FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.)): On the agenda for today our order of reference is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the Atlantic groundfish strategy, relating this afternoon to chapter 16 of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, October 1997.

A point of order, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): You will recall that at the last meeting I asked that any time we had ministerial appointments we would have those appointments distributed to the committee as soon as possible. In the meantime what has occurred is that we now have a press release announcing the appointment of Ron Fewchuk as president of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, effective November 28, without notification as yet from committee. However, I would like to take this opportunity to make a motion that Mr. Fewchuk be requested by this committee to appear before this committee certainly before November 28.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, your point of order is well taken, because the committee has the power—in fact, has the responsibility—to examine at its discretion all order in council appointments. Apparently this was a press release appointment which was probably an order in council appointment. I presume that's what it was.

Mr. John Duncan: I have to assume so, since it comes from the minister's office. It's a ministerial appointment, and that's an order in council appointment as far as I know.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, what we normally do, and we have to once such an appointment is tabled in the House as an order in council appointment.... We get copies of it. We do not have those copies as yet, but what we can do, and certainly with your point of order, is to put that as item one on our meeting tomorrow and make a decision from there.

Thank you very much for your point of order.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Our witnesses today are from the Department of Human Resources Development. We have Mr. David A. Good, the assistant deputy minister. We have Mr. Kenneth Kerr, who is the director of policy and design of the human resources investment branch. We also have, with the department, Mr. Eugene Harrigan. He is the executive head of post-TAGS review, recently appointed by the federal government.

• 1540

We want to thank Mr. Harrigan for appearing before the committee. Since the committee made the request only a couple of days ago, we are pleased that you could find time in your busy schedule on the east coast to appear before this committee and to answer the questions from committee members.

I will turn things over to Mr. Good, and then to Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. Good, do you have opening statement?

Mr. David A. Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

First let me say how pleased we are to have this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning the TAGS program.

The efforts of the Auditor General are well respected and appreciated by our department. His recommendations have helped us and will help us in improving the overall operations of the TAGS program, which of course affects not only those who are impacted by the crisis in Atlantic Canada but indeed, I think, all Canadians.

From the outset I should indicate to the committee that we are in general agreement with the Auditor General's assessment of the TAGS as set out in chapter 16 of his recent report in respect of the need for proper planning and departmental consultations in launching such programs. We believe, however, that we should also consider the TAGS program in a broader context, particularly in the situation in the Atlantic fishery at the time in which the program was put in place.

The complexity of the situation that was faced by government in responding to the crisis in the Atlantic fishery provides an important backdrop affecting the implementation of the TAGS program. We must remember that people had lost not only their income, but also their livelihood. The closing of the fishery meant a significant change for these people, whose very way of life was threatened. Yet many still clung to the hope that fish would return. To complicate matters, the outlook for the fishery was not entirely clear.

TAGS was designed to address, on a very immediate basis, an extraordinary situation—a crisis of major and significant portions. It had to be implemented in a very quick timeframe, when the government faced severe fiscal restraints and HRDC at the same time was undertaking a review of all of its programs and services and dramatically restructuring its service delivery programs to Canadians.

The TAGS response really was fourfold. It was income support to provide individuals with a livelihood; it was adjustment measures to assist them to find employment outside the groundfishery; it was community economic development to create opportunity; and it was fisheries restructuring to address the long-standing issue of overcapacity.

Human Resources Development Canada was responsible for the income support and the labour market adjustment components. We worked in partnership with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, FORD-Q, who had responsibility for the community economic development component, and we also worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, responsible for fisheries restructuring.

It is fair to say that the magnitude of these objectives presented a major challenge for government to co-ordinate a strategy across the four departments.

For HRDC, our first priority was to ensure that the basic human needs were met, so we directed our efforts at ensuring that individuals who had lost their livelihood and their income could receive income benefits. During the implementation of TAGS, the program had to be adjusted, as you know, on an ongoing basis, because of the complexity of the programs, and continued to respond to the declining fish stocks. Also there was the fact that the original TAGS budget envelope of $1.9 billion had to be respected. There were also the unexpectedly high numbers of applicants that applied and actually qualified for the program.

