FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 12, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Members, we'll call the meeting to order.

This afternoon we have with us by video conference as witnesses the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, with Denny Morrow, who's the coordinator, and as an individual, Sterling Belliveau.

The order of the day is that we will continue our study on the implications of the September 17, 1999, Supreme Court decision on R. v. Marshall on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region.

For members' information, I believe Mr. Belliveau has until 5:30 his time, which is 4:30 our time, then he has to leave. So questions on any of his comments should perhaps be directed at him initially.

Gentlemen, the floor is yours. You have a few minutes to give us an overview of your point of view, and then we'll go to questions from the committee.

As well, thank you, Mr. Morrow, for the correspondence you've forwarded to the committee a number of times.

The floor is yours.

Mr. Sterling Belliveau (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, greetings from Southwest Nova. I'd like to introduce myself as the warden of the Municipality of Barrington and bring you greetings from the residents there.

I'd like to open with a part of our resolution that was passed last November. I'll briefly read a portion of that:

...the Municipality of the District of Barrington supports and encourages any negotiated short-term or long-term arrangement between native and non-native fishers and also encourages the Minister of Fisheries, the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, together with the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Honourable John Hamm, to assist in finding a successful solution where both parties of fishers may respect the same seasons and same rules.

On that, I'd like to take off my warden's hat and put on my fisherman's hat. First of all, my first request, Mr. Chairman, is that your fisheries standing committee would make your presence known in Southwest Nova.

You might have a question about that. Why, you may ask. With today's modern information, we are programmed to get the message out in 30 seconds or less. The fisheries standing committee needs to have a better understanding of the following: (a) the food fishery, and not within the set seasons; (b) the fishing power of one trap in the off-season versus commercial winter conditions; and (c) there is no support for food fishery in lobster in Southwest Nova outside the same seasons as non-native commercial fishers. If there is a consensus on this issue in the lobster industry, please give me the date and time of that particular meeting.

And there is (d): making room in the fishery. Some 1,300 commercial fishermen have expressed interest in volunteering to retire their licences to make room for native people. Because we are an aging industry—we're in roughly our late forties or early fifties—these 1,300 fishermen have seen a golden opportunity to leave their industry at an inflated price.

The transition of the entry of native people and the transfer of existing commercial licences to non-native fishermen is one of the main issues not being addressed. New-entry, non-native fishermen feel left out of a process where our Nova Scotia loans board has out-of-date policies regarding the purchase of licences and enterprises.

• 1540

However, today DFO announces millions of dollars to ensure the smooth entry of natives into the fishing industry. The survival of our communities needs policies that are fair and on a level playing field. These are just some of the highlights in this area.

Again, I request strongly that your committee make every effort to appear in Southwest Nova. Please visit the town halls, the wharves, and places where fishermen gather. It has taken generations to build this lobster industry. Without proper policy, an economic drain will start to take place in the surrounding communities.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belliveau.

Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Denny Morrow (Coordinator, Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance): I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, and I hope the committee received the position paper we forwarded to you in time to read it. We got it to you in French and English.

I would just like to talk about the position paper from the alliance. The 48 member organizations in the alliance represent well over 10,000 fishermen and plant workers in the three provinces. We spent a better part of three months, and we reviewed six drafts of this position paper. We had legal consultation. And we spent a lot of time discussing what the key issues were we were running into as we met with DFO and with Gilles Thériault and James MacKenzie.

So we've tried in an organized manner to present the position paper to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and to the aboriginal community as a road map from the commercial fishing industry for how to proceed with granting access and implementing the treaty right.

I guess it was with a lot of disappointment that on the day we decided we would be releasing the paper—last Friday—we received a letter from Minister Dhaliwal in which the first sentence says:

My purpose in writing is to express my concern with the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance position paper entitled “Mi'kmaq Access to Atlantic Fisheries,” dated April 2000.

The letter went on, but not to deal with the issues we raised in the position paper, nor to invite us to the constructive dialogue that we proposed in our press release. The last paragraph of that release said:

The ideas expressed in this “Position Paper” are presented in an effort to promote long term solutions in the fishery. Our members invite a constructive dialogue with government and Aboriginal leaders around these ideas.

We didn't expect the department, the minister, or the aboriginal community to agree with everything we said, but we did want a constructive dialogue. It's been very frustrating for the commercial fishing industry to go to these meetings, be treated as bystanders, and not be told what is on the table. So this is a sincere attempt to deal with our issues and present our viewpoints, and we certainly thank the committee for the opportunity to do that.

I would just make some points about some of the highlights of the position paper, and I certainly would welcome any question on these things.

Basically, what we're seeing in the interim here is that the government is attempting to anticipate the amount of treaty right access that is required without adhering to the context of the decision described by the Supreme Court in its November 17 clarification statement. How much access is required? What are the criteria the government is going to use to determine how much access has to be purchased and awarded to the native communities?

The government is attempting to base the amount of access to be awarded on three factors: the commercial fishing treaty right expectations of the bands, as they're explained to James MacKenzie and DFO staff; the amount of money the government is willing to spend on purchasing access—for the coming budget year, the amount will approach at least $160 million, and it's rumoured that more than $500 million will be made available over the next few years; and finally, an important factor is the number of fishermen who are ready to retire or who are willing to leave the industry prematurely if the price is right.

• 1545

Sterling talked a bit about the inflation we're seeing, and I'm hearing from younger fishermen who work in the backs of the boats in Southwest Nova saying they're very despondent. They don't see that they're going to be able to get into the industry.

But from the other side of the coin, the department has painted themselves into a corner here, because they're asking fishermen to leave the industry prematurely. If a person has to leave their chosen profession early, perhaps they have to move to find another job, relocate their families, sell their home, so there's bound to be some inflation. They're going to expect to be compensated for that.

To the chairman of the committee, Mr. Easter, I know this is certainly a concern of the fishermen in the Malpeque Bay area. I was over there last week, and would invite any questions about the kind of problem they're running into.

The implementation of the Marshall decision thus boils down to receiving the treaty right expectations from the different native groups, purchasing licences, boats, and gear in an attempt to satisfy those expectations without any objective, transparent process to assess the legitimacy of the treaty right claims, and lately even using intimidation or threats to force fishermen to retire early at the government's price. Even a cursory reading of the Supreme Court's decision would fail to find any support for the government's actions in those court decisions. The court decisions were about eels. The court said additional treaty rights would have to proceed on a species-by-species and fishery-by-fishery basis.

The court talked about traditional species fished in traditional areas. They seemed to imply that there would be some kind of process to establish those. What we seem to be seeing from DFO at this stage is a belief that traditional species equates with any species being fished commercially right now, without any kind of a process to decide.

The Supreme Court was clearly suggesting that an objective process is needed. The court also advised the government to factor in regional and economic fairness and the historical reliance of non-aboriginal fishermen and their communities on this fishery.

I know the MP for West Nova, Mark Muise, will certainly corroborate that living in Yarmouth in the early 1990s we saw our two biggest non-fishery employers close their doors, putting hundreds of people out of work. If anything happens to this lobster fishery in this region down here, we're going to be in a sorry state.

The community, the fishermen, and small-business people in this community are extremely concerned. The historical reliance of this community on the fishery has to be taken into account when you start awarding access in this region. I think the Supreme Court threw out some ideas about how to do that. They talked about proportionality, and we talk about that in our position paper.

The amount of access should not be based on the amount of government money that's available. The amount of access required, if any, for each fishery should be decided first. If access is awarded, then the court's direction on fishing for a moderate livelihood and respecting the historical reliance of non-aboriginal fishermen should be factored into the amount of access that is awarded.

