FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order. We'll be dealing with Halifax by videoconference first. There are a couple of motions we want to deal with at the end of the meeting, and in order to save time I'll give you a report on the steering committee as well.

The witnesses this morning, by videoconference from Halifax, are with the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs, represented by Bernd Christmas; and Reginald Comeau and Graeme Gawn from the Maritime Fishermen's Union. Here in Ottawa, representing the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association, we have Donnie Strongman and Ronnie Campbell.

I believe the clerk indicated that you will have about ten minutes for opening statements and then we will go to questioning.

The first person is Mr. Christmas. Can you hear us?

Mr. Bernd Christmas (Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs): Yes.

The Chair: You can start, and then we'll go to the MFU and the PEIFA. Welcome.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Thank you. I don't really have anything that's prepared in a formal manner, but I want to say a few things just to start this off. Hopefully it will lead to discussion later on down the road, within the hour or so we have here today.

We have to make it clear that the Mi'kmaq people in Nova Scotia have stated on numerous occasions that conservation and sustainability of the resource are their priorities. They will continue to be the two top priorities that we feel are in line with the current policy of the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and other provinces in the maritimes and the Pacific region as well.

• 0910

Everyone is aware that September 17 was a momentous day for the Mi'kmaq people, in light of the fact that the Marshall decision by the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed several things. But before I get to that, I'd just like to state some background that partly led to that decision, and why the Mi'kmaq people have been on this road of litigation, I guess we'll call it.

To put it bluntly, we feel we've been shut out of the fishery. It's plain and simple. The Mi'kmaq people have fished and relied on the resources of the sea for thousands of years. Up until the British and the French arrived at the shores, we were conducting that business, and then we conducted that business during the time of early colonization. Hence you have a series of treaties, known as the Mi'kmaq covenant chain of treaties, signed between 1725 and 1794. As you know, the Marshall case dealt with a series of treaties signed between the years 1760 and 1761.

One thing that is very evident is that the Mi'kmaq people have never surrendered, have never been defeated, and have never extinguished any of their rights to the land, the marine resources, or any resources, whether fish or anything else. That is very clear in those treaties. They are treaties of peace and friendship, and we expect those treaties to be honoured.

As you have seen, the Supreme Court of Canada now on several occasions has affirmed Mi'kmaq treaties as valid documents that are constitutionally protected by the Constitution of this country. In 1985 the Simon case affirmed the treaty right to hunt. In 1999 the Marshall case affirmed the right to hunt, fish, and gather, and to bring those in for trade purposes.

The other piece of the puzzle—and I'm not trying to complicate things—is that the Mi'kmaq people, especially in Nova Scotia, assert that we have aboriginal title to the land and the resources in and around our traditional territories, and we continue to assert that. In fact you've probably heard many times now that we've started several court actions that will deal with that.

We had started a process right from the beginning, with the Marshall case, and now we're going to bring it into modern-day context. We started a process even the day of the Marshall decision, where we invited over 85 fishing groups from around the region to meet with us. In the first week after Marshall we met with approximately 35 to 40 groups, and in the second week after Marshall we met with another 35 to 40 groups.

The purpose of those meetings was to develop a process with the fishing communities—which we felt would be a positive process—because we knew this decision would change the way the fishery as we know it is dealt with. It was going to change the rules and regulations, and it potentially could have impacts on the fishing communities themselves, individual fishermen, as well as the Mi'kmaq fishermen.

So that process started and continues to proceed. We recently had a meeting, as early as yesterday, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Nault, to start developing a process on how to handle long-term issues of resource management. We started a process with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with Minister Dhaliwal and his staff, both in Ottawa and in the Atlantic region.

We hope the government will continue to support those processes, which involve not only the Mi'kmaq and the government but the actual fishing groups themselves, in trying to get the Mi'kmaq fishermen integrated into the fishery.

• 0915

The last thing I'd like to do—I know I have a limited amount of time here—is put things in perspective. We hear a lot of what we'll call flare-ups, or hot spots. You have to remember those are isolated incidents. It's unfortunate that some of those things have transpired, but we'd also like to point out to the people of Canada via this forum that if you were to put things in perspective, you'd be quite surprised to see how many Mi'kmaq people are actually involved in the fishery currently.

We have taken a study of that—a census, if you will—and we have determined that approximately 217 Mi'kmaq fishermen in the entire Atlantic are engaged in the fishery. Those are individuals who engaged in the fishery before Marshall and continue to fish after Marshall. Compare that to the approximately 40,000 fishermen in the entire Atlantic—40,000 licence holders, I believe, if you look at DFO's statistics.

Then if you get into the lobster fishery, let's again put things in perspective. The 217 Mi'kmaq fishermen in the entire Atlantic who are involved in lobster—again, I stress this, in the entire Atlantic—utilize roughly 12,000 lobster traps. In Nova Scotia alone, when the lobstermen start their seasons, wherever they may be, from the tip of Cape Smokey up in Cape Breton down to Yarmouth, those groups are utilizing 921,000 traps in the lobster fishery alone. In New Brunswick you're looking at 660,000 lobster traps—and I'm stressing it again—versus the 12,000 traps the Mi'kmaq people are using in the entire Atlantic. We have to deal with that situation and put it on the record once and for all that there is no free-for-all, as a lot of people have made it out to be.

We continue to wish to move ahead on dialogue and negotiation. We feel the time to move forward is now. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, and we need to deal with that as rational human beings.

A lot of progress is being made, especially here in Nova Scotia, with the fishing groups represented. They are very capable, and you're already seeing some evidence of the fruition of those discussions. Chief Debbie Robinson and the Acadia Band have entered into an agreement with the Yarmouth LFA 34, I believe, the lobster area. That's a very positive step, and we hope those types of agreements on what we'll call relationship-building will continue.

With that, Mr. Chair, I conclude. I appreciate the time for allowing me to speak on behalf of the chiefs here in Nova Scotia.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Christmas. We appreciate hearing from you as well.

From the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we have Mr. Comeau.

Mr. Reginald Comeau (Regional Coordinator, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Thanks, Wayne.

I will read a brief on what we are living with in New Brunswick, and then Graeme from Nova Scotia will keep on for the rest of the minutes we have. I think you people already have the brief we sent this morning.

The Chair: Excuse me, Reg. If you want to speak in French, you can. It's whatever you're most comfortable with. We get translation here.

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Okay.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union represents over 2,000 bona fide fishermen owner-operators in the Maritimes. MFU operations also employ another 4,000 helpers, for a total of 6,000 fishers.

In New Brunswick the MFU is certified by provincial law to represent 1,300 owner-operators situated around the shoreline of eastern New Brunswick, of which 80% are Acadian and use French to communicate. The reason I'm trying to communicate to you in English is that Christmas is communicating mostly in Mi'kmaq and I communicate most of the time in French, but we were both colonized, so we have to use that strange language for today.

• 0920

The same shoreline is also occupied by approximately 1,600 Mi'kmaq families out of the estimated 3,000 Mi'kmaq families living in coastal areas of the Maritimes. It would seem 75% to 80% of the coastal Mi'kmaq families in the Maritimes reside in areas where the MFU has active locals of inshore fishermen. You have to understand that the Marshall decision would have a tremendous impact on the livelihood of our fishermen. More than half of the Mi'kmaq families living in coastal areas also live in New Brunswick.

I would like to take a few minutes to give you an update of the events since the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling came out on Friday, September 17. By September 22 there was already a buildup of native lobster traps in the Miramichi Bay, and DFO officials in Ottawa and the regions were paralyzed. So the MFU made a direct and urgent request to the Prime Minister of Canada to suspend the effects of the judgment until a proper long-term agreement could be reached with the Mi'kmaq people. That was five weeks ago. The Prime Minister has acknowledged publicly since then that this was one option to be considered, although the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Dhaliwal, said he was not considering it.

At about the same time, we received reports that eight licensed commercial boats attached to Big Cove Reserve near Richibucto had moved their traps from the open lobster fishery in area 25 to the closed lobster fishery in area 23. In addition, two vessels attached to the Indian Island Reserve and one from Eel River Bar had also moved into the Miramichi Bay.

In the meantime, the MFU representatives from both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick went to Ottawa with the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association to meet Mr. Dhaliwal on September 27, and on September 29 over 100 fishermen demonstrated at MP Charles Hubbard's office in Miramichi. The meeting with Mr. Dhaliwal was useful in getting the message to the minister and his Ottawa officials that he was facing a very serious situation. But at the time they still had no advice from the Department of Justice as to how to interpret the Supreme Court decision, and he asked us to give him a couple of days. We told him at that time if he wanted cooperation from the fishermen, he should come down to the area and explain his position.

A couple of days extended to Friday, October 1, when he made his first public statement. The statement said he would move immediately to get short-term interim fishing arrangements. The following day DFO officials met in Burnt Church but came away with no interim fishing arrangements. It was now two full weeks since the Marshall decision, and the number of traps fishing in the bay was variously estimated to be 3,000 or 4,000, and by our fishermen to be as high as 6,000 non-tagged traps.

