around the same number of hours. In the Magdalen Islands, there are 870 tonnes for 120 jobs. In Chéticamp, there are 289 tonnes for 40 jobs and in Tignish, on Prince Edward Island, where there is a 30-strong traditional in-shore fleet, there are 284 tonnes out of a possible 20,000 tonnes for 48 jobs, which corresponds to a workforce of around 3,000 people in traditional plants.

Â (1215)

The minister [in 2002] acknowledged these needs and gave the traditional industry the allocation it needed for stability.

The permanent fishing firms respected their commitments and the 2002 season was satisfactory to all the main stakeholders in the industry, including the plant workers, and the governments of New Brunswick and Quebec.

You can check that for yourselves, if you wish. I think that is clear.

Now, we go to paragraph 10, Mr. Chairman, which is on page 11, in the French version. The heading is Sciences

Here, I am going to give you a little background on the science, what has been done with the money from the crab and what we were planning to do with the money we were going to invest and would like to invest now to continue these efforts.

In 1990, during the discussion following the collapse of the stock, the industry and DFO scientists cited two joint objectives. First, they wanted to repair the disastrous state of the stocks and stabilize landings, and second, they wanted to minimize the problem associated with the decline in stocks during the second period of the cycle, which was expected to happen in the year 2000.

The results show that the critical state of these stocks in 1990 was repaired, and that they achieved their maximum level in 1993-94. The recruitment planned for the next increase in abundance happened and the stock will continue to increase until 2004, as planned, but the maximum level could be less than anticipated because of the decline in the female biomass.

So, between 1989 and 2002—

I am feeling a bit uncomfortable, Mr. Chairman. Am I taking up too much time? Is everything all right? Let us look at the situation between 1989 and 2002.

The scientists, who were supported and funded to a large extent by the industry, managed to do the following things. You may want to question Mr. Moriyasu about these matters this afternoon. He could give you more details. I am not a scientist, but he could explain what they did with our money.

We established the protocol on the bottom trawl survey. That is the method used to assess how much crab there is in the ocean.

We mapped the distribution of the resource. Every year, the department gives us a map of the places in which the crabs are concentrated—and that goes for commercial crab, juvenile crab or soft crab, as we call it.

We established a protocol for the protection of soft crab, that is crab that is moulting.

We explained the way of catching crab using the cone-shaped crab trap. We improved the way of catching crab.

We provided reliable estimates of the biomass and recruitment to the fishery. We have a better understanding of the dynamics of stock fluctuation, that is when the stock increases and decreases. We gained a better understanding of that.

We also better understood the way crab reproduce and the way they move on the ocean bottom.

Mr. Mikio Moriyasu will be able to give you many details on that.

Let us look at the upcoming agreement.

For sometime now, the scientists have been discussing the fact that over-aggressive fishing of the stock in the southern part of the Gulf at the end of the 80s caused a bias in the sex ratio of the crab population. This led to a significant decline in the production of eggs by females which in turn resulted in a significant reduction in the abundance of females in our stock after 10 years.

The number of females has dropped, but the figure they show here is incorrect. It is not 47 per cent, but rather 35 per cent. You can make that correction. Mr. Mikio Moriyasu will be able to tell you the correct figure; I think it is 35 per cent.

On the one hand, some disturbing features about several snow crab fisheries throughout the world were noted, particularly in the ocean in Japan and Alaska. All these fisheries are characterized by a significant initial expansion, an unexpected decline, a mediocre recovery, and finally, stabilization of the stock at only 10 per cent of the initial biomass.

This problem is of serious concern to our scientists and to ourselves, because this recent and significant reduction in the abundance of females in the stock in the southern part of the Gulf could lead to a significant decline in the recruitment to the commercial fishery in 10 years. Contrary to what was thought, it may be that the stock in the southern part of the Gulf has not completely recovered from the disaster that occurred in 1989.

So what are the proposals?

We are not the ones who develop the projects, of course, that is done by the scientists, but these are some of the activities that meet the concerns we will describe for you.