I would underline “moderate livelihood”. We put forward a position in our paper. We've been very dissatisfied with some of the discussion around “moderate livelihood” that we've seen in the media and in our discussions with DFO. I think, speaking from the fishing industry, what we're putting forward is realistic.

There was nothing in the Marshall decision about the need to purchase boats and gear to give to bands or native councils. This policy is being pursued simply to entice the bands and councils to negotiate these one-year agreements. These types of enticements establish dangerous and wasteful precedents for years to come. In our position paper we've suggested that perhaps a down payment could be granted, but a loan process should be set up for those native fishermen. We would like to see the boats be owned by the fishermen themselves, not by the bands, not by the chiefs. Let's try to reward entrepreneurship here, and independence.

• 1550

The current process will set precedents that will affect livelihoods and investment in the economy of this region for years to come. I would suggest, if you have to give the bands boats and gear to bring them to the table, what are you going to do in year two, year three, or year four? A terrible precedent is being set.

The Mi'kmaq community constitutes less than 2% of the population of this region. How much fisheries access should be granted to this small sector of the population? Again, I go back to the proportionality argument.

Historically, at the time of the treaty, the English Atlantic colonies largely existed to develop the commercial fishery. The government at that time would hardly have signed a treaty that would have allowed any infringement by the Mi'kmaq on the maritime commercial fisheries.

The treaties allowed the Mi'kmaq to fish alongside the colonists so that necessities could be purchased. Mi'kmaq certainly were not given any priority over the colonists in this fishery. The discussions we're having with DFO at this point seem to lead in that direction, that this commercial treaty right is a priority right, and that's a very disturbing interpretation.

The present interim process seems to assume that Mi'kmaq fishermen have a right to displace fishermen who are not ready to leave the industry or the fishery. There also seems to be an acceptance by the government that there is no upper limit on the amount of access that might be awarded in future years. The ideas of proportionality and the historical reliance of non-aboriginal fishermen in their communities seems to be ignored.

The DFO minister and his staff complain that some fishermen in certain areas are asking too much money for their licences, boats, and gear. The complaint ignores the fact that the industry was favouring a gradual voluntary buyback, not asking fishermen to leave the industry early. Some of these fishermen may have to uproot their families. This is an arbitrary government policy and is in no way consistent with the spirit and historical context of the treaties of the 1760s.

A proper gradual voluntary buyback process should be preceded by an objective claim assessment process. If entitlement is awarded, then the amount of access should be determined in the context of the Supreme Court's directions. A voluntary buyback should then proceed over a period of time so that it remains voluntary. The amount of access to be purchased should not exceed the amount recommended in the assessment process.

As interim measures until a gradual voluntary buyback process can provide the required amount of access, the government has some other options: they could lease quota or licences from existing fishermen on a temporary basis; they could compensate Mi'kmaq bands for the temporary lack of access; and they could entertain other temporary measures proposed by the affected commercial fishermen in the different areas.

I want to touch on the food fishery that Sterling alluded to or talked about earlier. MP Mark Muise has been in the press repeatedly over the last few years, and we have told Gilles Thériault and DFO staff that the regulation of that fishery is impractical and unenforceable.

We've put forward some ideas in our position paper. We've tried to be flexible, recognizing the Sparrow decision, to try to solve that problem.

If there's one flashpoint that you find in the three provinces as you visit around, it's this food fishery that has turned into a black market fishery. And the government is forgoing a lot of tax dollars because of it. Respect for DFO and its conservation regime and enforcement policies have been undermined among fishermen and the public at large in this region as they stand on the wharf and watch crates of lobsters come in early in the morning or just before dawn and put on pickup trucks, and see cash exchanged there on the wharf.

Fishermen in the most affected areas have seen their catches and incomes diminish due to the impact on the resource. New food fishery regulations should be practical and enforceable. The illegal activity has to be shut down.

The food fishery should not be concentrated on just lobster. Limited fishing days for lobster should be imposed. Other species can be made available so that the aboriginal right is respected. Lobster has been chosen as the food species of choice only because of its high market value.

• 1555

Bag limits, patterned after hunting, might be imposed. It should become impossible to land commercial quantities from a single food-fishing boat on any given day. That is a basic principle that should not be violated.

Amounts required to satisfy the consumption needs of the fisherman and his immediate family should be the norm. Fishing for the community, aunts, uncles, and neighbours is a ruse, to create the right to land commercial quantities from a single trip.

Social and ceremonial fishing should be the exception and not the daily rule. Application should have to be made ahead of time to DFO. Criteria should be negotiated for recognizing the legitimacy of these requests.

Lobster also should not be the only social and ceremonial food. There is no need to hold food fish in a commercial inventory holding facility. I get questions from the media saying, “Well, why don't the buyers enforce this?” It's not the buyers' job to enforce the government's regulations. The government needs to make practical regulations that can be enforced, and then they should do the enforcement. We certainly have to obey the law, but it's not our job to do the government's job for them.

Mi'kmaq commercial fishermen should satisfy their food fish requirements during the commercial season, as do non-aboriginal commercial fishermen. I would suggest, in addition to these types of regulations, a 1-800 hotline should be established for reporting any illegal lobster commercial fishing activity under this food fishery. DFO should devote sufficient enforcement resources to the task, right from day one.

This interim process we're in is supposed to evolve into a process under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At least that's what we're told. An objective, transparent, arm's-length assessment process should be established to advise this department; otherwise a conflict of interest will be seen to govern any DIAND-led process. The DIAND mandate would hardly predispose the department to value the rights of non-aboriginal fishermen or their communities.

There isn't enough fish to solve the serious problems that exist on many reserves. The commercial fishery cannot provide a moderate income for everyone on the reserves in this region. Moderate access to the fishery is all that should be attempted.

There are real problems on the reserves. They're often located in areas where there's high unemployment or little economic opportunity. We all face that down here in Southwest Nova. My daughter, for one, had to leave and go to Halifax to train and get a job. That's just the way things are in these rural communities today. Trying to stem the flow of young people from rural areas with fish has not worked in the non-aboriginal community.

Government continues to provide financial incentives for young people to stay on reserves. Incentives to pursue education and training and then move to areas with more job opportunities seem to be lacking. Another problem is the communal nature of property ownership that seems to stifle individual initiative.

I just want to close this presentation by referring to a letter I received this afternoon from a company that has been in business for longer than 50 years on Cape Sable Island. The comment is on the lobster fishery. They say that this commercial fishery doesn't just exist; it didn't just appear one fine day. It was built over the past 100 years or so by the industry participants. Through their hard work, capital, and risk-taking a commercial industry was created.

For example, the lobster fishery in 1896 was a source of fertilizer and food for the poor. It was fed to prisoners in jails so much that in prison reforms in Massachusetts it was made law that prisoners could not be fed lobster more than three times a week. From that low point until the 1980s, lobster have been elevated to a world-recognized delicacy, demanded around the world and paid for as one of the highest-priced seafoods.

That didn't just happen. It took effort, ingenuity, perseverance, and capital, and it has paid off for the builders and their heirs. One of them is sitting right here beside me. They understandably are not happy to see themselves and that work compromised by the government freely giving a portion of their industry away to anyone, no matter what their race.

• 1600

With that I'll close. Sterling and I certainly would welcome any questions.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Peter, you had a point you wanted to make before we start.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I just want to advise all the committee members and our guests down in Yarmouth that we have a group with us today, the Forum for Young Canadians. These are young Canadians from right across the country. They're on Parliament Hill for a week, understanding how Parliament works and how committees work, and I just want to congratulate them for being here on behalf of all members of Parliament on the committee. Welcome very much indeed.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

I also want to announce, as I think most committee members know already, that the minister was supposed to be before the committee tonight, from seven o'clock to nine o'clock, on the estimates. Due to catching a bout of the flu today, he'll be unavailable this evening. That meeting is therefore cancelled until a future date.