We should remember that on Friday, October 1, after the Dhaliwal statement, the MFU local council met in Tracadie. They agreed to sponsor a demonstration at DFO in Moncton for Monday, October 4. In the meantime, native fishing continued in the Miramichi Bay with very little interruption from the authorities.

It should be remembered that only two weeks prior to Marshall, the Burnt Church Reserve completed a three-week food fishery, using 585 traps to catch 125,000 pounds. There is every reason to believe the 4,000 to 6,000 traps in the bay since the Marshall decision would have similar or better catch rates than the food fishery. This would mean another approximately 600,000 to 800,000 pounds have been removed from this closed zone since September 17.

• 0925

On Sunday, October 3 some members of the MFU decided enough was enough due to the inaction of DFO and went on to do the DFO's job by cutting and destroying the non-tagged traps that were set there.

I want to be clear that the MFU does not challenge the basic treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq people emanating from the Supreme Court decision in the Donald Marshall case. We do not accept that such treaty rights allow for unlimited and unregulated native fishing, whether in closed zones or in an ongoing commercial fishery.

The events of October 3 in the Miramichi Bay, where licensed fishermen were forced to disable lobster traps in the closed area, should not have happened. The fisheries minister, Herb Dhaliwal, was well informed of the large buildup of native fishing in this one closed area. He has already stated that he has the authority to stop all lobster fishing in the zone.

We want answers as to why the Government of Canada left the situation to fester and why they drove the fishermen into the position of having to defend their own livelihoods.

The MFU continues to believe the full force of the Supreme Court decision can be implemented within the commercial fishing plans of the east coast. The judges clearly stated that the natives have a right to a moderate livelihood in fishing. The vast majority of our members consider themselves fortunate if they make a moderate livelihood, and they expect to be able to do that within fishing plans authorized by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Similarly, we expect that any Mi'kmaq people interested in earning a moderate livelihood from fishing will be able to do so in the commercial fisheries as they are conducted presently. But to do so, this government must address the two most pressing concerns of our fishermen: first, the fact that the natives are fishing during closed seasons; and second, the local impact.

The issue of the local impact simply means there will tend to be too much concentration of native fishing in very specific localities. This would be the case in the Miramichi Bay, where Burnt Church is situated, and off Richibucto, where Big Cove is situated. The same thing applies in St. Marys Bay, Nova Scotia. Even a generous buyback program would not be enough to solve this issue.

None of our members want to see out-of-season fishing, but it is clear government has not closed the door on the idea of having a regulated and limited native fishery in times different from our present lobster season. Fishing out of season is totally unacceptable, because closed season is a major tool for sustainable lobster management in Canada, as stated by the FRCC in its lobster study.

This government has the obligation to put fish and money on the table if they want proper integration of the Mi'kmaq into our fishery. One should not forget that the natives will prosecute most of their fishery along the coastal line of the maritime shore, where the inshore are fishing.

The management of the past, following the Sparrow decision, where only the inshore had to accommodate the native fishery, is not acceptable any more. The new management will have to be directed towards the inshore.

Again, it is not acceptable any more that 72% of the cod of the gulf is allocated to the draggers, mostly mid-shore. The same thing applies to scallops in the Bay of Fundy. It's the same with snow crab: New Brunswick inshore fishermen are constantly denied access to the snow crab that live on their inshore grounds in the Baie des Chaleurs and the Shediac Valley.

Requests such as the one we made in 1999 for an integrated inshore zone have to be taken more seriously if we want to integrate the natives in an orderly way.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comeau.

Donnie, do you want to make your presentation now too? Then we'll go to questions. That's the easiest way to do it.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Gawn, you had a presentation as well?

Mr. Graeme Gawn (Representative, Maritime Fishermen's Union): I'd like to add just a few words to what Reg has said, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr. Graeme Gawn: He has spoken for our whole organization, including Nova Scotia. I would just like to add a few words.

• 0930

Our members feel that the Marshall ruling has proven, apart from the rights of the native people to have access to the fishery, that the DFO in the past 20 years or so has been busy allocating fish that it didn't own to people who had no right to it. It vindicates also the standing committee's report of March 1998, the one that was filed under G and that Mr. Baker left afterwards. So I think if you look back on what's happened in the recent past, this ruling comes out and vindicates what the MFU and other inshore fishermen's organizations have been saying for 20 years, since the Kirby report.

So far the Marshall ruling has been portrayed as the ruling on lobster fishing, and it's clearly not so. We agree with the chiefs and with Mr. Christmas that this is more far-reaching than just the inshore lobster fishery. It shows it's time for an overhaul of DFO's policies, long past time to remove the top bureaucrats who have guided the fiasco over the past 20 years and are still there on the same course in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they're doing things wrong. The evidence is coming from all corners—from the Commons standing committee, the Senate standing committee, the fishing communities, the fishing organizations, the environmental groups and so on.

As far as management of the fishery is concerned, you see demonstrations by commercial fishermen throughout the Maritimes. I think what's lost in the media and what I want to get across to the standing committee is that fishermen are standing up for their management rules, not the DFO's policies or the government's rules. In the lobster fishery and the inshore fisheries, especially the lobster fishery, most of the rules that conserve lobsters were put in place by lobster fishermen a hundred years ago and are still there and have clearly done a good job of conserving this resource.

So when we demonstrate against natives fishing outside of the season, we're strongly supporting our rules, not the government's rules. I want to make that clear to the Mi'kmaq people as well as to the standing committee. These rules have been proven to conserve the fisheries, unlike the DFO's rules, which have decimated fisheries such as the northern cod. I could give other examples. We just feel the season is an important aspect of lobster conservation, just as minimum size is, and other things. If you take one aspect of it out, then you're changing the mix and you really are undermining the conservation strategy.

Regarding the inshore communities and this ruling, I'd like to add, as Mr. Christmas pointed out, that this is a constitutional right that's been upheld. It is a constitutional obligation of the crown. The inshore lobster fishermen and their communities so far have been asked to shoulder the whole burden of addressing the constitutional obligations to the crown. So far we haven't seen any kind of guidance from the government of what they're willing to pay, what they're willing to do. They've just basically dumped it off on the inshore fishing communities.

As far as coming to agreements with the Mi'kmaq at a community level is concerned, it's not a problem. We identify very closely with other working class people in our coastal communities. As you see, in Yarmouth, when we sit down and talk to them on a community level we have no problem coming to an agreement. Our problem is with the lack of guidance or clear understanding of where the government stands and what the government is prepared to do on these things.

As far as the surprise of the ruling is concerned, I think Mr. Christmas would back me up in saying that as recently as the winter of 1999, the Mi'kmaq approached the DFO to work out a contingency plan in the event that this ruling went the way it did, and the DFO declined to bother to do that at the time. It's just another example of the DFO bureaucrats not being prepared and not paying attention to what's going on around them, following their own Vision 2000 20-year plan, which was started in the 1980s, which the Maritime Fishermen's Union has been fighting against all along. In one respect we're happy that the Marshall ruling has vindicated our position that DFO has been doing the wrong things with the fishery, and now it's time to set things straight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gawn.

We'll turn to the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association. I think you can be assured that the question will come up as to what you are suggesting we do to manage the resource, following all the witnesses' presentations. We haven't had a lot yet on how we manage it from here.

Donnie.

Mr. Donnie Strongman (President, P.E.I. Fishermen's Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 0935

Let us first acknowledge how pleased we are that the committee has selected Mr. Easter as chairman of this important committee. We are aware of Mr. Easter's abilities as a member of Parliament and believe that his knowledge of the fishery and his extensive background in working with groups very similar to ours is a definite asset.

This committee will report to Parliament on a strategy that will enable the natural resources of this country to be shared with Canada's first nations people and the people of Atlantic Canada who are dependent on these resources to maintain their small rural communities. Your work is truly historic, and the whole country looks to you to find solutions to some of the most difficult problems that affect the very fabric of our nation.

While we realize that complaining is futile, we should say that the turn of events leading up to the Supreme Court decision leaves us skeptical about the Department of Fisheries. We wonder who thought bringing Donald Marshall before the courts was a good idea. Was there no other possible test case? What kind of collective wisdom extended between the justice department and DFO? What might they do next?

The second point is the decision itself. Should any court uphold any treaty or any other legislation that segregates people on a genetic bias?

We now have as a rule of law that there are two classes of Canadians enjoying different rights and freedoms. In short, we believe the Supreme Court made a bad decision and a decision that must be modified through new legislation. This legislation will be part of the longer-term resolution of the problems caused by the Marshall decision.

Donald Marshall Jr. was found not guilty of fishing out of season because the rules governing the fishery did not take into account the treaty of 1760 and other treaties. The new legislation of which we speak would involve fishery rules that take the treaties into consideration while protecting the fish stocks for all Canadians.

I might just mention that what we're referring to there is fishing during the regular seasons and regulations that everybody fish under the same rules and regulations. No more effort can be put on the fishery. The FRCC report has stated for years that we're taking too much and leaving too little, and the only way we can do this is through buyout or tax benefits and what not.