Despite these difficulties, I believe there have been some positive results in addition to the maintenance of income support, which I have already mentioned, for those who are in significant need. To date, approximately 15,000 TAGS clients have adjusted out of the program. These individuals are no longer fully dependent on TAGS income support. They are becoming self-sufficient outside of the Atlantic groundfish fishery, either on their own or as a result of participating in interventions through the TAGS program.

• 1545

The 15,000 figure is broken down as follows: approximately 10,000 clients have adjusted out on their own and are living on their earnings from employment, supplemented by employment insurance, if necessary; 500 clients took the licence buy-back option; 1,100 took early retirement; and 3,400 have been adjusted out as a consequence of the interventions that were part of the TAGS program.

Let me take a few moments to set out two real and concrete examples of how TAGS has assisted fishers and plant workers find a livelihood outside the fishery. Thirty-five TAGS clients who participated in a 26-week on-the-job training program developed by Cabot College in Newfoundland were then hired by Nautical Data International, a firm in St. John's that specializes in changing data from manual charts to electronic navigational charts.

A second example is on Isle Madame in Nova Scotia. More than half of its TAGS clients have been retrained and have found work in other fields. One example is that an Ontario firm, Voxite, has opened the Tradewinds Call Centre on Isle Madame, is now employing 7 clients from TAGS and is expecting to hire 50 more within the year.

As I've indicated, this has been a difficult program to administer. Nonetheless, we are proud of our efforts by our staff in HRDC. They have served the TAGS clients loyally and with dedication.

We have, of course, learned some very important lessons from this exercise concerning the design and implementation of this program. We do appreciate the Auditor General's report in this regard. An undertaking of this magnitude has to be well planned, must settle on clear objectives, be closely co-ordinated and have a clear sense of focus. Implementation should be monitored carefully, and results tracked. Communications and the management of expectations are critical in dealing with so many people and individuals whose very careers and life choices are dependent upon the program and are affected in their communities and families.

As you are aware, TAGS is expected to end in May 1998. The Minister of Human Resources Development has appointed Mr. Eugene Harrigan, who is with us today, to review the post-TAGS situation and to gather the facts on the impact of the end of the program on individuals, on communities, and on provinces.

The Government of Canada recognizes the difficulties associated with adjusting to a permanently reduced fishery, and we will be working closely with all our partners to assess the post-TAGS situation. We will pay particular attention to how it affects people as individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Good.

Mr. Harrigan, would you like a couple of words now as well?

Mr. Eugene Harrigan (Executive Head, Post-TAGS Review, Department of Human Resources Development): No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to respond to questions.

The Chairman: Let's start, then, with our first round of questions.

Mr. Duncan from British Columbia.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The TAGS program was sold on the basis that much of the moneys would go into licence buy-back and into a transition fund, not income support. As we now know, 76% went into income support. That happened because the transition program became so fuddled.

My question is, why did HRD not run the income support program the way income support programs are run rather than re-inventing the wheel? Why did we have to create a whole new program for income support?

The Chairman: Mr. Good.

• 1550

Mr. David A. Good: A key part of the initial objectives of the program were both income support and adjustment, as I indicated in my opening comments.

In addition to that, there were two other aspects: the community economic development component, and the restructuring or the reduction of capacity within the fishery.

The budget was $1.9 billion at the outset of the program, and the government launched upon an income support component, which was part of the program, in order to ensure, as I indicated, the human needs of individuals who had lost income as a consequence of one of the most significant and far-reaching collapses in the Atlantic fishery—in particular, the northern cod stocks, the 2JKL stocks—to ensure that they had adequate income in order to meet those requirements. So the income support component was a large part of the total expenditure of the $1.9 billion required.

From the beginning, one of the key questions raised was on the number of participants who would actually participate in the program. As the Auditor General has indicated, we were optimistic in our assumptions, in our analysis, with regard to the number of participants.

As a consequence of that and other factors, when it became necessary to live within the budget of $1.9 billion it was necessary at that time to make adjustments to the other parts of the program, namely in the active measures of adjustment, in the reductions in the buy-back, and in the early retirement programs, in order to maintain the income support program, which was very much part of the overall program.