Before I turn to Mr. Cummins, I just want to make a comment to Mr. Belliveau. You indicated that we should be in Southwest Nova and at some point in time we would like to be. We made a concrete decision when we were dealing with the Marshall decision hearings to hold two days in Halifax, to which people were invited.

I can tell you on behalf of all committee members that we heard it in spades on the food fishery and in fact made some pretty tight recommendations in that area. We also heard from enforcement officers on the power of one trap, fishing out of season. I believe one incident was talked about where there were as many as 75 lobsters in one trap. They're not all legal-sized lobsters, but we are very well aware of the seriousness of that issue. We certainly have recommended that the food fishery be dealt with accordingly.

For your information, the minister has responded to the report. I don't know whether you've received that response. It was tabled the day before yesterday.

I have one last question. Mr. Morrow, this is not in any of the remarks really related to your presentation. All committee members have that. You did say in the beginning that relative to the Marshall decision, you were treated as bystanders by the department. Can you explain that for me before we go to other questions?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Some agreements have been signed. We've been told that if we want to access those agreements, we'll probably have to go through the access to information route. It's very difficult for the industry to sit on the sidelines and not know what's on the table in these various discussions. That's what I was referring to.

There's also the fact that we bring up the same issues over and over again in our meetings with Gilles Thériault and his staff. For example, regarding the food fishery, we asked them to go back to Ottawa and report back to us to see if there was any progress being made. We're sensing none. We're sensing that the positions we put forward are not really going anywhere and they're not being taken seriously.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our guests.

I just want to underline what the chairman has said. Any decisions the committee has made are not from lack of knowledge of the issue. I think we've been well informed. Certainly the position paper Mr. Morrow presented, which arrived here earlier in the week, underlined the concerns that we know were felt in the Maritimes.

Yesterday, Mr. Morrow, the minister was here, and I questioned him extensively about his attitude toward the court decision, especially the clarification that was issued on November 17. He outright rejected the notion of traditional species, the notion of adjacency, and the notion of proportionality and refused to clarify the notion of moderate livelihood when applied to a communal right. How important are these matters to you and the people you represent?

• 1605

Mr. Denny Morrow: Thank you for the question. We've been saying in every meeting we've had with Mr. Thériault that the limitations, the careful words the Supreme Court chose, especially in its November 17 clarification, are crucial to how the treaty right is assessed and then how it's implemented.

On the traditional species, for example, I just read how lobsters were valued. We have no idea what kind of commercial activity took place historically with lobster. We know about modern times. Perhaps there is access needed in lobster, but how much access? How do you decide that? What kind of criteria do you use? These are things the industry should be involved in. There should be more of a transparent and objective process. Maybe some people trained in conflict resolution would be able to handle that.

I would ask Sterling to comment on the question of adjacency and how it would affect the lobster fishery down here and how we interpret it.

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: The adjacency issue has been raised a number of times. As you know, we have some 40-odd districts in Atlantic Canada. We're all subject to certain areas we fish from and we know the rules very well.

The earlier commitment from this industry in Southwest Nova was to come up with an interim agreement. The adjacency issue was dealt with and they wanted the seven or eight licences at that time to be wherever these natives would fish. The buyback programs would be targeting that particular area, so they would see no additional effort in any one particular harbour or whatever.

The adjacency issue goes right back to the history books. I think the native people recognized it back in the early 1700s. If my memory serves me correctly, seven districts were determined by the native people at that time. So adjacency is not a new word. It was used back in the 1700s. It's very important to this area.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I'm going to have to jump in here and get my few licks in. You left us hanging with the visitation. You said you may be coming to Southwest Nova, and I did not hear a date there. I just want to point out to your chairperson that Mr. Dhaliwal was in Yarmouth on the 24th discussing this very topic we're dealing with now. I feel insulted. The other people in the other part of District 34, which our municipality is part of.... Not one invitation was sent out to any elected official, MLAs. Our MP, Mr. Gerald Keddy, is a fisheries critic.

I feel insulted that we never had an opportunity to express these concerns. This is why I want to pounce on the opportunity to make sure your committee comes to Southwest Nova, Shelburne County, the District of Barrington, to get a good, clear picture of what the fishermen are saying. I want to jump on that again.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, I'll let you in on a point of order in a minute.

Mr. Belliveau, go ahead. Sorry.

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: I'm done.

The Chair: Did you have a point?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: My point, Mr. Chairman, is that we've been attempting to go to the Atlantic but we've been continuously blocked by the Canadian Alliance from travelling to the east coast.

Mr. John Cummins: May I respond to that?

The Chair: I'll give you one response, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: The rationale or the reason for the refusal to travel at this point is that we've been demanding that the minister make available the agreements that have been signed relative to the negotiations that have been going on with these bands. Our commitment to travel will not be given until we get those agreements. Those agreements are very important so that this whole process is open and above board. We need those agreements. Furthermore, yesterday at the end of the meeting I asked that the minister make available the legal opinion he was operating on and his interpretation of this Marshall decision. That request of mine was denied by the committee. So that's why the committee is at a stalemate right now.

• 1610

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, we'll get to your question.

I think the request of the CA was to have Thériault and MacKenzie before the committee, not the tabling of agreements. Just for clarification purposes, when you get to tabling agreements, one agreement has an impact on another, and the minister has said that they can't be tabled until all the agreements have been signed. That was the process that happened in British Columbia.

Anyway, that's relative to the point of order—

Mr. John Cummins: The process in British Columbia was flawed. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, we did not have a fishery on the Fraser River this year for the first time in history as a direct result of behind-the-scenes dealing by the government.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate. Mr. Cummins, your time for questioning will get away on us. What is your question?

Mr. John Cummins: To get back to the topic at hand, on March 30 Mr. David Bevan, a senior bureaucrat here in Ottawa, was before the committee. He was commenting on the prices fishermen were putting on the licences, the boats, and the gear they were selling. He suggested, and I'll quote him exactly:

But if people are also suggesting that there's not going to be any adjustment for them and that we would be subject to extortion-type numbers in order to gain access, I think that's why we've come back and said that's not on. There are other means available to us if we can't come to an agreement.

In other words, he's saying that the prices that some people have put on their gear, their licences, and their boats represent an effort at extortion. I think his words suggest extortion.

I'm going to ask you if you're aware of any threats to intimidate or blackmail fishermen or fishermen's organizations or companies by either the federal or provincial governments in order to silence them on the action of Marshall. Before doing that, I'd like to bring to your attention a document I have that suggests that the Government of New Brunswick was prepared to use its influence on the Maritime Fishermen's Union to bring them to heel on this matter. So my question to you, Mr. Morrow and Mr. Belliveau, is simply this: Are you aware of any threats to intimidate or blackmail fishermen, fishermen's organizations, or companies by either the federal or provincial governments in order to silence them on the government's action on Marshall?

Mr. Denny Morrow: I had a conversation today with a fisherman in Malpeque. I'm sure Wayne would know who it is. He told me that they were told they have to come up with 12 licences in the Malpeque Bay area. To date they've only had a willingness to sell from four fishermen, so they've been told that one option the department is thinking about is creating new licences in that area.

Anybody with a brain knows that what you're doing is spreading the resource thinner. You're going to cut the catch on average for the fishermen, you're going to cut their income, and over a period of time you're going to devalue the licence. Maybe it's not expropriation, but it's a terrible process, and I don't think it's what the Marshall decision was talking about.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Belliveau.