- we want to find a way to determine which crab will skip a moult and which are about to reach their final moult;

That goes for snow crab. Formerly, we thought that crabs changed their shells every year. However, the scientists noticed that this is not true for all crabs. Some crabs decide that they will not change their shell this year. We need to find out why that is.

- we want to be able to predict sooner the arrival of the PTP recruitment;

We could explain that to you, but I think these are really the very smallest crabs. We need to know how many of the very small crabs there are on the bottom so that we can plan our long-term approach.

- we want to better understand the dynamics of the movement...

Â (1220)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Haché, un point d'information. It's been 34 minutes. You are on page 12 in the English, and we are at least at 20 minutes. You have some recommendations I presume you want to talk to us about, and I know the members are anxious to ask you some questions. Can you just keep that in mind, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: Given that, Mr. Chairman, I will just complete my comment on science. As regards conservation and protection, I encourage you to read the document to see what we agreed upon with the fishery officers. I would have liked to have time to discuss these subjects—there are a great many of them—but I will proceed immediately to the recommendations. Is that all right with you?

[English]

The Chair: I should tell you that not only the members who are here, but the full committee, which was not able to travel, have already received your previous presentation and reviewed it. So we have some general semblance of the ideas.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: Fine. So:

- we want to find a solution to the current tendency to over-estimate the biomass;

- we want to understand why recruitment is slower and less efficient in the southwest part than in the southeast part of the area;

- we want to know how many females there are and the relationship between females and recruitment;

And so on. So there are a lot of very interesting projects. Preliminary calculations showed that the department was asking us to invest 50 per cent more than we had invested over the past few years. So if we had been investing $1.3 million in the science side, we would be probably be up to around $2 million. But I do not remember the exact figures; Mr. Mikio Moriyasu may be able to give you that information. These are annual figures, so it is $2 million a year.

I will now go the section on resource conservation and protection, and move directly to point 12: Licence buy-back and integration of aboriginal fishers. All right?

I am going to explain the situation to you. Since the Marshall ruling, the position of the crab associations has always been to state publicly that we do not consider snow crab to be subject to the Marshall ruling, since this species is not caught on traditional territory covered by the treaties. That is our opinion.

But we immediately told the Canadian government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that if the desire was to integrate aboriginal people through voluntary licence buy-backs, we agreed 100 per cent. If Joël Gionet wants to sell his licence and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wants to buy it in order to bring aboriginal fishers in, we will receive them with open arms; there is no problem with that. But as soon as the minister tries to expropriate crab fishers, we will use legal means to see whether snow crab can in fact be used to honour treaties signed at that time. If it cannot be used that way, it is unacceptable to expropriate licences for that purpose.

That has always been our position. In all the fisheries up to now, Mr. Chairman, access for aboriginal fishers has always been provided through voluntary licence buy-backs. This year, the minister wants to expropriate 10.35 per cent of our quota because he says that he was unable to buy back licences.

That is the situation, Mr. Chairman. There were crab licences offered to the minister in 2001, but he did not want to buy them because he had decided that the value of these licences was lower than in 2000. So the licences were not sold.

Since 2000, crab licences have been sold on the private market, and even just last month two licences were sold that way, but the department did not buy them because it is no longer offering the market price for crab licences.

That said, we have always told the department that we understood the situation, and we have a proposal in our agreement. We said that we expected quotas to be reduced in two or three years, which means that there will be people interested in selling their licences. So we told him that we were prepared to loan him part of our quota, that is 2,000 tonnes, to meet the needs of aboriginal people until there were fishers ready to sell their licences. Once those licences were sold, we would get back the quota that those people had sold to the department. I do not know whether you understand the process.

So that is what we offered the department this year. The department wants to give 2,700 tonnes to aboriginal fishers. There are around 700 tonnes that have been bought back with the 5.4 per cent. We agreed to lend the 2,000 tonnes on the condition that we not be expropriated, in the hope of being able to get that quota back when the licences were sold.