Mr. John Duncan: The groundfish did not collapse in 1994. We had a forerunner to this program. We had NCARP. NCARP, in its transition program, talked about a failure even though they had a 5% successful placement rate. The best numbers we can obtain—and they're very difficult to obtain—would indicate that the successful transition in the TAGS program is less than 2%. I fail to see where that shows evidence that there is progress being made in terms of implementing and operating these programs.

Mr. David A. Good: I think there are two aspects to the question.

First is the question I've indicated, that our initial assumption with regard to the income support in the program was that we would be looking at about 26,000 individuals in the program. It turned out that figure was significantly underestimated, and the actual number of applicants for the program was 52,000 individuals, 40,000 of which were eligible for the program in light of the criteria.

That required a significant expenditure on the income support program, which then required, in order to stay within the budget, adjustments to the other programs both in terms of the adjustment side, which you've mentioned, and also in terms of the other programs that were designed to reduce capacity in the fishery.

Mr. John Duncan: On these commitments that were made to individuals in terms of income support, which are now being challenged, what we heard about this morning was some commitments made in terms of the retirement program.

Was that decision to send those commitments in writing made by Human Resources or by some political force—Fisheries, or.... Who is going to be responsible and accountable for that action that the government now wishes to renege on?

The Chairman: Mr. Good or Mr. Kerr.

Mr. David A. Good: Let me respond to that.

• 1555

The decision I believe you are referring to is a decision the government took to ensure that the program would operate within the $1.9 billion budget that had been set out for the program. Undertaking that required curtailing a number of other areas. This was necessary in order to maintain and not reduce either the numbers of individuals who receive income support or the amount of income support that each of those individuals was receiving.

As a consequence of that, the government had to redirect funds from within the program into those areas in order to stay within the budget cap of $1.9 billion. One of those decisions was to curtail the program to have its expected end in May 1998 as opposed to the original five-year program.

Mr. John Duncan: I understand what the government is doing in order to meet their financial constraints, but what I'm asking is why were these people given assurances, on which they've now plotted their personal and possibly their business future? Who made that decision, which now becomes financially unreal in terms of our current government? Was that decision made by the program implementers, or was it a political decision?

Mr. David A. Good: This was a decision made by cabinet.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

We now turn to the government side, the member for Labrador, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Good, as relates to the retiring of 15,000 TAGS recipients, who are no longer on the program, I'd like you to try to put this in perspective for me.

I heard Mr. Matthews make a point here this morning, when the Auditor General was here, about the letter that came out. I have people in my riding who took out loans three years ago and bought a motor or whatever the case might be. Then a year later, we cut back on the program. I dealt with that this past year in caucus and part of government, when the government was making the move, and obviously I disagreed with the position and the direction we were going in, but we cut back on the program.

We have this particular letter on file to all the clients, saying you're good until such and such a date. Now everything is backed up x number of months or a year or so. I want to hear your comments on that.

The analysis you gave on the breakdown leaves something out, particularly on the 3,400 adjusted out as a result of interventions. The choice of words and the use of language there needs further explaining, sir. I have to account to this nation, to Atlantic Canada, and particularly to my riding. I have to account to the people I represent for what this means, and I have to explain to the people what this means. In order for me to explain to the public what this means, I need a far more in-depth explanation from HRD, and particularly from you, Mr. Good, because that's a very dicey, delicate issue, the issue of the letter of comfort that people received a couple or three years ago.

The Chairman: Mr. Good, what the member is referring to is the letter that came out from your department, signed by an official in your department, guaranteeing the payments until May 1999. As the member pointed out, that guarantee, made in two separate letters, signed by officials of your department, was then changed after the fact, in fact about two years later.

Go ahead, Mr. Good.

• 1600

Mr. David A. Good: I'm going to make a general comment. I'm going to ask Ken Kerr to respond to the specifics of the letter, but I do want to indicate—and, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate this—that the question of this matter is before the courts. There is a court case with regard to the termination of the program and I want to be very careful in not prejudicing the outcome of that. I think it would be inappropriate to comment further on that aspect of it.

But I think it is appropriate for us, as officials, to comment on what was in the letter and what was said at the time. I would ask Ken Kerr, who is director of program design, to comment on that.