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: I don't know if blackmail is the right terminology here, but in my presentation I tried to point out that the young non-native fishermen who want to get into this fishery are at a very large disadvantage because of the pricing that's going on. This is an interesting question for your four young Canadians that you have there, because our work here is to preserve and make sure that these licences are passed on. My presentation earlier mentioned that the young non-natives are at a serious disadvantage because our provincial government has not put a program in place, which needs to be endorsed by the federal government, to support these non-natives getting into the fishery.

I think you would hear loud and clear that the playing field has to be level. If that's a form of blackmail, I guess you could say yes, that's an unfair advantage.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Cummins.

• 1615

Mr. John Cummins: I think the issue here with the pricing is that the young fishermen who want to participate in that fishery are in fact bargaining against the government. They're competing with the government for the purchase of those licences. Economically, they're not going to be able to compete because they're going to have to pay the loan back.

When the committee did its report on Marshall, in my minority report I suggested that the government simply make available to native people a sum of money that would be a down payment on a boat, a licence, and gear and that they be free to finance the rest of that the same as anyone else. Does that notion have any appeal to you?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: I want to reel you in here, because I have you on the hook. You've hit the nail on the head, because the non-native fishermen do not have the same policies. They can't go out and get the money to buy the licences. They're at a disadvantage, and you'll hear that message loud and clear. We're spending millions of dollars to get a Marshall decision in, and the people who are there to build our communities are left out in the cold. Regardless of what policy we have, we have to make a future.

Those four Canadians could spend some time doing some research on the provincial loan board, which was established in the forties. All we are saying is simply bring that up to date. You're throwing the things out with the bath water here by giving a certain type of people an unfair advantage, and all we're saying is make the playing field level.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belliveau.

Denny.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I just want to comment on the moderate livelihood or moderate income. There has been so much discussion of that and difficulty in getting a circle around it. What we say in the position paper is that all you can provide in the fishery is moderate access. We have fishermen in the groundfish fishery who have a poor trip and don't even make their expenses. So all you can provide is moderate access.

What is being talked about now with DFO when it comes to the amount of access that's required to satisfy the treaty right is that the amount of access should give a moderate livelihood to the whole band, the whole community, not to the individual native fisherman and his family who are out there fishing, but to the whole band. We've had natives fishing lobster. Some of my members down here in Southwest Nova buy the lobsters from them. We write a cheque to that fisherman, not to the chief, not to the band. I don't know how you would ever get an interpretation that you're providing a moderate livelihood to the whole band. But this is being done by DFO. What it does is it just jacks up tremendously the amount of access that's required.

The Chair: I'm going to turn now to Mr. Muise, because our witness comes from that area. Yvan has made a switch. So Mr. Muise, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Yvan, for permitting me to go first.

Sterling and Denny, welcome. Gerald Keddy had to leave at noon because he had to speak at a tourism association meeting at Oak Island. He wanted me to share with you why the committee wasn't there and why you couldn't make your presentation to the committee in person, but I won't get into that, as you've already heard that.

When the minister was in Yarmouth a couple of weeks ago he made the comment that he realizes that the fishery is important and that the fishery has to be passed on to children, grandchildren, and future generations. I listened to what he said. I'd like for you to remember that.

The other point is that we talk, Sterling, about you as a fisherman and, Denny, you representing fishermen and fishing-related industries, but when it comes to me representing West Nova, it means representing the whole community. This issue is not something that just affects the fishing community. It affects the entire community, from the smallest business to the largest business, including the fishermen.

One of the things I've been harping on for the past two and a half years, even when it wasn't something that was at the forefront, and people would say “Little man, sit down, you're talking foolishness”.... I was talking about the food fishery specifically from Yarmouth to St. Mary's Bay.

• 1620

I've made the comment before: I could go with a 14-foot boat and two traps and I'd trade in my member of Parliament's income for that any day if I could fish all summer.

So what I would like to ask both of you—and maybe Sterling could start—is about the power of one fishing trap in the summer, which you touched on. And secondly, if the food fishery is permitted to continue the way it has been, what will take place?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: That's a very good point, Mr. Muise.

Right now the deal with the fishing power is that all fishermen in this particular area are out there trying to regroup. They've gone through a severe storm and there haven't been any pleasant fishing conditions within the last month. I could show you that this is mother nature at its best.

When you turn to the summer months, you mentioned two traps for your income. A lot of fishermen would easily hand over their commercial licence for the access of ten traps in the summer. There is a fishing power that's never been recognized and is very loosely touched on. And for fishermen, if you can imagine people out here trying to gather traps and having poor weather conditions, when we talk about a food fishery, if they had access to several traps during the summer they literally would run full.

I would say that you are creating a situation.... The message has been very loud and clear—and I know you've heard it, Mr. Muise—that everything within Marshall has to be within the same seasons, same rules. I don't know how much clearer you can make that. I guess the only way you can do that is by your committee coming here and hearing that first-hand.

The Chair: Mr. Belliveau, I have to point out that is what we have already recommended to the minister. You can look at the minister's response to that. I don't want to take time here to read it, but he has responded. We recommended pretty strenuously in the food fishery.

Mark, you have a very short question.

Mr. Mark Muise: Denny, this is a comment you made earlier, and I'd like clarification, because I don't fully understand it. I'd like you to help me out. You said you would like to see the boats owned by individuals and not by bands, but I don't understand why. Help me here.

Mr. Denny Morrow: This fishery that we have in Southwest Nova, in all the Atlantic region, is individualistic; it's entrepreneurial. We think that if the native fishermen are going to integrate into this fishery the last thing we want to see is an “us and them” fishery.

We have private ownership of boats. If you have communal ownership of them, given the headlines we've been seeing in the news out here about some of the abuse that's taking place on some of these reserves with band councils and chiefs, it's not going to give the incentive to the fisherman to own his boat, own his gear, look after it and try to make a good living with fishing. Fish the way we do. This communal stuff didn't work in eastern Europe, it didn't work in Russia, and I don't know why we would want to do it here.

The Chair: Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

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

You make a lot of comments I find very difficult to take. It sounds like you just want to give your shoes completely all set for somebody else to just put on. I take that as not understanding at all another culture.

When I talk about family in the aboriginal sense, it's a very different definition from what the rest of Canada's or the southern definition is. It sounds to me like you want everybody to become the same as everyone else, without taking their identity into the issue.

The communal thing is one of the things people have a very difficult time understanding, because in the aboriginal communities everyone does something for the sake of a community and not as an individual. Until people understand that, you're talking apples and oranges and trying to put a round peg in a square hole.

From these negotiations, we want to be able to be equal partners and negotiate an understanding. But when the conditions are already completely set by one side and you just want people to put on the shoes that you've put out, it's very difficult to feel that you're on the same level playing field.

• 1625

I find those comments about the level playing field very understandable, because aboriginals all across Canada have been asking to be put on the same level playing field. We feel that we're underground most of the time, and we're just trying to get onto the land. To hear those coming from the other side of the negotiating table is quite interesting.

Your adjacency arguments I listened to very carefully, because my riding is Nunavut and we have been fighting that adjacency argument for a long time. We don't have access to very much of the quota off our shores because a lot of it is fished by maritimers. So I take to heart what you say about adjacency. I just wish there were one definition of adjacency and it were applied the same way throughout Canada.

If you really feel that people should be on the same level playing field, with the conditions that you stated in your presentation, would you, if you were on the other side, truly feel that you had any room to negotiate?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: If I could, probably a year ago I may not have been able to answer that question, but I think I had a very close working relationship with the two local chiefs here in this particular district and we were at the centre stage of a media event that left an impression that will last for the rest of my life. To sense what the native leaders and what our people, our fishermen, were going through, you get a quick sense that all of our communities have to learn to get along. I feel very confident that the policies, the interim agreement that we produced, led to that. I sense that if the food fishery were discussed. the issues of adjacency could be adjusted in the future.