We hope and trust this committee will ensure that the development of these new regulations is underway and something will be enacted on a timely basis. It is a sad occurrence that the need for these new regulations was not foreseen, particularly by those who have devoted the past 10 years to the development of the aboriginal fisheries strategy.

Many Canadians are not aware of this alleged strategy, which has spent millions of tax dollars to purchase non-native fishing licences for transfer to native bands while allowing a so-called food fishery that takes place outside the fishing seasons. These two initiatives, which appear to be contradictory, are a result of the Sparrow decision. The department has not only allowed, but actively encouraged, native people to engage in the fishery while it systematically dismantled most of its conservation and protection branch, put in place new rules and new players, and dramatically reduced enforcement all at the same time.

The evidence of this was most evident on P.E.I. when the tragic events of Swissair 111 caused the one and only vessel capable of hauling lobster traps to be removed to the rescue and salvage efforts. Twenty years ago there were six full-time vessels patrolling the waters off our island. Today there is one, and if it runs out of budget for fuel, and it has happened, or if there is another emergency, such as another Swissair, again there is none. This is what the fishermen of P.E.I. think of when they hear anyone talk about the fisheries department and their commitment to enforcement.

• 0940

Natives and non-native fishermen are actually aware that increasing illegal activity is taking place and no response is being seen. We have learned from our experience with cod that our marine resources can be depleted, and we believe the lobster stock will be depleted if there is not a quick response from the federal government to put more fisheries officers in safe, reliable vessels back on the water. This committee must ask the question to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: What is their commitment to enforcement? How is this commitment being fulfilled by adequate vessels and real people policing the fishery?

This issue must be addressed before any negotiations between us and the native fishermen can be taken seriously by either side. What is the value of a deal if there is no attempt to regulate or enforce it?

I will now pass you on to Ronnie Campbell, who is the chairman of our P.E.I. Fishermen's Association's lobster advisory committee. In this role, Ronnie will be one of our spokesmen as we begin talks with the native chiefs and band councils of P.E.I.

Ronnie.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Chairman, Lobster Advisory Committee, P.E.I. Fishermen's Association): Thank you, Donnie.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I want to share in the congratulations to our member and friend, Wayne Easter, and thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today.

Generations ago our forefathers took this land by force. People from this country's first nations were not treated as equals. Today the people of Canada recognize this national shame and seek to redress over 200 years of unfair treatment. Today the fishermen of Atlantic Canada are challenged to share dwindling resources so that residents of our first nations areas can become our partners. This was, I believe, the intent of the Supreme Court decision.

The time has come to even the score, but let's be sure that it truly becomes even. We cannot ask or expect that the people from the most economically disadvantaged part of Canada will carry all of the compensation for our country. The fishermen, who for generations struggled for survival.... Like my dad here, I've been involved in the fishery directly for 35 years, and there were lots of tough years. As little as eight, nine, and ten years ago it was fairly rugged too. Fishermen are not the new elite of this nation, and in many cases they are still struggling for their survival. Around home the lobster fishery, for one fishery, is very poor in certain areas.

In the coming days we will be discussing additional effort on finite resources that are currently being fished to capacity. Again, we can go back to the FRCC ruling in our report, which said there is too much being taken and not enough being put back. The mathematics of this is simple: for every bit of effort added, effort of the same or greater magnitude must be reduced. Not to do so will create a resource collapse in which native and non-native fishermen will suffer. This will be the first point of departure. We require the participation of all Canadians, through their tax dollars, to reduce the non-native fishing effort in a humane way.

The second point is the fishing seasons. I fish for lobster myself, and I want to tell you it would be great if I could fish year round. It would probably work if I was the only one doing it, but unfortunately that's not the way.

I'm sure the people from the first nations across the table from us will join us in thinking that whatever we do must be done for the Canadians of tomorrow. I look forward to the challenges ahead and to the many things we can learn from each other. With the goodwill that is already evident, we will overcome our fears and our difficulties.

• 0945

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ronnie.

We'll turn to questions, first from Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): There's been a variety of testimony here today, but I'd like to start with Mr. Christmas.

In your example of concerns for conservation and concerns for sustainability of the fishery, I'd like to ask if you or your organization believe there should be one manager and essentially one set of rules for everyone in the fishery.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Are you saying the status quo should continue?

Mr. John Duncan: I'm not saying that. I'm just asking you if you believe fish management should be overseen by one manager—the status quo there is DFO—and whether essentially the same set of conservation and sustainability rules should apply to all participants in the fishery.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: To answer that, I think the Marshall decision at the Supreme Court makes it clear that the treaty of 1760-61 was a treaty of peace and friendship signed between two nations, the crown and the Mi'kmaq people. We believe there should be a system in place, but I think the system now has to involve the Mi'kmaq people in conjunction with the Government of Canada and their constituents, the fishing communities, to develop the set of rules or regulations you are alluding to.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

Just for my clarification, it was either Mr. Comeau or Mr. Gawn who stated that you or your organization had approached people in DFO to develop a contingency plan should the Supreme Court decide the way they did in the Marshall decision. Can you give us the month in which you did that? As well, who in DFO was approached?

Mr. Graeme Gawn: I said that. I said it was Mr. Christmas I heard that from, that the Mi'kmaq people had approached DFO—in February 1999, was it not?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I'll take that one because, well, I was there. It was February 18, 1999, that we approached DFO regarding the Marshall case. We put forth a document, a position. It contained three phases.

The first phase was to do an analysis and a complete examination of how many Mi'kmaq fishermen, if I can use that term, are engaged in the fishing activities. That includes bands as well, because there are some bands that have operations on behalf of the community.

The second phase was to develop a communication and consultation mechanism, communication with the fishing community and other government departments, along with an education-type process.

The third phase of that would have been to develop a five-year Mi'kmaq commercial fishery management plan between the Mi'kmaq people in conjunction with, and based on consultations gleaned from, the fishing groups and the fishing communities themselves, DFO, and the Province of Nova Scotia.

At that table we had invited Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Province of Nova Scotia. We had our representatives there as well. We met February 18 and the next week, around February 25, and then twice in March, again trying to push this further.

• 0950

We then brought it up another notch—a more political notch, as we call it—in a process known as the Mi'kmaq-Canada-Nova Scotia tripartite forum. It's a unique system here in Nova Scotia, where the three parties come and speak about mutual concerns.

In that it was stopped there again by “the process”, you have to remember that in this process there has to be a consensus amongst the three parties before something moves forward. Unfortunately, the Province of Nova Scotia at a June 1 meeting didn't want to move forward with this decision and this plan.

So not having been deterred, or not taking it as a setback, we proceeded to bring it up again at the same forum after doing some more discussions on, ironically, September 16, the day before the Marshall decision came down. Again it was stopped. Both Canada and Nova Scotia didn't feel comfortable and didn't want to move forward. After Marshall, as I said already in my opening remarks, we had to move forward. The Mi'kmaq people themselves had to move forward. In essence, we had to start working that plan on our own. We're still trying to make sure that the government, the province, and the fishing sector wish to be active and willing participants.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you for that comprehensive answer.

We've had a lot of experience now on the west coast with the aboriginal fisheries strategy, the pilot sales program. We're about seven years into it now. Last year some of the aboriginal groups involved in the commercial fishery pushed hard to adopt the industrial solution, which is another name for saying there should be one fishery managed by one individual, and the way to achieve the aboriginal participation desired is through licensed buyback—a willing seller, a willing buyer—and transfer to aboriginal individuals.

Is your current direction communal or individual in nature? How are you going to get to wherever....? Philosophically, there has to be a decision made by the Mi'kmaq in order to move ahead on how you're going to participate.

The Chair: Mr. Christmas.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I'm not really clear on the question. You're asking me about the communal licensing system. Are you asking me if we agree with the AFS?

Mr. John Duncan: Presumably you want to promote a philosophical direction in which you will participate in the fishery. Is your philosophical direction to go with a communal system or with an individual system?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Our system is just the same type of system Canada has right now. As you know, Canada works on developing collective rights for all Canadians, and then it's branched off into various departments, including DFO. From there they issue privileges of licences, etc., to individuals. We don't see any other different approaches. The Mi'kmaq people consider themselves to be a government, and institutions have been in place for thousands of years, which we think will continue.

So it stems from a collective approach down to an individual. That's in some areas. In other areas, the bands within the nation itself will continue to exercise the collective treaty right on behalf of all their members.

• 0955

For example, the Membertou Band up in Cape Breton fishes currently, and has fished before Marshall, and its operations are tied to fishing on behalf of the over 1,000 people within that community. The amounts earned from that fishery are then dispersed via programs and services offered to the community itself, whether they be day care, whether they be educational development of building schools, providing bus services, paying for staff to manage the affairs of the band. It goes on like that. It's similar, on a smaller scale, to what happens with how Canada operates.

The Chair: I'm going to Mr. Bernier. If any of the other witnesses have a point to make, they're free to butt in.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I'd like to begin by congratulating this morning's participants and witnesses. I realize that it isn't always easy to manage situations involving human beings. I congratulate you on broaching these issues in a calm and collected manner and on defending the interests of your own communities.