Mr. Kenneth Kerr (Director, Policy and Design, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): After clients had made their application to TAGS—and you said that 52,000 people made such an application—about 40,000 were confirmed to be eligible and received a letter that confirmed that they were eligible. This letter also confirmed the level of their benefits and the expected duration of their benefits.

As a contribution program...our administration of the program is dependent on allocation of funds by Parliament through the main estimates. So basically the government has made a decision, in order to keep within the envelope, to terminate the programs when funds are exhausted, which is expected to be May 1998.

Now, whether this letter constitutes something more than what was intended, other than just to confirm client eligibility, is now before the courts and I really prefer not to go any further in the matter.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien: That's one aspect of it. Can you explain the second part of my question, which was a two-part question really, and that has to do with the early retirement. I have no problem with that. It's understandable that 55...blah, blah, blah, $1,100 a month or whatever. As I said this morning to the Auditor General, I wish we could continue to do more of that.

Mr. Harrigan, perhaps you might want to consider that in your deliberations, because I do believe a lot of these people, as you understand.... I mean, 24% or so, and that long list we saw this morning in training programs, doesn't account for the 55 and over in most cases. I can tell you that, as any of you would know, which is a common-sense point of view, most of these people need to be looked at in a different context from retraining. I make that point clearly on the record from a practical point of view, from living and dealing with these people.

Can you go a bit further than this letter of comfort that we talked about, which took us to 1999? I know it's before the courts and I can appreciate what you're saying, but maybe you can discuss it somewhat more in terms of how.... I find it very difficult, when I look at the criteria that have been used for who gets on and who gets off and when they get on and when they get off TAGS.... I know the criteria are there and I know they've been dealt with, and I know we're on the anti-climax, if you wish, of the program. But when you deal with criteria—and again perhaps this is more for review than current—for God's sake, be cognizant of the fact that people in Black Tickle....

I bring it up every time time I speak and as often as I speak, and as many times as I get the opportunity I'm going to say it: Black Tickle. When people in Black Tickle, who only moved there on this little rock out in the north Atlantic, the most easterly point of North America, I might add, with no running water, no trees, nothing of beauty except “rough, tough, just go there to fish” type of thing, when they can't qualify on a TAGS program because they didn't qualify in a certain year—I don't know if it was 1989, 1991 or 1992—that's ludicrous. It is totally ludicrous for fellows with nice, white collars and great ties and beautiful suits, sitting in hideaway offices in Ottawa and other places, to develop policies without consideration for real people in these small, tiny communities. To do that to these people is beyond.

I think it's our job at this table, Mr. Chair and members, to put forward ideas that never allow that to happen again. I know that was then and this is now, but now it's important that whatever we get passed on May 18 doesn't do the same damage to people. I think that's an important point.

• 1605

It's in that context that I'd like you to finalize your response to me relative to how those 3,400, give or take, got let go in such a way that they're dropping off like flies, so to speak.

The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Harrigan could respond, given the fact that he's presently examining these very people and talking to them, Mr. Good.

Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: I think that's a very good point.

I see my role as trying to get beyond the numbers. I believe firmly that the numbers don't tell the whole story. In order to try to understand the perception of the people who are most impacted by this, it's really important that one listens to their point of view, that one gets out of this fair city of Ottawa—which I intend to do shortly, Mr. Chairman—and starts actually talking to people.

I think a fair amount of data is available, and that will help in doing this in a relatively abbreviated timeframe. But what the minister has asked me to do is to provide him—and, through him, his colleagues—with as clear a picture as possible of what the impact at the end of the program will be on individuals, on their communities, and obviously on the provinces. I would like to provide him with an objective, and hopefully shared, assessment of these impacts. The human impact, the human dimension would very much be a part of that.

As I say, I see one of my primary tasks as being to get beyond the numbers and actually talk to some of the people directly involved, or to at least have a very good representative selection of people in those communities that are dependent upon the fishery.

The Chairman: I understand you're leaving tonight. Where is it you're going?

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: I'm going to Nova Scotia tonight.

The Chairman: To meet with the fishers.

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: You have to be—

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Maybe I'll meet you in Black Tickle.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): First of all I would like to welcome the witnesses. I have several questions to ask and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have more than one round this time.