I felt very confident after I talked to the leaders that we had a very clear understanding of what was needed to make our communities survive and have a level playing field. But sadly, when the process takes place, Ottawa and all the other people get involved and I feel a distance that has taken place. So I'm encouraged. I would like to get back to the grassroots of things and have the opportunity to talk to the community leaders. I feel that the goal can be met. But with a decision that comes directly from Ottawa, I think it may not be exactly what any of us may be able to live with.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belliveau.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Morrow?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes.

With all due respect to the member's comments, we don't feel we are negotiating. We're not at the table. The negotiation takes place between the federal government and the bands on an individual basis. We don't know what's on the table, what's being discussed, what's needed. So we don't feel that we're part of the negotiation.

And I have a comment on the communal aspect. The native fishermen who have started fishing down here under the treaty right—and there were quite a few who were fishing before the Marshall decision—asked to be paid directly, that the cheque be made out to them. They want to own their own boat. If it were left up to that person, the person doing the fishing, to make the decision, and they want to have the band own the boat, the cheque go to the band and receive a salary, that's fine. But my sense of it is they don't. They want to be individual entrepreneurs, the same way we are.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

• 1630

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I want to also ask about the food fishery. Why do you think the food fishery has become what it is today? Do you think it was because they weren't given enough economic opportunity to become viable fishermen with the system the way it was? What is your feeling on this one?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the treaty was signed in the 1750s, and up until 1968 every Canadian had the opportunity to participate in our fishery.

In terms of the food fishery, if you look back to the minutes in 1999 before the Marshall decision came down, we had a task force, a provincial and federal task force, that was looking into the food fisheries. It was simply nothing more than a black market fishery. And to talk to fishermen who right now are in a process of going out and collecting their gear and to think that you have a legitimate fishery, you're going to have a great difficulty trying to sell that idea. This is why it's so important to have whatever fisheries or commercial licences within the same seasons. We have to go back to our communities and convince those people to have an agreement.

The Chair: Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes, there is no doubt that no right-thinking person, whether it's in the Atlantic region or any other region, can be unconcerned about the kinds of social and economic problems that exist on some of our reserves. The solutions to those are not easy, and we would like to see more native fishermen integrated into the fishery. We would also like to see them work for Air Canada, for other employers in our region, and see maybe some affirmative action from some of these employers and provincial governments.

She's absolutely right that there should be more opportunities. But there are also incentives in the way DIAND operates that seem to work against that, to make people stay on reserves and to not move to these things. In the food fishery right now lobsters are selling for $7 to $8 a pound. It's a high-priced delicacy. It just provides too much money. That's why the black market exists.

I don't blame it on the native community entirely. There are non-aboriginals out there driving those pickup trucks with cash in their wallet taking them around to restaurants, even moving them across the border. It has to be stopped.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I wish to welcome our witnesses here today. I liked the way they dealt with the issue of “moderate livelihood” as opposed to, in their own words, “reasonable access”. I think that the Marshall decision and the whole issue of fishery resources redistribution depends on how you would define “moderate livelihood”. Indeed, things being what they are now, as long as the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not established a committee to define the methodology so that we know how we are going to answer that question and who will, the people in the fishing industry will have to bear the brunt of the pressure. You are perfectly right.

I will read you part of the answer the minister gave us yesterday when we tabled our report just to show you to what extent I share your concerns. It is a statement that worries me. Here it is:

The retired licences will depend on the aspirations of native communities and their capability to enter new fisheries as well as on the availability of licences and the cost of their retirement.

What scares me is that the minister is saying that the retired licences will depend on the aspirations of native communities. I agree with correcting a past error but you are right when you say that by not specifying how many licences will be bought back, licences will be delivered as long as there are natives asking for them. This is what I understood from what the minister said. Therefore, I share your concerns.

• 1635

I would like to know myself how many permits Fisheries and Oceans wish to buy back. The way I understand what you are saying, DFO negotiates with natives then makes offers directly to fishers. As the umbrella organisation you are not able to find out how many will be bought back.

Secondly, one of the main issues bothering me—of course, I don't know the Yarmouth and Nova Scotia region as well—and that the fishing industry and your organisation could look into is that of “moderate livelihood”. Canada did not provide us with a definition of viable fishery either. We must also ask ourselves what a sustainable fishery would be as the choice of gear has something to do with it.

If you could comment on those two themes and tell us if the issues are of interest, I would be glad to have your point of view. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Belliveau or Mr. Morrow?

Mr. Denny Morrow: For example, in the herring fishery in Southwest Nova right now most of the fishermen tell me they're not earning a moderate livelihood. They're working extremely hard and they're hanging in there with the hope that the quotas will increase in the years ahead. And the stock is rebuilding. Prices are low and it's hard work and they're not earning a moderate livelihood. I've heard some of the figures, and you can work at McDonald's and earn as much money as some of these guys are getting who are going out there.

I don't know how you would define “moderate livelihood”. It's interesting that the native demands we are hearing about at this point are in the lucrative species, in snow crab and in lobster. Bluefin tuna has also been talked about. If I were in their shoes, those would be the fisheries I'd be going after too, because even an inexperienced fisherman could get a moderate livelihood if they are willing to put the time in and to learn.

Overall, in the fishery right now in the Atlantic region we have some fisheries where you can't get a moderate livelihood or it's very difficult. What we put forward again is the idea of moderate access, and moderate access not just to lobster or to snow crab, but to all the species.

The Chair: Mr. Belliveau, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: Yes.

That's an interesting point, because the lobster industry has taken centre stage since the Marshall decision was declared. I don't know how many species are out there, but I remember my father having to move away from the communities back in the 1950s because a livelihood could not be obtained from the lobster industry. Right now, all the emphasis is put on one particular species. I think we need to deflect some of that attention. There are a number of other species out there; it's not only lobster.

Under this formula, if we let it evolve, we're going to see the native people and non-native people destroy one particular sector and move on to the next lucrative fishery, then keep on going. To me, that's a domino theory. That's a recipe for disaster.

I think Denny's right. We have to come up with a formula, and I think we're close. We should be building on the interim agreement that we had last fall. I just want to caution the committee that if these interim agreements fail, who will be at the bargaining table in the next round of talks?

The Chair: On a point of clarification, Mr. Belliveau, are you talking about the interim agreement between yourselves in the local area and the native bands in the local area?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: Yes.

The Chair: Can you give me the specifics on the interim agreement so I can get it?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: The interim agreement was for seven or eight licences for the beginning of the 1999-2000 lobster season in districts 34 and 33 in Southwest Nova. I'm very proud to say that I'm confident our industry will hold up their end of the bargain. Our season will end May 31 of this year.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

• 1640

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Easter.

It seems to me that what we're doing here today is a repeat of the 60 presentations we did last fall. Anyway, so be it.

I believe Mr. Belliveau mentioned earlier in his presentation that they did not have any copies of the fishers' agreements. I have in my presence a set of minutes from the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, dated January 28, 2000. I will read from page 6, where it says:

Greg Peacock provided the Alliance with the agreements that are supposed to be signed by the fishers designated by the bands. The Acadia Band was to be limited to 3000 traps for this fishing season.

In addition to that, the department, under the financial report.... I understand you also received $160,000 from the Government of Canada to help you along in these things.

So I don't know. What you're saying seems to be kind of a mix to what I'm reading from some of your minutes from your Truro meeting.

Mr. Denny Morrow: We asked for the agreements that were reached back in December between DFO, the Acadia Band, and the Indian Brook Band. We did get a copy of the Indian Brook agreement. I guess we weren't supposed to get it by fax, and I'm not going to say where we had it from. We were not allowed the agreement with the Acadia Band. We've not had access to any of the agreements signed since that time. We've done an access-to-information request to try to get the agreement that was signed with the Acadia Band so that we could see what was in it.