I'd like to start by asking Mr. Christmas a few questions. I was pleased to learn, when you responded to John Duncan's questions, that you took the matter in hand as early as February of 1999 and suggested meetings with DFO officials. You subsequently attempted to hold other three-party meetings, but the other stakeholders, namely the two levels of government, refused to participate in this action.

Now that we have learned of the Supreme Court's decision in the Marshall case, exactly where are we in terms of clarifying the situation and finding a way of managing it? Will the proposed timetable be implemented? Is this still what your people want?

You have to understand that the non-native population was astounded because many of us were unaware that such an order was forthcoming. You have to realize as well that our maritime communities are astounded and that the atmosphere has become rather tense. Is there some way of negotiating calmly?

I have a second question and I hope your answer will enlighten us. Few people know how the Mi'kmaq nation is administered. Will we be dealing with a different spokesperson for each of the 35 bands? Should we be making arrangements for 35 separate negotiations? I'm having some problems understanding the whole negotiation process.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Christmas.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: That was actually four questions.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier tends to do that.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I'll start off with the first one. He's asking what is happening.

• 1000

What is happening now, as I said in my opening remarks, is that we've engaged the Government of Canada. We feel that we're speaking on a very rational, very open and transparent process with the fishing communities, and we will continue to do that.

When I say fishing communities, I mean the fishing organizations and their representatives. For the most part, I think they speak for those individuals within those fishing communities, wherever they may be, here in Nova Scotia.

We feel that will continue. In fact, we're working on a few documents right now. One is called “The Natural Resources Integrated Management Policy for the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy”. We're also working on a memorandum of understanding and a political accord with the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy, the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Quebec, and also Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. Those are documents that are currently being discussed. So, needless to say, we are continuing. In answering the third question, I'll describe the process that we feel should be undertaken.

Secondly, do we wish to continue? Yes, we wish to continue. We want to point out that obviously the fishing decision is very far-reaching. We feel that it extends to the fisheries obviously, but it extends to quite a few other resources, as my friends here from the MFU have pointed out. This isn't just a fishing issue; it's a resource sector issue.

However, in regard to fishing, a reporter was asking me the other day—actually, I think it was yesterday as a result of Mr. Chamut's testimony before your committee—is this just about lobster? I said no, this isn't just about lobster; this will cover all viable fisheries, all sustainable fisheries, whether it's snow crab, red fish, turbot, tuna, herring, mackerel, pollock, or cod. The list goes on and on. We will engage in that. But right now obviously the focus is on lobster, because one of the world's most lucrative lobster fisheries is about to open, and it has brought a lot of attention there.

So we plan to engage in those fishery activities, and hopefully by the processes that we are about to proceed with they will become orderly. In fact, going back to those comments—again, I hate to bring this up, because this was just a question asked to me by a reporter—they asked whether there is going to be a repeat of the lobster situation in other species, for example, with the snow crab up in northern New Brunswick, the Acadia situation. They say generally there's a difficulty there amongst the fishing community itself as to who gets quotas on snow crab and who doesn't get quotas on snow crab. This doesn't even involve the Mi'kmaq or Maliseet or Passamaquoddy people engaged in that fishery, but what we have said is that we strongly hope and urge and emphasize that we can learn a lot from what has been undertaken in regard to the lobster situation. I think both sides—well, maybe three sides, the government included—have learned from that and will be able to act a little bit differently. It won't be such a big surprise as what happened with the lobster.

Thirdly, negotiate in calm manner—

The Chair: Mr. Christmas, can you keep it fairly brief? We have a lot of other questioners here.

• 1005

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Okay, I'm trying to answer the gentleman as best as I can, because the problem is that if we get cut off in these types of questions it gets taken out of context. So I want to make sure it's clear what's going on here. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, but briefly.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Okay. Negotiate in a calm manner. Yes, of course we feel we're negotiating in a calm manner. Look, we're here in the room. MFU have made some statements in the media that we feel have probably been taken out of context, and we're still here sitting inside. You don't see any blood and guts or fisticuffs; we can talk and we will continue to talk.

The Mi'kmaq nation, how does it function? The Mi'kmaq nation traditional government is called the Mi'kmaq Grand Council. The grand chief is Ben Sylliboy, and then he has a gentleman known as the grand captain, and his name is Alex Denis. So you have this structure that oversees all the seven traditional territories of the Mi'kmaq people. Those territories are bounded by what is known currently as Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick, the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec, and Newfoundland.

Within that system we have obviously the 35 chiefs. In Nova Scotia we have 13 Mi'kmaq chiefs who are part of the Mi'kmaq nation, and they represent their constituents on that level. In fact they meet on a regular basis in a forum known as the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs. As further offshoots you have two tribal councils, one known as the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, which represents six bands in Nova Scotia, and then the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, which represents the other seven bands in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick there are different groups: the Mawiw Council, the Union of New Brunswick Indians, and the Saint John River Valley Tribal Council. In P.E.I. there are two bands that have an association; in Newfoundland there is the Conne River Band, with Chief M'isel Joe; and then there are the three bands up in the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec.

We function as a very cohesive group, as you have probably guessed. We feel we know what we're doing, and we feel that we will continue to proceed within our system.

I know the chairman is asking me to be short in my answer, but there's a process that we're putting forth. Again, I stress now that it's a process that we consider without prejudice, because it has not been finalized and it's still up for discussion.

But in essence, if I can just quickly touch upon it, we'll have a steering committee that involves the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; the AFN, Assembly of First Nations, more than likely would be involved in that steering committee; and also, the chiefs themselves here in the Atlantic have formed what we'll call a standing committee to have representatives on this steering committee. Then we hope Canada will have a committee at the deputy minister level that includes DFO, DIAND and PCO.

From there the line would go from the steering committee at the DM level down to the working mediators and negotiators. We have our reps, and obviously Canada has appointed their representative. Then from there, the chiefs have established a technical committee that consists of legal, communications, information sharing, and management regime development. From the negotiation tables, you would go with DFO and DIAND and their officials, who would advise their mediators in their discussions. Both those committees would be engaged directly with the native fishermen and fishing groups in each province.

Then we move from there to hopefully some kind of agreement and arrangement on both an interim and a long-term solution.

• 1010

The Chair: I'll have to cut you off there, Mr. Christmas, and go to Mr. Sekora. If you do have any of that mapped out in terms of documentation, we'd appreciate you forwarding it to us.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I'm sitting here listening to five different groups or four different groups making presentations. It looks like a real good dog's breakfast is what we have here—pardon my expression. Mr. Christmas is talking about all these different committees, and as far as I'm concerned, that gets tied up in bureaucracy. It's there for five years, ten years, and nothing is ever accomplished.

So I'm saying, what is the quick fix? Can we pass something here in this committee—some fix to the minister that's one law for all people, the aboriginal and the non-native people, where we can all survive with one law? Or is there going to be always this dissension, where one can fish all year round and fish whenever the fishing season is not on for everything...? Can we get something put in place? I'd like to get an answer from everybody who can speak on this and give me some answers.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I want to answer that. First, with all due respect, there is the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that the rule of law is there. The Mi'kmaq will follow the rule of law. We expect Canada to do the same thing. That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Lou Sekora: What I'm saying is that if the fisheries minister said “Here's the new way that I'm going to live by, and the DFO is going to be enforcing it; here's what you must live by and what everybody will live by”, are you people willing to live by that rule?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: The Supreme Court of Canada, I'm stating again with all due respect, is saying the rule of law must apply. It isn't just DFO that has a say in this any more. The Mi'kmaq people have a say. The Supreme Court, the highest court in your country, has ruled that.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Are you willing then to come to the table and say you're willing to discuss this and come up with one law for everybody? Are you willing to be part of the party?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I just explained an entire process to you of how we're going to do that.

Mr. Lou Sekora: With all due respect, personally—I don't know how my members feel—I'm not for a whole lot of committees. I spent 25 years as a municipal politician, and I'll tell you that if you ever want to tie things up, pick a whole bunch of committees. That's where you tie it up for years to come.

The Chair: Thank you. Do any other witnesses beyond you yourself, Mr. Christmas, have anything to add on that point?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I have to say something before I let that by.

It's been now what, four weeks since this Marshall decision has come out, or five weeks? I think the Mi'kmaq people have taken a lot of heat. We've engaged processes that we didn't even have to bother with. If you understand it, the Supreme Court, your country, your law, has said we could go fish. Despite that, we have said we will establish a process to try to come to some sort of a mutually satisfying agreement that will integrate the Mi'kmaq into the fishery. We've talked to a lot of the fishing groups. Those guys have told us, the fishermen on the wharf said “If that was us, boom, we'd be out there at one minute past, when the decision was dealt with.” We have refrained.

The Chair: Mr. Christmas, we certainly recognize what you said earlier, that you went to DFO on February 18, 1999, with a proposal. I cannot understand why that wasn't responded to.

Mr. Strongman.