Finally, we said that if, by March 31, 2005, the permanent voluntary buy-back objectives for aboriginal fishers had not been reached, DFO and the industry, through the co-management committee, had a commitment to seek alternative solutions. So that is the situation there.

Let us go to point 4: Sharingformula. I will go to the recommendation:

The industry recommends:

^ç	1. that the temporary nature of the snow crab sharing formula in area 12 be maintained because the idea of permanent sharing is unacceptable and out of the question;

That is because of increased fishing capacity. That is the problem that we are telling you about.

^ç	2. that an initial allocation (threshold) of 20,000 tonnes be awarded to traditional fishers and aboriginal fishers;

Like last year, 2,000 tonnes would be lent to aboriginal fishers.

^ç	3. that in addition to this threshold, an initial temporary allocation of up to 2,000 tonnes be awarded to temporary fishers;

^ç	4. that any amount above the threshold and the temporary allocation of 2,000 tonnes be divided by providing 70 per cent to traditional fishers and 30 per cent to temporary fishers;

^ç	5. that the temporary allocations to go fishers and not to associations.

So that is the proposal that we submitted to the minister.

The industry also wants the dividing line between areas 25 and 26 to be abolished. As you know, since 1997, coastal areas 25 and 26 have been integrated into area 12, but the maps still show the lines; so we are asking for those lines to be removed.

The industry is also calling for areas E, F, 18 and 19 to be maintained permanently outside area 12.

The industry recommends that areas E, F and 18 also contribute to providing crab for the purposes of integrating aboriginal fishers.

With respect to the length of the agreement, we suggested an initial duration of three years in order to allow for the process of aboriginal integration to be finalized.

The main concern and most of the work, Mr. Chairman, in the context of this agreement, involved the gradual integration of aboriginal fishers.

That is it.

Â (1225)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation, for its comprehensiveness and its logical progression, if I can put it that way.

I would call for questioning now. We'll go with Mr. Stoffer first.

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

Thank you, sir, for your presentation.

I want to start off with the meeting you had in Gaspé with the mid-shore fishers. When did that happen?

Mr. Robert Haché: That happened in, I believe, the beginning of October.

Â (1230)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Of last year?

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes, 2002.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And you've given us a quote from Minister Thibault that says you're taking control of the future of these key resources and having a say in the decisions that are made about them. I assume he is talking to you guys.

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Now, on April 25, in a letter to you, he says: “The first issue is the continued discussions for the co-management agreement plan for the snow crab fishery in Area 12”, which was discussed in October. He says, “My vision is that the discussions cannot be fruitful unless the traditional fleet associations' representatives accept the new principle of permanent sharing with the coastal fishers.”

Did he at any time in that October meeting indicate what he said in April?

Mr. Robert Haché: No, he did not say that in the October meeting. The minister mentioned at some time, not necessarily directly to us, but to some people, that he wanted permanent sharing.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did he say that in the October meeting?

Mr. Robert Haché: Well, I hope I'm not in court. I don't think so.

The Chair: You're not even under oath, never mind in court.

Mr. Robert Haché: That doesn't matter. I never lie.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I'm saying that is we in the opposition accuse ministers of departments of talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the farm, we'd normally say it originated from the south end of the northbound cow, but we are in a parliamentary committee. We can't really say what it means.

The concern I have is, in your perception, were you led to believe in the October meeting--and I find this crucial to my line of questioning--from the presentations you were to bring forward, that the minister understood your situation and might in some way accept some of your recommendations or concerns in the upcoming season?

Mr. Robert Haché: That was totally obvious. We were totally taken by the speech the minister gave at that meeting. Finally, we said, somebody is going to work progressively. The whole tone of the document here...we are talking about the new partnership. We are using what the minister said. So it was obvious that we thought we would be able to negotiate something that would be very interesting. We were convinced we could convince him of the--

[Translation]

common sense of not increasing crab licences, because that is so obvious for all the fisheries. The minister is now telling us that there is no increase, that there is a quota and that the fishers cannot take more. Hold on! There was a quota for cod, and the cod are gone. That does not solve the problem.