In regard to the $160,000, we took the position with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans back in November, when we formed the alliance, that it was costing the industry a lot of money to attend meetings to keep each other informed and to do the work that needed to be done to put the industry's position forward.

We know full well that the native community.... I turn on the radio: a strategy session being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, with lawyers there. Who paid for that?

So what we said was we'll be open, transparent. We're putting money ourselves into the process, but we would like the same kind of funding that you're going to give the native leaders as they develop their strategy in this process, rather than costing the industry and these fishermen a lot of money to attend meetings and to do the work that has to be done. What we have received so far is $33,000. We have an agreement for up to $160,000 until March 31, 2001, but that is claimed as needed, as there are substantiated activities taking place.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

You have a very short 30 seconds, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: My only other point is based on a point of order just for clarification.

I want to point out to you that while the trip to the east coast was primarily to deal with aquaculture, we had planned to go into the southwest Nova Scotia area, and we would still like to go there. The Canadian Alliance refused to allow us to go because of the lack of witnesses to this table—Thériault and MacKenzie.

I notice Mr. Cummins adds a new dimension to that today.

Mr. John Cummins: Not today...a long time ago.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: You did today, sir. It's the first time we've heard it.

Mr. John Cummins: No, it isn't. You were here and you know that.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: When he said he wanted the agreements, nobody around this table, as far as I know, heard of the new addition, and I would like you to know that. That is the truth.

Mr. John Cummins: That is not the truth.

The Chair: I don't believe there's a question there.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you to the two gentlemen from Yarmouth who are here today.

I know it has to be awfully tough for the fishermen right now with oil and gas exploration, with aquaculture, and now the Marshall decision. Probably an awful lot of fishermen and their families are very nervous about all the elements that are attacking you at all sides. I think all municipal, provincial, and federal politicians need to pay attention to the stress levels of those families and their communities in order to bring the tension down.

• 1645

Mr. Morrow, at that meeting in Truro, Mr. Gilles Thériault had informed you folks that if agreements couldn't be reached there would be a plan B. We asked Mr. Bevan what plan B was, and he skated around the issue. He didn't come right out and say what plan B was. Do you, sir, or your organization have any indication of what plan B is?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes. It seems to differ according to location and circumstance. I understand that in snow crab it's been taking place. A certain tonnage was required and the fishermen were told they had to come up with that. They were told they could do it voluntarily. If they couldn't do it voluntarily, then it would be taken one way or the other.

We know about that taking place in the last couple of weeks. We're now talking extensively with fishermen in the Malpeque Bay area, because they've been told they have to come up with 12 licences, and they don't have 12 people who want to leave the industry.

So plan B could be creating new licences. It could be taking traps away from the existing fishermen. We don't know. We have been told, you're right, that there is a plan B, and they will make access.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Morrow, in regard to the same meeting you had, Mr. Greg Peacock said to you that the band said that Mi'kmaq had traditional rights throughout all of Atlantic Canada, and there was no adjacency. This really frightens me in this regard.

I asked that question as to adjacency to Mr. Dhaliwal yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. For example, would the Indian Brook Band be allowed to fish off Cape Breton? He said that some circumstances or exceptions may be made.

I'm wondering if you have any indications of what they're trying to do in terms of the DFO officials in Nova Scotia in regard to adjacency itself.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I certainly read the comments Mr. Bevan made before the House committee, and am very, very concerned. The Supreme Court said traditional species in traditional fishing areas. And we've seen it in Southwest Nova. The Indian Brook Band was granted a licence to fish down here. Of course, they were down here supposedly fishing food out of New Edinburgh all last summer.

So the fishermen are very concerned about it. If the Supreme Court took the care to make those comments, then we think the government should be using them and enforcing them. We put the position paper out not to be confrontational with the government; we asked the minister for a constructive dialogue. Let's talk about traditional areas. Let's talk about moderate income. What I'm sensing here is antagonism and confrontation from the government, not from us.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The minister and the department have kept talking about the beefing up of enforcement and how they have $13 million and they're going to be ready when the season opens. Do you feel or do you have the confidence, gentlemen, that your communities and the fishermen feel there will be enough enforcement when the season opens?

Mr. Sterling Belliveau: I would like to address that. Unless you have both sides onside you're not going to have an acceptable agreement. You can spend all the money you want on enforcement; there has to be an agreement that is socially accepted.

I have to leave now, Mr. Chairman, because I have an hour's drive and I don't want to get caught for speeding. I want to stress again that I've heard you people say you have to make some trips to the east coast. Please do not be playing childish games. I don't know your parliamentary rules, but I ask your committee to address this particular east coast trip and try to make arrangements to get your committee to follow through on that commitment.

I want to thank you again. I look forward to meeting each and every one of you sometime in the early spring. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belliveau, for coming. I'm sure all committee members have heard your remarks.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can I make it very short?

The Chair: No, you're out of time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just want to ask that he provide us with a copy of the agreement he had faxed to him. Perhaps he could fax it to us.

The Chair: Okay. Make your point then.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Morrow, you had indicated that you received a fax copy from somebody on an agreement that was apparently in working order. Would you be able to send a copy of that to us?

Mr. Denny Morrow: I certainly would, Peter. We're trying to be as transparent as we can.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, five minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you very much.

• 1650

The Chair: Just to clear things up for members, the procedure is CA, Bloc, Liberal, CA. We were out of order, and I'm coming back to the order.

Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: I want to preface my question with the remark that what's really required here is an open and transparent process. It's critical, because the agreements that are signed now are going to be the basis for agreements that are signed in the future. That has been our experience on the west coast.

Given that, it was important to us that Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault appear before the committee and advise the committee of their terms of reference. It's also important that the committee receive these agreements as they're signed so they can gauge the progress of the agreements. After yesterday's meeting with the minister, I think it's also important that the committee receive the legal opinion on which the government is acting. I think any open and fair-minded committee member is going to agree that those issues should be dealt with, that the committee should receive that information. Unfortunately, I haven't had support for that, and that's what the pressure is about, to try to get that.

Mr. Morrow, we did a fair amount of talking about the food fishery. The minister said he put more money into the pot for enforcement. All these questions are nice, but the fact of the matter is that the past record of the government has not been good when it comes to enforcing the regulations.

As a case in point, a year ago last summer I videotaped some ongoing fishery in the Fraser River and communicated my concerns to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans enforcement people. We followed a shipment of fish down into the States. It was food fish. It was sold there for cash. A year and a half later, no charges have been laid by the department in Canada, and even though the product was imported improperly or illegally into the United States, no charges have been laid there.

I know there was illegal activity last summer. There was surveillance. The fisheries officers in the Yarmouth area observed, recorded, and reported illegal activities relating to sale of food fish. Yet the government seems to lack the will to do something about it, to raise the charges.

In your opinion, Mr. Morrow, is that a reasonable assessment of the situation?

Mr. Denny Morrow: I can't say whether it's lack of will or not. Certainly Mark Muise, our MP from West Nova, knows there was a surveillance—Revenue Canada, the provincial government, DFO, RCMP—taking place last summer. I was calling in. I had a contact. Our buyers who were buying herring on the wharf at daybreak were calling and telling me of activity that was taking place, and I was calling enforcement officers, yet no charges were laid.

We just come back to the same point: the regulations—and this is what the enforcement officers tell me—are not practical; they're not enforceable.

The bottom line is that if a boat can go out in the food fishery and come back with a commercial quantity of lobster, with the number of wharves we have in this area and the number of people who have latched on to this because of how lucrative it is, it's going to be sold, and some of it is going to leave the province and head into the United States.