Mr. Donnie Strongman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I definitely don't think one fix will fix all in the short term, because every situation is different in Atlantic Canada. I certainly agree that with a whole bunch of committees it's never going to get settled; it's going to be a continuous, ongoing series of meetings and negotiations. I think if the non-native fishermen, the commercial fishermen such as me, sit down with the native people, they can come to agreements. Leave the enforcement to DFO. They may have to approve the final agreements until we have these meetings and until we and the native groups, the bands, can reach an agreement without any problems.

• 1015

The Chair: Mr. Comeau or Mr. Gawn, is there anything you want to add?

Mr. Reginald Comeau: I want to emphasize what Mr. Strongman is saying. If DFO will permit us to get into an integrated management zone, I think the natives will sit with us and we will arrive at a proper solution here.

As I said in my statement, we proposed something of that regard last winter and DFO just laughed at us. We proposed an integrated management zone where we would accommodate the natives, but they didn't want to take us seriously. That's where we are with DFO.

The problem seems to be in Ottawa. They don't seem to understand that it's possible to have people of different nationalities sitting around the table to develop a comprehensive plan, but they don't want us to do that because they are afraid of losing power over that. That's all.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, and then back to Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Easter, or Mr. Christmas, I think what it boils down to is—

Mr. Lou Sekora: We'll celebrate both.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It depends on which season you're in.

I think the crux of the matter is whether the Mi'kmaq are prepared to operate under the same set of rules as the other fishermen or whether the Mi'kmaq feel they want their own set of rules. You didn't clarify when my colleague asked that. Are you prepared to operate under one set of rules with the other fishermen or not?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: We will abide by one set of rules if they are negotiated on a fair and good faith basis between the Government of Canada and the Mi'kmaq people.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Excellent.

If we go back to the west coast, we've had the AFS there for seven years. Traditionally the native fishermen comprised about 30% of the fishery before the AFS. Then you've got this component where you had some people standing on the dock and others who had always been allowed to fish were not, and this is what caused the problem.

I like your answer. The animosity is going to come from not being able to go to the fishery when some can and some can't. I think if a compromise can be reached where everyone is operating under the same set of rules—particularly when you're saying this is not just lobster or snow crab; it's going to go right across the whole spectrum of fish resources and possibly even further. You have the opportunity to either throw gasoline on the fire or to calm the waters and arrive at a solution.

The Chair: Mr. Christmas, Mr. Strongman, or Mr. Comeau, do you have any comments?

Do you have anything else, Mr. Gilmour?

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up a little bit on what we've been saying here, I think Mr. Christmas is correct. I think all parties at this table and all parties in the House of Commons do support the Supreme Court decision. It is the Supreme Court. I think with the debate we've had in the House of Commons, all parties did support the Supreme Court decision. When you stripped all the politics away it was just a matter of how we're going to implement that particular decision.

I'd like to direct my remarks to the representatives of the PEIFA. On page 7 of your presentation you say the time has come to even the score, but let's be sure that it truly becomes even. I am just wondering how you see that in the situation in Prince Edward Island, where I think Mr. Comeau said in a lot of the areas where there is an aboriginal fishery in P.E.I. it's going to be a very small territory, like the Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick or in Malpeque Bay in P.E.I. It's not a big area.

• 1020

I want to know if you see this process, the fish end of it, being decoupled from a bigger settlement of the issue because of the effort that's going to be expended in that particular bay and how that's going to affect conservation in that bay.

The Chair: Mr. Strongman.

Mr. Donnie Strongman: I'm fully aware because I do fish in Malpeque Bay during the spring season with natives who fish now under a communal licence. It's the next thing to a perfect relationship. There are no problems. There's no cutting of gear. It's a really good situation, as it is during the commercial season.

But to get to the point of effort, the only way the effort can be reduced is through a voluntary buyback of licenses in the immediate area. There's going to have to be some tax incentives or tax credits, which hopefully this committee will implement, if any buybacks are offered. You can talk big dollars, but when Revenue Canada steps in and takes 47% or 50% of it, if you figure it up over five years, it doesn't amount to very much. But I think that's the only way, Joe, that we can reduce the effort. It's the same thing in Miramichi Bay. It's a concentrated local effort.

I know the figures prove that they catch less than 1% of the lobsters in Atlantic Canada. But that's not the point really, because, as I say, it's out of season, and it's in a small, concentrated area. If it were spread evenly all over Atlantic Canada, you wouldn't even notice it.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Have you come to any conclusions about how many licences would have to be retired there from the regular fishery in order to allow the Lennox Island Band to have a significant impact in that bay? Have you come to any conclusions about how many would have to be bought out and at what price? I know there are a lot of young people there who just purchased licences worth $200,000 or $250,000. Are you looking at them? Are you looking at the older fishermen? Have you thought about the numbers that would be required?

Mr. Donnie Strongman: I think it would have to be the older fishermen, because, as you had suggested, the intention of these new, young gentlemen who have just got into the fishery is to make a future and their livelihood from this.

There are the two harbours directly affected, which are Hardys Channel and Malpeque Bay, and maybe there are other harbours where licences can be bought back over time, if fisheries are going into other harbours. Maybe the natives, if they require gears, can go to Rustico or North Lake or somewhere else.

I think the fishermen have pretty well said—and we had a lobster advisory meeting last week—that they would accept these natives in their harbours providing they fish the seasons and under the same conditions as the non-natives.

The Chair: You have time for one last question, Joe.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association should be commended for their efforts in bringing this to a fairly amiable conclusion in Prince Edward Island. As Donnie says, they haven't cut traps, and there were no overt threats to anybody. The native community basically are neighbours. I live in the same area as Donnie does, so I'm quite familiar with the situation there. I think they should be commended for the attitude they've portrayed to this point.

Thank you.

The Chair: I think the committee would agree.

I have on my list Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Muise, Mr. Assadourian, and Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses here today.

Graeme, I have to admit that what you said about the DFO is what I've been screaming about for the last two and a half years. I just wanted to thank you for your comments.

Mr. Christmas, I thank you very much for the answer you gave to my colleague Mr. Gilmour. I think that sets a very positive tone for everybody in Atlantic Canada when it comes to the discussions we hope to be having very soon.

• 1025

Mr. Christmas, I have just one very simple question for you. I've asked the DFO and the deputy assistant attorney general this question, and I still haven't got an answer. In your opinion, does the Supreme Court decision apply to non-status aboriginal people in the maritime region? It's a simple yes or no question.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Are you asking a lawyer to give you that answer in one word?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I ask that is that there's an awful lot of non-status aboriginal people who feel that they are in a quandary right now and that they're in a trap, and they want to know if the decision applies to them as well.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: The view of the chiefs in Nova Scotia is that it does not apply to what they call non-status natives. However, the chiefs feel it is up to the Mi'kmaq people to establish who is the beneficiary of that treaty right. We will undertake to do that task, and we are doing that. We have been working on that for about five years now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

My next question is for Graeme again. Graeme, you mentioned the pressure the inshore lobster fishermen have been undergoing, not only with this decision but in previous years as well. We found out the other day in committee hearings that the corporate sector had a meeting with DFO in Halifax to discuss the fact that they didn't want the aboriginal people past the three-mile limit going into the offshore sector. My question to you, sir, is, have you had any discussion with the corporate sector on how to integrate the aboriginal people in the offshore sector as well?

Mr. Graeme Gawn: No, not directly, Peter. All I've heard about what the corporate sector is doing is that they're positioning themselves for court actions to protect any attempt to go after their, as you said, three miles. They consider three miles to be the extent of the treaty rights, and they've threatened court action if anybody goes after their quotas.

From the inshore fishermen's and MFU's point of view, what this ruling means is that they shouldn't even have any quotas in the first place. It's about time to put the 80% of Canada's fishery resources that has been given away to foreign shareholders in some cases back on the table, to go back pre-Kirby and reallocate it to the people who should have had it.

You understand that the corporate sector is going to take you to court over this. Of course they will. They've been awarded quasi-property rights, and they will make a case, and it will be very costly.

But the right thing to do is to go back to pre-Kirby and allocate the fish where it should have been and set up the management systems the way they should have been in the first place. There has been a hell of a big botch-up job done in 20 years.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much for that.

My last question for my colleagues here from P.E.I. is on the issue of the buyback itself. Could you elaborate again on a voluntary buyback system, and not just for the elderly fishermen? A lot of them have other licences as well. How would you suggest we either reduce their numbers or ease them out of the fishery in order to incorporate this decision?

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We definitely don't want to see any more traps in the water, so the way to do that is to change present non-native licences into native licences.

With regard to the way to do that as an incentive, I have a couple of ideas. One as an incentive for fishermen who are ready to retire or near retirement is a tax break. Right now the capital gains is $100,000, and for most people in the lobster industry and with other licences their gears are running in excess of $300,000. So one incentive would be to raise the capital gains to $500,000. That would be an incentive for people near retirement or even thinking about it. Some fishermen I know would get out of the fishery and get rid of their lobster licences if they were allowed to keep their boats and their other licences in order to participate for a few more years until they're ready to retire. At that time, the other licences could be dealt with. Those are two ways.