We thought that it was clear that the 20,000 tonnes that we were allotted was necessary for the traditional industry. The Canadian government wants to integrate aboriginal people into the fishery. We agreed to give them 2,000 tonnes, since the government was committed not to exceed the quota. We thought it was fair to share 10 per cent with the aboriginal fishers. If the quota had been increased, we would have given them a larger amount.

Â (1235)

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Where do we go? We're in Newfoundland and we're asking the question, where do we go from here on the cod? After the incident in Shippegan the minister said on the news, “Well, maybe we can negotiate.” The people in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can assure you, were very upset over that, because in their opinion they burned a Canadian flag and there was no further discussion or at least acknowledgement of the concern from the minister. Then we had an incident in Shippegan and the minister responded, at least through the media, very quickly. If I am not mistaken, he had indicated that maybe we can increase the quota.

Your previous colleague had said he doesn't believe--I assume he's speaking, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all the crabbers--that this decision was done on conservation. The decision to reduce the quota and give it to the permanent share was not done on conservation.

First of all, do you agree with that statement? If it wasn't done on conservation, then for the record, why did he make that decision, and where do we go from here?

Mr. Robert Haché: You're asking a lot of stuff at the same time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I only get five minutes. He's a tough chair, I'll tell you.

Mr. Robert Haché: Okay, I hope I can answer you quickly.

First of all, concerning Newfoundland and the situation that happened in Shippegan and the decision of the minister, these situations are very unfortunate. I find it's very much the minister's responsibility that these things happened.

We did all we could to warn the minister and to say don't do that. On Friday, we told our guys, “Don't give the public the pleasure of seeing you angry. Shut up, we'll go to court. Don't give anybody the pleasure of seeing you angry.” But they did not listen, Mr. Chairman. It's not my fault. It's not his fault. We tried to do our best. We tried to represent our people the best way we can. So that's for that. I don't know how we deal with that. It should not impede anybody or the Government of Canada from saying let's stop this capacity increase in the Canadian fishery once and for all. That's the main issue.

On your other question, as to why he decreased the quota, he decreased the quota because--and that's my interpretation--the department needs the millions to do the science and the protection and all that. So he said we're going to hit them like the carrot and the stick. The stick was the management plan, then play ball. That's it, play ball.

Now he's put this quota there, probably thinking that crabbers are greedy and that crabbers will say okay, we'll go for the quota and in exchange we'll pay for the quota. That's my interpretation. I think it's a bit of a bribe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, and are you going to seek legal action?

Mr. Robert Haché: We hope we can come to a solution, a wise solution, of this thing without having to go to court. We don't seek to go to court on Marshall. We had a very good meeting yesterday with the natives. Chief Levi of Big Cove was a gentleman to say there was no grudge. Shippegan is a nice place. Very good.

We don't have anything. If we're put in the situation where this permanent increase in capacity cannot be dealt with in some way, we are not going to say we agree, because we don't.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Thank you.

Just for the record, Mr. Stoffer, 8 minutes 50 seconds.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to ask Mr. Haché if he's had any contact with the minister or the minister's office since the unfortunate incident or since the announcement.

Mr. Robert Haché: We received a letter this morning, but I haven't seen it yet.

Mr. Bob Wood: You don't know what it means.

Mr. Gionet, have you seen the letter?

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet (Spokesperson, Association des crabiers acadiens): They read the letter to me on the telephone. We received a letter from the minister this morning, from his office in Ottawa. Basically, he says that he finds it regrettable that our fishers have reacted in this way, that his fishing plan was not developed with this intention, that this was still the best fishing plan but that he was nonetheless prepared to sit down to try to find solutions. That is a summary of what the letter said.

We can have the letter faxed here, if you like.

[English]

Mr. Bob Wood: That would be a great idea.

What do you think happened? As my friend Mr. Stoffer has said, he is quoted as saying that he wants to build the fishery of the future. He finds ways to move toward a more co-managed fishery, which you of course agree on, in which all participants have a say, especially fishermen like yourself.