Mr. John Cummins: The question is that the evidence would appear to be there, but no action was taken by the government to prosecute.

We had testimony from the minister yesterday that he was ignoring the notion of traditional species, that he was ignoring the concept of adjacency, that he was ignoring the principle of proportionality, and he refuses to clarify this notion of “moderate livelihood” when it's applied to a communal situation.

So the question then comes back to what really is the agenda of the government here? It certainly does not appear to me that it's to implement the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall. It doesn't appear to be using that decision to guide it in its negotiations.

In your view, Mr. Morrow, is that a correct assessment?

• 1655

Mr. Denny Morrow: We've continually asked Mr. Thériault for the criteria being used to decide how much access is required and whether the native bands' expectations are legitimate.

On proportionality, I'll just throw out here that in lobster fishing areas 33 and 34, from Lunenburg County around to Digby, which is our most lucrative lobster fishery in Nova Scotia, there are roughly 127,000 people. About 4% of those people are directly involved in the lobster fishery—three people to a boat, 1,700 licences, 5,100 people.

Adjacent to areas 33 and 34 are about 1,100 band members, on reserve and off reserve; 4% gives you 45 to 46 people. Divide by three and you get 15 or 16 licences.

We've said to the government, maybe that's a target for a cap for access under proportionality, the same proportion of the Mi'kmaq bands, of their community, as non-aboriginals in this area that fish lobsters. That might be one type of calculation you could use to get an idea of the amount of access that should be granted. After that, the natives certainly have the right that I have, or you have, or anybody else has, to buy a licence, buy a boat, and go fishing.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins. Your time is up.

I have a couple of questions—and I wonder if any member on the government side has questions.

Mr. Morrow, it was mentioned by Mr. O'Brien earlier that what we're seeing here is maybe somewhat of a rehash of the original Marshall hearings held in the fall, or just prior to Christmas. But there's one significant change; that is, at that time the MacKenzie-Thériault process was just beginning.

From your point of view, is the process the correct one, is it fair, and is it leading down the road to decisions that all communities, aboriginal and regular commercial fishing communities, can live with?

Mr. Denny Morrow: No, the process is not satisfactory to the commercial fishing industry. I would go back to the reason why we worked for three months on this position paper: to give some guidelines to the government about the kind of process the industry would be comfortable with. We put it out there as a document for constructive dialogue. To date, all we've had is a dismissal of that.

For 48 different organizations to take three months and do all the work that we did.... We identified the issues, as we discussed with Mr. Thériault and Mr. MacKenzie and DFO staff, all winter long. These issues come up. We put forward the industry solution, the industry position on those issues, and we think those have to be discussed in a constructive manner. The aboriginal community needs to be sitting down at the same table we're at, and we have to try to work these things out.

With the process now of going in a back room somewhere where the government and the native bands work out the agreements, we're not negotiating; we're not part of it.

The Chair: But have you not been involved in fairly extensive negotiations or discussions with Gilles Thériault? What has been the response from that end?

Mr. Denny Morrow: The response is very unsatisfactory. We ask questions; we raise issues. Many of them are there in the position paper. We talk a great deal about the food fishery because, as I said earlier, it is a flashpoint. Maybe you covered it last fall, and so on, but I can tell you right now there is tremendous anxiety in some of these communities about what is going to happen with the food fishery out of season.

We're not getting anywhere. We've asked the government to come back and give us a response to our proposal. The response has been negative. So we've said “Okay, what are you going to do this year that's different from what you did last year?” All we hear is “We're going to make sure it's a food fishery and we're going to have more enforcement”.

When the regulations are not enforceable and they're not practical, we don't have much confidence in that.

• 1700

The Chair: Yesterday, when the minister was before us, I think he indicated—Mr. O'Brien, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong—eight agreements are signed. Some more are getting close to being signed. If there weren't agreements signed, then there would be basically a plan established by the government in those areas and those rules would be enforced. Is that what you're hearing?

What's happening in your particular area? Are there agreements signed in your area? I don't know.

Mr. Denny Morrow: The Acadia Band to date has refused to negotiate. The chief has been on the radio station down here and in the press saying she does not need to negotiate the treaty right. From the Indian Brook Band from Truro, which has been fishing down here as well, Chief Maloney was quoted as saying “I don't need to negotiate a treaty right”.

In the food fishery we have the Native Council of Nova Scotia, which is not part of the MacKenzie-Thériault process. I understand it's Privy Council that deals with them. They're one of the biggest players in this food fishery. They're not going to be part of these agreements.

So in Southwest Nova, the two bands that are most at play and the native council are not part of any agreements, and we don't expect them to be.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Denny, I notice that one of your member groups is Clearwater. From my understanding, they've expressed concerns with DFO about access to the offshore grounds—i.e., the Grand Banks. Have you had any conversations or discussions in regard to what the negotiations are? Are there any negotiations in terms of access to the offshore at all?

Mr. Denny Morrow: We've asked the question before as to what are traditional species and what are traditional fishing grounds. It's not just involving scallops. It involves shrimp. It involves snow crab. There must be some kind of process that the Supreme Court was recommending you should go through. These things should not be decided in the back room.

Peter, you got our minutes. We send them out to so many people. We're trying to be absolutely transparent with what we're about. Everything we believe in right now is in the position paper we put forward.

I can't tell you what the story is. DFO reined in a boat that went out illegally fishing scallops in a closed season on Browns Bank here the other day and brought them back.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Muise, you can have a short one. Are there others? Okay, Mr. Muise and Mr. Cummins. That's it; then we're cutting transmission.

Mr. Mark Muise: Denny, one of the questions I ask myself.... I don't know how we can get an answer to it. We hear that the $160 million and the agreements that are being negotiated are basically one-year agreements, interim agreements. What happens to those licences and those boats after the one-year period? Have you looked into this? Have you heard any answers to that question?

Mr. Denny Morrow: I think somebody said earlier that the amount of access and the amount of equipment that is granted in the short term is going to be the baseline for the longer term. That's the starting point. That's one reason we're very concerned about the process that's being followed here in the short term. We think something better should be in place.

Again I bring up the question. If you have to bring the bands to the negotiating table by offering them boats and gear, what are you going to do in succeeding years? Fishermen are used to negotiating their access, their quotas, their harvesting plans on a yearly basis. We don't have to have somebody give us money to go do it. It's just a terrible precedent.

We very much believe in entrepreneurship and individualism. The native fishermen who have started fishing down here have said that's what they want. They want to be able to own their own boat.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: The government and the native bands, as you say, are negotiating in the back room. The government essentially has a fiduciary obligation to the native bands. Who in fact is representing you and your interests when these negotiations are ongoing?

• 1705

Mr. Denny Morrow: Supposedly the government is, but there is nobody.... We asked for observer status. We were told that these are nation-to-nation discussions. I really question in my reading of Canadian history when we established a nation within a nation, but at any rate that's another issue. But, yes, we're not invited to those meetings. We're not told what is taking place. We're just hearing “Trust us; we'll do the best for the industry.”

I can tell you why there are 1,300 licences for sale out there. There are a lot of fishermen who have a very cynical view of this, who think that their fishery, their future, is jeopardized, that the stocks are going to be put in jeopardy, and that they're going to be driven out of the industry one way or the other. So they're looking at this in terms of get out of it while they can, get a good price for it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

Last question, John. That's it.

Mr. John Cummins: The minister yesterday, as I indicated to you before, was basically quite clear that he wasn't prepared to abide by the court decision, especially the clarification of November 17. If the government was prepared to live up to the decision and accept the guidelines of the court, do you think there would be much opposition, or any opposition, to the policy that would result from that?