• 1030

The Chair: Thank you, Ronnie.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by thanking our witnesses today, and I also thank you for showing the calm that all of your groups have shown throughout this very difficult time.

I was very glad to hear your comment, Mr. Christmas, when you said that you're prepared to live by the seasons, one season and one enforcement regime, provided that you're part of the negotiating process. I'm wondering if, firstly, you can see the agreement that was reached in southwestern Nova Scotia over the past couple of weeks as an example that could be used for other areas.

The other point I'd like to make is that I also have been disappointed with DFO officials' reactions and lack of actions on this topic.

Finally, I'd like to ask all of you and our guests from P.E.I. if any of your groups have dealt with the negotiator, Mr. MacKenzie. If so, have you felt that his involvement has led to some positive movements towards reaching an agreement among the stakeholders?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Firstly, I'd just like to clarify something. I didn't agree to the seasons, as I think you are alluding to. I said that we will negotiate the rules and agree to the rules, one set of rules, if there are good faith negotiations. If that includes seasons, well, possibly, but again, I want to stress at this point that we will agree to one set of rules—not the status quo right now—if there are good faith negotiations on the part of the Government of Canada.

Secondly, I apologize, I just want to go back to a question from Mr. Stoffer. Yes, if there are corporate interests indicating that they're going to protect this three-mile limit, I can tell you right now that the Mi'kmaq people are in fact gearing up for offshore activity. We will enter the offshore lobster fishery. We will enter the offshore scallop fishery. We will enter the offshore snow crab fishery. If someone is going to try to use the argument that three miles is the limit for this treaty right, all we suggest is that they had better find out what Canada's limit is right now. We understand that it's 200 miles. As far as we're concerned, ours goes out as far. I'm not their legal adviser; they have their own legal advisers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Muise, your question was...?

Mr. Mark Muise: There was another part to the question regarding the negotiator, Mr. MacKenzie, and it was addressed to—

The Chair: To all the players, I believe.

Mr. Graeme Gawn: Mark, I didn't personally meet with Mr. MacKenzie, but our local 9 president, Ricky Richardson, was one of the six on the negotiating team for LFA 34 who met with them in White Point. I think you will understand that they came away from that meeting feeling that this guy knows absolutely nothing about the fishery and that he had nothing in his tool kit, no tools with him, to enable him to even start talking about it. He didn't have any direction from Ottawa. He didn't have any money or any fish to put on the table.

At the end of the day, what's going to settle this is the government putting up the money and the fish. The fish I'm talking about are the fish that are being given away to people who didn't have any right to them in the first place. That has to come back to the table to be reallocated. The money is the money that all the people of Canada have to pay to settle their constitutional obligations—not just the lobster fishermen or the eel fishermen or whoever it may be that ends up taking the hit here.

So with Mr. MacKenzie, we had a bad experience.

The Chair: Donnie.

Mr. Donnie Strongman: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, Mr. MacKenzie hasn't even contacted our office yet.

The Chair: Mr. Comeau.

• 1035

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Coming back to the deal that was made in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick—I think it was in the Sparrow ruling—there were all kinds of deals. Something like 35 licences were bought by the natives, but that's not enough.

Some people are trying to simplify the problem here. The problem is bigger than that. As I say in my comments, just in New Brunswick, just in the Miramichi Bay, there is the potential for more fishing by the natives. If they want, there's the potential to fish more than what the commercial fishermen are fishing. Nobody seems to want to look at that.

It's the same thing in the Big Cove area. Mr. MacKenzie didn't even come to New Brunswick because he doesn't know where it is. The problem is bigger than that. The problem is how we are now starting to count the number of Mi'kmaq fishermen, of fisherpersons, who will go into fishing, and that's totally wrong. If you come to Burnt Church and see the area, the Miramichi Bay.... If the Mi'kmaq want to go fishing, I can't see how we will be able to stop them if we don't enter into an integrated fishery, an integrated involvement of the Mi'kmaq and the commercial fishermen.

Also, if we don't deal with something bigger than this...I think the Mi'kmaq have a bigger problem than the few lobsters that are there. As I say, if all the Mi'kmaq decide to go fishing, the 200 commercial lobster fishermen who are there will have to find something else to do. As I say, fish have to be put on the table. There are other fish there. How come 70% of the cod caught in the past—and we started last summer—was being caught by a few guys? How come the snow crab is being caught by only a few guys too?

This anomaly has to stop. If you and Mr. Christmas think the commercial fishermen in our area are going to let other people—whether it's Mi'kmaq or Mr. Wouters from Ottawa—come and get their fish and their livelihood, you're totally wrong. You people don't seem to understand that. The problem is bigger than that.

You saw what happened on October 3. It was not the MFU leaders but fishermen themselves taking on the enforcement, and that's wrong. We want to stop that, but you and DFO don't seem to understand that. Just by your avoiding the problem with the hotspot, as Mr. MacKenzie thinks, we feel as if we are being stabbed in the back, and that's wrong.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Mr. Easter, I think your committee doesn't really want to look at the real problem here.

The Chair: We're trying to look at the real problem, Mr. Comeau.

Mr. Assadourian, then then Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I too join my colleagues in welcoming you to this committee. I am a new member of this committee. I have some questions. I hope you will try to explain these questions to me. So far, I think, this thing looks very fishy to me.

The decision handed down by the court on September 17 regarding the 1760 treaty speaks of hunting, gathering, and fishing. So far we are discussing only the fishing aspect of this decision. Can you tell us what will happen to the hunting aspect of it and what gathering means to you, how you define gathering? Do you think Mr. MacKenzie, the negotiator, should discuss hunting and gathering at the same time as the fishing concerns?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: To us, hunting, fishing, and gathering basically mean that we have rights to the resources just as any other group has rights to the resources. In fact, we have constitutionally protected rights. The treaty has been affirmed, and hunting was affirmed in 1985 by the Simon case, so that was already dealt with. That was a 1752 treaty. The 1760-61 treaties, that series of treaties, again reaffirm the hunting aspect of it. Fishing obviously, and for commercial purposes, and gathering, for us, rely on any resources that are there.

The Chair: Sarkis, if I could, I want to stay on the purpose of our hearing, which is really the management of the fisheries in the Atlantic region in the context of the Marshall decision. I don't want us to stray from that, because we don't have the authority to do it. We do have some authority in terms of fisheries.

• 1040

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: All right. I was going to ask about the resources within 200 miles offshore, but I guess I won't ask that question now.

You mentioned that Mr. MacKenzie didn't come to your area and hasn't negotiated with you yet. Are you prepared to discuss any other aspects of it besides the fisheries, or are you concerned only with what Mr. Easter has just mentioned?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Well, we've engaged and had a process underway for well over a year, since Minister Jane Stewart came to Nova Scotia. This was a result of our actions against the Sable gas projects, where pipelines are being built on our traditional territories and on the marine environments, and our resources are being extracted. We started a process known as the Nova Scotia aboriginal title process, and it's through that forum that we feel, at least in Nova Scotia, we will move forward and discuss all the greater contextual difficulties that Marshall is highlighting.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I can't resist the comment, Mr. Chairman, that between Christmas and Easter, we'll be looking forward to the New Year.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chair, I also want the people who are unable to sit in this room with us today to know that there are 14 parliamentarians, representing all parties, sitting around the table who are very interested in resolving this matter.

I have only one question, and it's to Mr. Christmas. Can you confirm, Mr. Christmas, that the negotiators for the Mi'kmaq first nations have a complete mandate to resolve the issues and conclude a settlement with the government negotiators?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Well, as we speak right now, that is being finalized. Today there is a meeting up in Membertou, in Sydney, Cape Breton. To finalize that, we've been working for two weeks now. The document I was alluding to, which I have here, deals with exactly that aspect of your question.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: At the moment, then, your negotiators do not have a mandate to conclude a negotiation with the government negotiators.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: The chiefs themselves obviously feel they have a mandate to speak on behalf of their people.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'd like to follow this up, Mr. Chair.

I think what we all want to know around the table, Mr. Christmas, is the extent of the mandate of the negotiators. If there's going to be a resolution of the issues—the important issues that are resulting from the decision and that are facing the entire country—the people who sit at the table must have the necessary mandate to conclude in a final way negotiations that will resolve the issues. When do you think your first nations negotiators will have that mandate?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: As I said, the chiefs have the mandate to negotiate this, and now obviously they're preparing to make it a more efficient process and are appointing those individuals. We could ask the same question: What is the mandate of the government? Who is representing the Government of Canada on this negotiation? We don't really know what that person's mandate is. Is he speaking for Indian Affairs? Is he speaking for the PCO? Is he speaking for Fisheries and Oceans? Is he speaking for Justice...or whatever? We haven't seen any document that says this is his mandate. If that's what you're asking me to provide—a document to show you the mandate—well, we ask the same thing then. Where is that document from the Parliament of Canada?

Mr. Graeme Gawn: If I may interject, that exact question is what was asked of Mr. MacKenzie. He didn't have any mandate. So we are facing the same situation. There's no leadership on either side, really.