What happened there? What made him change his mind? He says he doesn't want to do it top-down, but it looks like or it seems like that's how it started. It was a top-down decision by him without involving a lot of the fishermen. Am I right there?

Mr. Robert Haché: If he involved fishermen, it was certainly not us on this issue of permanency.

Mr. Bob Wood: The decision he made obviously affected you. If he adheres to what he says here and what he wants to do, then he should have been talking to you people, right?

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: He never did.

Mr. Robert Haché: I can't answer for him.

Mr. Bob Wood: To your knowledge, he didn't approach you?

Mr. Robert Haché: He approached us very clearly to tell us that he wanted to have permanent sharing because it would solve our problem. We told him it's not right, that permanent sharing will create a problem, it will not solve it. But he still says that he's solving a problem. I cannot say that he did not tell us. He told us that he was going to do it and he did it.

Mr. Bob Wood: From the top down, though?

Mr. Robert Haché: Well....

Mr. Bob Wood: That says it all.

Thank you.

The Chair: Monsier Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not really have a question to ask, since I know this issue very well. I have been familiar with it for a long time and I follow it very closely.

I would like to know whether your proposal, your multi-year co-management plan has been well received by regional DFO officials. Did this plan suit them and did they want to work with this kind of plan?

Mr. Robert Haché: They certainly received it.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Did they give you their opinion?

Mr. Robert Haché: As they say, I would prefer not to answer that question.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Is it because my question is too good? Is that why?

Mr. Robert Haché: No, no.

I can say that we had discussions with senior DFO officials who told us that they did not agree with the idea of permanent sharing of snow crab in area 12. They told us that during those discussions.

The idea of temporary sharing is aimed at finding a solution. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

In 1994 and 1997, people were calling for permanent sharing. The response was that it was not possible. At some point, someone proposed that sharing be done on a temporary basis and that when the stocks improved, there could be sharing.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel.

I would point out that the term “permanent sharing” is contradictory. The two words do not go together.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I wanted to ask you another question. A woman representing fisheries companies appeared before the committee this morning. They are facing a very difficult situation and it seems that every year their biggest problem is planning.

She talked to us about a possible proposal, like our chairman, Mr. Wappel. Would it be possible to have crab fishers sign agreements if they were informed about the fishery plan? Would it be possible for you to sign agreements with the companies two months in advance on time flexibility, so that they can do their planning?

Â (1245)

Mr. Robert Haché: You know, sir, most crab fishers in area 12 are also plant owners.

In 1989, when the crab industry collapsed, Connors Brothers, National Sea and other companies pulled up stakes. The fishers reached into their own pockets, collected around $30 million, bought these plants and renovated them. Then, because they had a higher qualify product, the value of crab increased. Given that they are shareholders in the plants, if there were plans that could help, they would certainly do their best to plan the work better.

For independent fishers, it is different. There are two categories of crab fishers.

It would be easier, of course. In fact, that is the way it was done in 2002.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I would like to ask one last question, once again about the plants.

Would it be possible some day to plan for a minimal capture threshold that would not jeopardize the resource? Let us assume that it is in decline. We could start with 20,000 tonnes and reduce that amount over a few years.

Would it be possible to have a fishing plan that would cover more than one year and that would provide for adjustments? That is my question.

Mr. Robert Haché: That was the purpose of the co-management agreement.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That was last year. Did you have one before that?

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes. We had one, but it ended in 2002.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Was it not supposed to last for 10 years?

Mr. Robert Haché: No, it was for five years.

We were prepared to renegotiate another agreement. Even though the limit is set at 20,000 tonnes, it does not matter, the calculation is redone every year.

If the quota increases and it can be shared, then we share it. If it drops to less than 20,000 tonnes, it is not possible to share the quota. These agreements make such things possible.

The problem stems from the fact that the minister is not legally required to comply with these agreements, because of clause 7. We have noticed, as we pointed out in our introduction, that as soon as there is a new minister, this person wants to please someone and all the agreements and commitments are forgotten. That is why the management of the fishery itself here in Canada, and not just the stocks, is in the process of collapsing.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Fine. You have just answered my question. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Monsieur Roy.