Mr. Denny Morrow: We're law-abiding people down here, and the industry can only go forward if people respect the law. And we're no exception to that. We've said over and over in these meetings with Gilles Thériault and James MacKenzie and DFO staff that the November 17 clarification should be in play. What the Supreme Court said, we accept. We have no choice in that. We're good Canadians and we're going to follow the law of the land.

But you're right, every time we turn around we're being told we're not negotiating the treaty right, we're not bringing in the types of things the Supreme Court talked about—traditional species, traditional areas, moderate livelihood—in this interim process. That's extremely frustrating for the industry.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. With that, we will have to move on to other business.

I think you indicated earlier that you would fax to the clerk of the committee the agreement that you do have. We'd appreciate that. I know you have provided a lot of documentation over the last six months and have had a very busy time. We certainly congratulate you and thank you for all that work, and we'll continue to look into it. So thank you once again.

Mr. Denny Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Committee members, we have two motions to deal with, if they're still both on the floor.

We have Mr. Matthews' motion first. Do we have a copy of it here? The clerk will read the motion, so we're clear on what we're doing.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Matthews moved that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans cancel its planned trip to the east coast of Canada and cease any further work on finalizing a report on the aquaculture industry.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw the motion.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matthews. In terms of your withdrawing it, certainly as chair I understand your frustration in terms of our trying to do decent work as a committee and study aquaculture on the east coast. That's why I understand it was put forward in the first place.

Do I have consent to withdraw?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right, it's withdrawn.

Now we have Mr. Stoffer's motion.

• 1710

The Clerk: The motion is as follows:

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

The Chair: You have the motion before you. It's open for discussion.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I wonder if the mover of the motion could explain to the committee essentially what prompts the motion and why we're not requesting, for example, the minister to investigate this first; and secondly, whether any attempt has been made via the access to information process to get the information and find out what's going on.

As a committee member, Mr. Chair, I don't feel comfortable about asking the Auditor General to undertake an investigation of a situation we know nothing about.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would be happy to explain, and I thank Carmen for the question.

As you know, Michelle Dockrill has been up in the House questioning on the Scotia Rainbow farms. I'll give you a brief history of this company. It left Quebec out of Heney Lake. It destroyed the lake by adding too much phosphorous. They received about $8 million of funding from the Quebec diversification fund and various provincial and federal moneys. They left Heney Lake in a hurry, being sued for $13 million by the cottage owners of that lake. They have now set up in Arichat, Nova Scotia. They've received over $12 million of federal and provincial money from various agencies.

This finfish farm is now basically into receivership as we speak. There's an accounting firm that's looking over the so-called assets that are left over. We've asked for freedom of information. There are hundreds and hundreds of documents, which are going to cost us hundreds and hundreds of dollars, and it's going to take well over a year to get this information.

I've asked the Auditor General in a letter if it's possible for him to investigate how they got this funding and whether there was any political influence for it. Because we do know that the head of this company, Serge Lefrenière, gave $7,000 to the various provincial and federal Liberal Parties. We're not saying that there's a tie to that, but there's speculation that there could be. So we want to know, because there are an awful lot of companies in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that are suing this company as well for debts that are not repaid. This company owes millions of dollars to various firms and agencies.

I believe the Bank of Montreal gave them a $6.8 million line of credit based on government funding. All that money is now gone. They're going after the company for the money as well. An awful lot of people have been hurt by this corporation.

So what we have asked for ourselves is for the Auditor General to investigate this company to see if there have been any wrongdoings in that regard. We met with him last week. He said he cannot do a request by one individual party. His suggestion was that if you get the committee to do it, to write a letter, then they'll investigate, but not by one political party.

The Chair: I have Mr. O'Brien and then I have Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'm not saying anything about the honourable member, but from the Auditor General's point of view, when he got a single letter from former member of Parliament Charlie Power on the coast guard, he immediately moved to do his report. So if he can do it from one letter from Charlie Power, why can't he do it with one letter from you?

The coast guard is a mission of this committee as well. We didn't deal with that type of motion there, and the Auditor General agreed to move.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to let it fold in the same context as the Auditor General did in dealing with the coast guard.

Mr. John Cummins: What do you have against openness?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'm not against openness.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I did not quite understand, Mr. Chairman. Is Mr. Stoffer asking if Scotia Rainbow is in debt to the government or does he want to know where the grants the company got came from? All I have heard on that subject looks more like an economic crime. It would be up to the RCMP to inquire into the matter unless someone can tell us under which regulation a department gave such or such grant and if criteria were met.

I am wondering. I would like to get to the root of this business as well. Could the member explain why there is a sense of unease? This company owing money is one thing. People wanting their money back might be interested in having an inquiry into an economic crime, but it is not up to us to inquire.

• 1715

Mr. Stoffer, as an individual, or anybody else can ask the RCMP to inquire. We have already asked the auditor general to look into the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy money. George Baker had written. Grants totalling $250,000 had been given to associations in Newfoundland and we were wondering if the money had been used properly. The auditor general had given us an answer but we had asked a particular question about a particular program. I don't see exactly what is being asked for in Mr. Stoffer's question.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. If it's dealing with the allocations of moneys that's not out of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, then it's more an HRDC committee request—or whatever department the money has come out of.

Peter, I'll take your last point and one other if there is one, then I'm going to call the question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of the Auditor General, Lawrence, I do know that he did the coast guard, but he said no to us in a letter. He cannot do it on my request; it would have to come from the committee. That's what he told me, so I have to take his word for it.

In terms of what Yvan had said about this particular company and the way they got their money, if we fail in this approach, or I fail, we will then be asking for a formal RCMP investigation into it. I didn't necessarily want to do that, because I wanted to make sure I had exhausted all other avenues beforehand. It's the first thing they're going to ask me: Did you exhaust all political avenues to find out?

The reason I'm pushing this now through the committee is that the company, Scotia Rainbow, through the town council of Arichat, has hired a former MLA, Manning MacDonald, to come to Ottawa to lobby for even more money, which is absolute madness.

The Chair: I don't think this deals with your motion effectively, Peter, when you're getting into names.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to support Mr. Stoffer. I think the issue has to do with fish and fish habitat. I'm quite sure the minister's secretary over there, with his demonstrated desire for openness and his wish to be informed in all matters, will support the motion as well.

The Chair: I'm interested in your comments, Mr. Cummins, because that was one of the places we had been scheduled to see on our tour that you won't let us go on.

Mr. John Cummins: Could I respond to that? At last count, Mr. Chairman, you were in majority in Parliament. I would have much rather you would have made a motion in Parliament to allow for that travel so that we could debate this issue in Parliament. That's what we're all here for. So if we're not travelling, you have not me to blame; you have the government to blame.

The Chair: Okay, I'm calling the question on Mr. Stoffer's motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: I just want to remind everyone that the meeting called for tonight with the minister on estimates is cancelled until further notice. The meeting is cancelled as a result of the minister having the flu, so the seven o'clock meeting is not us.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, what about the east coast trip?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): When are we travelling?

The Chair: Before we adjourn, Mr. Cummins, do I take it that the CA is still objecting to the committee travelling on the east coast on aquaculture?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: No.

The Chair: Are you signing a petition that we travel?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm signing this because of my great respect for Carmen.

The Chair: You don't need that heavy winter coat on when we travel down on the east coast. You're still of the same opinion?

Mr. John Cummins: I'll get back to you very shortly—in due course, as the justice minister said. I will discuss the issue with the House leader and get back to you.

The Chair: Can we know before the Easter break?

• 1720

Mr. John Cummins: I will try to do that.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I think the committee should give serious thought to going about its work without the Canadian Alliance presence. How we do that is a matter of strategy and thought, but we should consider it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Cummins: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Bill Matthews: Get rid of them! Get rid of them!

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.