• 1045

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: The reason for the question, Mr. Christmas, is that it's a jury available for questioning on that point. It's not to select you for the question ahead of the government negotiator. You're before us, and I think it's relevant to know what the mandate of your negotiators is. When you speak of the possible mandate that the chiefs might have, it raises the question of whether the chiefs can be entertained in negotiations on a separate basis. I don't think that's going to resolve the issues in the final way that's necessary. Are you able to comment on that?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: I understand it's a complex process that has to be undertaken here. You have to remember that it's only been a few weeks, as far as we're concerned—four or five weeks. The Government of Canada and the provinces have literally thousands of people who work for them. Indian Affairs alone has something like 4,000 people. DFO has probably about same amount. You have to allow us at least some ability to try to coordinate ourselves. I think that's the least we could ask—some time just to coordinate. And I think we've done a good job within five weeks of that decision.

The negotiators will have their mandate, and they'll have it probably by the end of today or by noon tomorrow.

The Chair: I'd like to go to John Duncan for one question, and then Nancy Karetak-Lindell. John.

Mr. John Duncan: I have one comment and question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You have a quick comment.

Mr. John Duncan: Just to clarify for Graeme, this committee did determine as well that Mr. MacKenzie has no mandate. In other words, he was sent out naked to your coast.

Following on that, you made a statement that resonated with me very much, which was that the fishermen are being asked to shoulder the government's constitutional obligation. I hope there's lots of endurance amongst the MFU, PEIFA, and other organizations, because you're at the start of a long road. The feds are the enemy and you have no assurance they are going to truly represent your interests. They will use fish as currency and they'll use provincial resources as currency, because it's an easy thing for them to do. I think I have enough of a track record to demonstrate that they've done exactly that in many instances before in other parts of Canada.

My question to you, to the MFU and PEIFA representatives here today, is do your organizations and associations have the dollars and the endurance required to keep the federal government honest in terms of representing your interests? You are probably going to have to resort to the courts or threaten to resort to the courts in order to achieve that.

Mr. Graeme Gawn: I'd like to respond to that, if I may.

Thanks for your statement, but I don't think we're at the beginning of a long road. I think MFU members have been on this road for about 25 years. This is another pothole in it and it's not new. To struggle against the big money and big vested interests for inshore fishermen is nothing new on this coast. If you look at who's out of business around the coast, it's the smallest players, the small handline fishermen of all people, who in fact were blamed for declines in the groundfish here, while the corporate sector continues to fish 80% of the quotas where there's still a fish left. That's another issue, but we're fully aware that the struggle we're on is a lifetime struggle. This is another twist in the road.

As far as having the resources is concerned, we probably don't have adequate resources. We probably don't have adequate leadership from our government, which is supposed to be a government for us, and which I would say often seems to be more of an adversary to us, and I think the inshore fishermen community on the east coast has survived in spite of DFO rather than because of it.

• 1050

Mr. John Duncan: Could we get a response from some of the other representatives?

The Chair: Mr. Strongman.

Mr. Donnie Strongman: As far as PEIFA is concerned, we certainly do not have any extra finances to even participate in these negotiations, and we will be making requests to government for funding, because this is going to be a long process. We're not going to get this accomplished this winter, I can guarantee you that.

The Chair: Any other quick responses from the witnesses?

I'll go to Nancy.

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

I would also like to add my congratulations to everyone involved in this for their patience, as I mentioned at the committee meeting two days ago.

Mr. Christmas, you talked about putting things into perspective. I've only been on this committee a little over two years, so I can't say that I know everything there is to know about fishing in Canada. But in that short time I've come to understand that there are a lot of other players on the scene that there hasn't been that much mention about.

We talked a lot about foreign fishing off the coast of Canada. When you talk about putting things into perspective, how do you think we can also make people understand that there are other players and tell them what percentage of the fish is being caught by foreign fisheries versus what the aboriginal people are asking for? I would just like to comment that if there was as much outcry about foreign fishing as there is about people living in Canada, maybe we would be able to deal with this issue in a more understanding manner.

Again, I would like to add how pleased I am to see how well everyone is talking with each other. Coming from a territory where we were able to become a territory with peaceful negotiations, I think we already have some opportunities to prove to other people that this is the way to go.

Thank you.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Does anyone want to raise any comments?

Mr. Bernd Christmas: All I would like to say about the other countries that are fishing.... For example, I'll be attending the ICCAT meetings, the tuna meetings, in Rio De Janeiro. I think it's safe to say the Mi'kmaq people would like to get involved in some of those international discussions, whether it's NAFO, ICCAT—it goes on and on.

This is our perspective, our view. We feel we should be a partner in this fishery along with the fishing community and DFO, and that includes not only domestic but also international, because international will have an impact.

For example, I came here to do this, but I'm at the ALPAC meeting, which is the Atlantic large pelagic meetings, in preparation for ICCAT. People are talking about the international quotas that are being allocated. You have countries like Japan, who are fishing some of our tuna, etc. It goes on and on. As a vested interest, we feel the Mi'kmaq people should have a say in some of those activities Canada is committing itself to. It's not that we want to tell Canada what to do, but I think it would be fair to at least allow an indigenous perspective on some of these arrangements that are being made.

Mr. Chairman, I need to go back several questions to clarify something. It's very important, because I think there's some confusion here about mandates and negotiators.

I don't know if the committee is aware that there is a group known as the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. Thirty-five bands come together from all the provinces. It's in that forum that they are meeting today to try to establish the overall principles for negotiation, which will be used in each province.

• 1055

In Nova Scotia, which I am familiar with and I can speak to directly, negotiators and spokespeople have been given direction by the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs to meet with the fishing groups, to start to get their views, and to engage DFO and Indian Affairs and PCO and any other government department on how to integrate the Mi'kmaq fishery.

The Chair: We have until 11 o'clock? Mr. Bernier, you have 30 seconds and that's it. Any longer and you're cut.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'd like to give Mr. Comeau 30 seconds to complete an answer he gave earlier. As I understand, the native crisis is merely symptomatic of a bigger problem. Could he tell me what that bigger problem might be? Is it, as I suspect, mismanagement on the part of DFO? Personally, I think the whole issue of fisheries management needs to be revisited. I'd like to hear your views on the subject.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comeau, can you keep your answer just about as short?

[Translation]

Mr. Reginald Comeau: Currently, DFO specializes in crisis management when it comes to managing the fishery and doesn't appear to want to transfer any powers whatsoever to communities. For example, fishing goes on along both shores of the Baie des Chaleurs, that is along the Gaspé shore and along the Acadian peninsula, and fishers don't seem to have any say whatsoever in how they might co-exist in future with the native population. Ottawa seems to be deciding everything. This situation cannot continue.

The communities that depend on these resources for their livelihood need to get involved. That's precisely what we and the natives are trying to demonstrate. It seems we aren't having any luck getting this message across to Ottawa.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comeau, it is part of our purpose as a committee, and we want to be sure, that you do have your say and that it gets through the system.

Mr. Muise, 30 seconds.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Christmas, you used the phrase “conservation and sustainability” in the very beginning, and you repeated it two or three times. Then you also mentioned that the treaties are treaties of peace and friendship. Then you go on to say 12,000 traps, and I recognize you say that and I take your word at that.

But then we see, for example in Miramichi Bay, 4,000 to 6,000 traps, and you say, well, one season, but we'll talk about that. It leaves a lot of uncertainty, when you have someone else saying that the commercial fisherman can't be left to bear the entire brunt of the situation. I'd like you to comment on that, because we have to make this work for all parties involved.

The Chair: Mr. Christmas, be as quick as you can, please.

Mr. Bernd Christmas: Well, I think I just tried to highlight...again, the Mi'kmaq could have taken a certain approach. We could have just done, as I think everyone wants us to do, a free-for-all there on the fisheries. We're saying no, we're not going to do that; we want to talk, we want to work this out, we want to negotiate. We have a long history of negotiation. It goes back to 1725 with those treaties. We will continue to talk, and that's how we want to work it out.

In regard to the number of traps in Miramichi Bay, I don't know if anyone has even taken account of that. Is that a fact, that there are 6,000 traps? We don't know; I don't think anyone here can say that for a fact.

• 1100

Conservation, yes, is extremely important to us. Of all groups, we aboriginal people pride ourselves on being the true conservationists and environmentalists. That's just our philosophy on living our lives, our world view. Conservation will continue, and that's the only way we're going to ensure the livelihood of Mi'kmaq people and also the livelihood of all Canadians engaged in the fishery.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Christmas.

With that, we'd certainly like to thank you, Mr. Comeau, Mr. Gawn, Mr. Strongman, and Mr. Campbell. It has been an interesting exchange. Thank you very much.

One last point for Mr. Christmas. If you could forward to us any documentation on that strategy outlined in graph format, we'd certainly like to see it, or any written information on the February 18 meeting and approach and strategy to DFO. We'd like to have any of that if you could give it to us.

I would ask committee members to remain for a minute. We have a couple of housecleaning items to clean up.

There was a letter sent around at the last committee meeting with DFO and Justice on the Marshall decision. It was suggested we draft a letter to the Minister of Justice asking for clarification of a few points.