Just a couple of things, gentlemen.

On page 20 of the English version of your initial proposal, you recommended four things, and I have no doubt that it's just me, but I can't quite understand recommendation number 4. As I understand it, you suggested there be an initial allocation of 20,000 metric tonnes to the traditional fishermen and the natives, then there be an additional 2,000 metric tonnes to the temporary fishermen. That would be 22,000 metric tonnes in volume. Then it says “the excess of the threshold”. What is the threshold?

Mr. Robert Haché: The threshold is 20,000.

The Chair: So, what excess?

Mr. Robert Haché: No, no. If the biomass allows the fishery to be done at 25,000 tonnes, okay...?

The Chair: Okay. In other words, if there were any excess over the 22,000, then that excess should be divided as you suggested. Got it.

Mr. Robert Haché: Badly written.

The Chair: No, no. I'm reading it badly. Now I understand. I don't want to make too much of this, but I just want to see if I can figure this out somehow.

I'm looking at your tab 3, the letter from the minister. You had your initial meeting on April 8, which was a Tuesday.

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes.

The Chair: He seems to be writing on April 25, which is a Friday, and he wants the answer by Tuesday, April 15, which is a week after the meeting.

Â (1250)

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes.

The Chair: Obviously that can't be right, because you can't go back in time. What I don't see here is any date-of-receipt stamp. In other words, what I'm getting at is there was a meeting on April 8. You might possibly have received this letter April 12 and some staffer had mis-stamped the date of the minister's letter.

Mr. Robert Haché: No, I can assure you that--

The Chair: When did you get it?

Mr. Robert Haché: We got it on.... The letter following--on May 1 you have a letter from Mr. Bujold, and it's explained in that letter. He says “This letter is in response to yours dated April 25”, and the letter is sent May 1. “In your letter, received today...”.

The Chair: So it was received May 1.

Mr. Robert Haché: Yes, Rémi Bujold, our consultant, has an office in Ottawa right in front of--

The Chair: Was this by what we now term as snail mail, or was this by e-mail or by fax, or what was it?

Mr. Robert Haché: It was sent by mail.

The Chair: By the way, that's not a disparaging remark to Canada Post.

It seems as if there's.... Could it have been some date other than April 15? It just seems logical.

Mr. Robert Haché: I think that Mr. Bujold talked to the minister's office about this and wrote a letter. He never came back to us to tell us if he had received an answer. I believe if he had received an answer we would have known.

The Chair: All right. Maybe we'll find out.

Any other questions? One small one.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very quickly, Mr. Chair.

Again I go back to the letter written April 25 in section 3. I may be out to lunch on this one, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm very, very nervous about what's in here. He talks about making area 12 fishery that includes transferable individual quotas. Those are ITQs in crab fisheries. I have assured the governments in the past and the future that one day you'll see an ITQ in lobster and everyone says I'm nuts, I'm crazy, and it will not happen.

If he can put it in a letter to you that he is thinking of ITQs in the crab, what's stopping him from doing it in the lobster industry? That's just a comment, a statement. I find that very, very nervous that he will do that.

The Chair: Where did you find that, Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The April 25 letter, section 3, sir, of the annex, third paragraph.

But Mr. Haché--

The Chair: No, but where is it exactly? I'm sorry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Second paragraph or third paragraph, section 3, the last page. He says “I would like that the Area 12 fishery become a fishery that includes transferable individual quotas...”.

But in a situation this serious, as my colleague Mr. Wappel said, and we have the letters and the dates confused, if he was aware of the potential problem that may exist, in your mind why didn't he pick up the phone and call you or send you an e-mail? This is the type of thing you would assume needs to be communicated immediately, not through the regular mail.

You don't know. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Haché: I apologize, but I do have the minister's letter. Would you like me to read it to you or to table it?

[English]

The Chair: Please table it and then I'll read it.

Thank you very much for calling on your members to be reasonable.

Members, we are going to return at 1:30, not 1:15, and that will give us time to check out.

The meeting is adjourned.