I would like to address my first question to Mr. Harrigan. I must admit that I am somewhat baffled that the Minister asked you to go in the field to see how dependent the people in the communities are on TAGS.

I think it is the same government and the same officials, or just about, who designed that program. So if they knew from the start what the impact of the program would be, I don't see why it is necessary to go there now to see what the impact of its termination will be. That is the reason why I am so baffled.

Mr. Chairman, I would like us to invite the Minister, Mr. Pettigrew, to come and answer those questions himself. That is my first point.

Secondly, before going further into details, what would the relations between Human Resources Development Canada or the Canadian Government and the provinces concerned have been? Indeed you're going back to ask them what impact will, in their view, the termination of income support from TAGS have on them. What contacts have there been between HRDC and the provinces when the goal of TAGS was to reduce capacity in the fisheries?

I would like to know what kind of contacts took place, what would the relationships and the limits. For the benefit of new members on this committee, Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out, as we can see it in transcripts from past meetings of this committee on Fisheries and Oceans, under the chairmanship of our friend Mr. McGuire, that on November 5, 1996 we heard officials from Fisheries and Oceans and for Human Resources Development Canada. It would be important from new members on this committee to read the transcript of that meeting. They would learn some interesting and even funny things. What the Auditor General wrote in his Report was already apparent at that time.

• 1610

What was the motivation of the provinces? Were they forced to join in the move towards reduced capacity? We don't see that. It says somewhere that workers come under provincial legislation. I find that strange, but we don't always have the time to come back on answers that were given to us.

I will leave it at that for my first turn. So in your opinion, how were relations between Human Resources Development Canada and the provinces at the time? Are the people who worked on designing TAGS still in place? Did these people base their design on quantifiable data? In any case it is still the same government.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: I don't believe I can deal effectively with all of those comments. I've not been associated with the tax program. I come at it from the outside.

I can make a couple of comments. I think what the minister is hoping for is that my role, rather than being a retrospective role with respect to what has been good or bad in the program, although certainly lessons learned will be an important dimension, should be as forward-looking as possible.

The second point is that in the post-TAGS situation the minister sees the provinces as major partners and certainly wants to work with them in as collaborative and as cooperative a way as possible. As a minimum, we would want to ensure that data resources either we have or the provinces have about what the impacts are on people or communities are shared, that we're not disagreeing about fundamental numbers, and also indeed that we invite provinces, if they wish to have a broader role.... The minister is clearly open to that.

But the key point I would want to make is that the minister sees this as being more forward-looking than looking back.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: In this case lets come back to the federal government and let me ask you a question on one of your partners in the implementation of TAGS. What kind of relationship do you have with Fisheries and Oceans, for example? You say in your document that HRDC was responsible for the income support part of the program. I think you have a good delivery system throughout Canada for issuing checks. There may have been a few errors, but let us not dwell on them.

I would rather we come back to the labour market adjustment aspect. If I'm asking what kind of relationship you have with Fisheries and Oceans, it is because in order to work on a labour adjustment program you first have to define what kind of labour needs to adapt. Someone needs to determine which fishers or which plant workers will be declared surplus. Did you get some list from Fisheries and Oceans? And if the Department didn't give it to you, I take it that you have made the right decision in putting aside the adjustment part of the package. Tell me what kind of relationship you have.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Good.

Mr. David A. Good: That's a very good question. It's very clear that while each department has unique expertise it brings to the problem, co-operation and teamwork across all the departments and the ministries are essential in dealing with this issue. The Auditor General has highlighted that and we strongly reinforce it.

As you've indicated, it's not just the four federal departments—that is, ourselves, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, ACOA, FORD-Q, and Fisheries and Oceans—but also the provinces. I'm not going to make comments—it's not appropriate—on the fisheries management side of things, given the responsibilities here in HRDC, but clearly the licensing responsibility for fisheries resting in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the licensing of plants residing with the provinces, the need, as Mr. Harrigan has indicated, to assess the facts jointly so we know who these people are, what their age structures are, what their needs are, where they're located, how attached and close are they to the fishery, and what are the prospects for further change in the future—these are the kinds of things that have to be assessed jointly in working together as a team. I think the fact that we are moving forward with the review of the post-TAGS situation under Mr. Harrigan is a positive step forward to help us bring these related things together in order to address in a more comprehensive way the issues that we're facing in the fishery with regard to adjustment.