Did you not get that draft letter? Okay, let's get it to you, because we'd like to get that to the Minister of Justice. It's in both languages. You can read that while we're dealing with the rest.

We'll go to the next item. The steering committee met the other day; I'll just read what we agreed to and see if there's agreement.

It was agreed that Carmen Provenzano chair a subcommittee to plan—and I underline that, to plan—the activities related to the studies of the Oceans Act and aquaculture, and that the subcommittee members be Carmen Provenzano, Charlie Power, Bill Gilmour, Yvan Bernier, and others to be moved at a later date. That committee would report back to this one and tell us the strategy and how to review the Oceans Act and aquaculture.

Secondly, it was agreed that the committee undertake the study of the following items: October to December, which are already due, on the Marshall decision; February to March 2000, aboriginal fishing strategy and the aquaculture issues; April to June, review of the Oceans Act, and Carmen's committee would report back on a strategy.

It was further agreed that we report to Parliament in early December our views on the Marshall decision and how to manage that in the east coast fisheries.

That is the report of the steering committee. Is it agreed we follow that approach?

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand at all what you've just read. Should I have a copy of this letter?

[English]

The Chair: No, no. There are two things. The letter was handed around; I thought you had a copy. The report I'm giving now while we're waiting to get that photocopied is the report of the steering committee, the meeting you were at, that we agreed to.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But we don't have a copy of that report. I was trying to find out about the letter and I didn't hear what you said. I thought you usually tabled a written report. Is there no written report of the meeting?

[English]

The Chair: Of the steering committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Then the answer is no.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Then you'll have to read us the text again. If there is no written record, then the human voice will have to suffice.

[English]

The Chair: We are over time. We can deal with it at the next meeting. As far as that goes, we have your motion to deal with yet and we have to deal with the letter we wanted to forward to the Minister of Justice.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Are we going to be short on time this morning because another committee meeting has been scheduled for this room? I'd appreciate an additional 30 seconds to continue discussing my motion.

• 1105

I suggest that the committee review the time allocation motion. If there isn't time to do that this morning, I'd like the clerk to distribute a copy of the motion to committee members so that we can discuss it at our next meeting.

Although members from five parties are present, at least five Liberal Party members have had an opportunity to speak, whereas I've been recognized only once, and for a mere 30 seconds. I find that rather odd and somewhat cumbersome.

We are not here as individuals, but rather as representatives of our parties. I urge committee members to think about that. If we want our proceedings to go forward in this manner and if we need to set hard and fast rules, we are in for a very long haul.

I'm not calling into question the relevance of the questions. I liked John's sequence. I jumped in and someone from the other side completed the question. I think we need to be careful about this. But I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this morning's meeting and our discussions with the witnesses. However, I would have preferred to hear from the witnesses one at the time, that is first, from the aboriginal leader, secondly, from Mr. Comeau, and thirdly, from the other witnesses in attendance.

[English]

The Chair: Yvan, it wasn't distributed to all committee members. It was given to the clerk this morning, I believe. Are you in agreement that we distribute that motion to all committee members and we'll deal with it as the first item at the next meeting of the standing committee? It is a considerable change to what we adopted in the rules. Do you agree to that?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes.

The Chair: We will write up the steering committee report and get it to you, and we will move and second that as well.

The item we have to deal with is this letter. You have a copy in your hand of the draft letter. It was raised as a result of the last meeting we had with DFO and Justice, relative to Mr. MacKenzie's mandate. There were several questions raised for further clarification from Justice and by the court on several issues, as a result of Carmen's questioning.

It was suggested that we draft a letter from the committee asking Minister McLellan to clarify those points. You have the letter before you, and I'm wondering, is it in the order and the form and the approach that the committee can agree with? If it's moved and seconded, we will forward it to the minister.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: On the letter to Minister McLellan, if all committee members have read it, is there agreement that we do that? There was a motion the other day that we draft a letter. I am wondering if the letter is acceptable to the committee.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Are we not going to ask the question about MacKenzie's mandate?

The Chair: Not to the Minister of Justice. This is clarification.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Are we going to ask any minister?

The Chair: That's the prerogative of the.... I think we already did. When I summed up the meeting with the officials from DFO the other day, I made it very clear to the ministry officials, to the deputy minister and Mr. Pat Chamut, that this committee does want the documentation relative to those terms of reference as soon as they're available.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Is there any indication of when we might get it?

The Chair: No, not as yet.

Could we have a motion on this letter?

Mr. Lou Sekora: I so move.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I second the motion.

The Chair: Discussion.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't see how either my party or myself can agree to sending a letter to the Justice Minister asking her whether it is appropriate to ask the Supreme Court to clarify the issues in question. It would come down to challenging our interpretations of the decision. It was my understanding, after listening to the speeches in the House the other day, that your party, like mine, respected the constitutional state and agreed that it was time to move into the negotiations phase.

I wouldn't want this matter to be once again referred to the Supreme Court or for us to ask the minister whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. I believe our witnesses have indicated to us the approach that must be taken. What more do we need? Representatives of the fishers and of the aboriginal people have told us: “Let us talk and come to an agreement”. I don't see the point of referring the matter again to the Supreme Court.

• 1110

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, if you go back and look at the discussion of the meeting we had and what this letter is saying, it is not challenging the Supreme Court decision. It's looking at the other implications. We're not challenging the decision. We're asking for reference. Maybe Carmen could explain, certainly better than I, the other areas of concern we have so that we don't end up in court forever and a day. What are the implications of a Mi'kmaq community from south of the border coming up? There are all those kinds of points.

Carmen, do you want to explain, and then Mr. Duncan?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Chair, to add to your response, the Supreme Court heard the matter as an appellate court and made a final decision. If the questions that have arisen as a result of the decision fall into the category of a proper subject for reference, I think the government should avail itself of that opportunity as quickly as possible. That's the only purpose for the letter.

I happen to think that these questions that have arisen are of sufficient importance to warrant a reference, but it will have to be reviewed by legal experts, and the decision will have to be made by the department as to whether that kind of reference is appropriate here. I'm hoping it is, because it will certainly shed the light we need in order to move forward and resolve the issues.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, you had a comment you wanted to raise.

Mr. John Duncan: This may help resolve some of Yvan's concern here, an opposition concern, about the wording of the letter. I'm going to offer a minor amendment to the wording. In the third paragraph, where we start with the sentence “Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans asks”, I'd like to substitute for the words “you to respond”, the words “for your opinion and response to the following questions”. So we're not asking her to give us an answer as if she's God. We're asking her for her opinion. That allows us to disagree, independently or individually if we so choose, with whatever she might or might not say.

The Chair: Are you okay with that?

Mr. John Duncan: Are you okay with that, Carmen?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: The substance has not changed.

Mr. John Duncan: I agree. The substance has not changed from the committee's standpoint.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on the original acceptance of the letter?

Mr. John Duncan: As amended?

The Chair: No, we didn't amend it, I understand. Did we agree to the amendment? If we agreed, fine.

On the amended letter, Yvan, do you still oppose—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm still opposed to sending such a letter asking if it would be appropriate to ask the Supreme Court to clarify some of the issues raised by the Marshall decision. I want my objection to be duly noted.

[English]

The Chair: In any event, I'm going to call the question. All those in favour of sending the letter as drafted, please signify.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Is this on the original?

The Chair: No, as amended.

All those in favour of sending the letter as drafted with the amended change? Opposed?

• 1115

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: All right, it will go out as amended.

Could we have order for a minute for one last item?

At the last meeting, it was suggested that we deal with the post-TAGS issue—it was your suggestion, Yvan—and we are proposing to deal with that on November 4. Is that okay?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Is that a Thursday?

The Chair: Yes.

John, if there's agreement by the committee, you had proposed that we deal with a group from Campbell River on salmon on November 3. Is that okay?

Mr. John Duncan: It's a group from the west coast, not from Campbell River.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Why don't we deal with the post-TAGS?

The Chair: Go ahead, Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It was my understanding that we would be discussing this next week, that is on Thursday, November 4.

I'd like a status report on these 40,000 recipients. What's happened to them? Have they found jobs? I'd like to know their fate. I'd also like to know what's happened with the funds remaining in the transition program budget, that is the TAGS phase- out program. Have all the funds been spent and how was the money invested by each province? I have to tell you that a number of communities are still experiencing problems. I'd like to know if we are the only ones who were forgotten? Why have our problems not yet been settled? If problems have been resolved elsewhere, how was this achieved? Could we adopt the same approach? These are my questions.

[English]

Mr. Bill Matthews: That's all.

The Chair: Are we all right on that? That's basically what we agreed to at the steering committee.

I think people are aware that November 3 is a Wednesday afternoon meeting.

Mr. John Duncan: Are you okay to reverse those, have the TAGS on the Wednesday and the other thing on the Thursday? Would that work? They were targeting November 4, but I don't want to put you out. Does November 3 or November 4 work?

The Chair: Can we work that out with the clerk and you two? They're your witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Tuesday is fine with me.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.