• 1615

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Good.

I'm going to go to Mr. Easter. But before I do, a very short supplementary, which is all the time the hon. member wants for this round.

Mr. Matthews, did you want to make a short intervention?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman and the committee, I have to go east as well, so I have to leave shortly. Perhaps you will permit me to do this.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: There are a number of questions I would like to ask. But let me say that my first observation is, when I look at the Auditor General's report and listen to Mr. Good talk about the numbers that took up on income support as opposed to what was anticipated, how could you be that far off? You say that 52% more qualified for income support than you anticipated.

At the time this program was announced I was a provincial politician and a fisheries critic with one good researcher. Having followed NCARP and done a numbers crunch on the outlook for TAGS based on NCARP, the day Mr. Tobin and Mr. Axworthy announced the program I said one of three things were going to happen: the benefits would have to be cut, or the numbers would have to be cut, or the duration of the program would have to be cut. And that's not because I'm a smart individual or my researcher was a smart individual. Two of us made that assumption, and I'm sorry to say we were correct.

So how you could be that far off I will never fully understand. That brings me to where we're going now and my worse fear, which is that we'll go through this process and we still won't do it properly this time, Mr. Chairman.

Having said that, there are a couple of issues that have already been touched upon by Mr. O'Brien on the five-year program. I have a question for Mr. Good. I have copies of letters signed by Mr. Tobin, the former Minister of Fisheries and now Premier of Newfoundland, saying that if people turn 55 during the TAGS benefit period they would qualify for early retirement.

It's my understanding that case is not before the court. So can you tell me, then, what your plans are for those people since they have signed letters from the government saying that if they turn 55 before May 1999 they would qualify for early retirement. That's one question.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, I wonder if you could put your other questions as well.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'll do them all now.

The Chairman: Yes, if you could.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have another question on the TAGS recipients. Their TAGS benefit period was reduced because of injury on the job. Someone who suffered an injury while working in the fisheries industry or became ill had their TAGS benefit period reduced accordingly through no fault of their own. So I would like someone to answer the question as to who in the name of God came up with that rationale and that logic. Again, I can't understand that, but it's happened. There have been people already eliminated from the program and hundreds more who soon will be through no fault of their own, because of injury.

My last question, Mr. Good, is why do you have an income level for TAGS recipients set at $26,000 per year when for EI recipients it's set at $39,000 per year? Right now in Newfoundland and Labrador particularly, with which I'm most familiar, we have fishermen who are not fishing with fish available, because if they go fishing now, in essence they will be fishing for the government because you're going to claw back every dollar they make after $26,000.

There are hundreds of people now working in the Marystown fish plant who have either reached the $26,000 income level or will soon do it who are not going to work for the government. Yet we get a black eye in Atlantic Canada for not wanting to fish and not wanting to work. So why did you set two different levels? Why did you discriminate against TAGS recipients and set the level lower? Maybe you can answer that.

• 1620

My final question is for Mr. Harrigan. We know the answer on the post-TAGS impact, Mr. Harrigan. I say that with all due respect. Everyone in Atlantic Canada knows it. If we get an early retirement program, if we get a licence buying program, if we get a training component, the majority of TAGS recipients will still have nothing. So are you devising a plan and a strategy for the minister to deal with those afterward, or are you just telling him what the impact will be in May 1998?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you for your time, sir.

The Chairman: That's fine, Mr. Matthews. We understand you have to go to Newfoundland. It's a very important place.

Mr. Good, and then we'll go to Mr. Easter.

Mr. David A. Good: Mr. Chairman, there are four questions raised by the member. Let me respond to his third question with regard to the income levels on TAGS, and I will ask Ken Kerr to address the question of the TAGS design vis-à-vis the question of people who have been injured and the other question with regard to the retirement at age 55. Mr. Harrigan will respond to the post-TAGS question.

The decision to reduce the cap on TAGS, to put a cap on TAGS of $26,000, was taken as part of the need to live within the budget when that decision was taken a couple of years ago. It is not related to the maximum level set for EI, which is $39,000. The cap was set at a $26,000 figure in order to ensure that those who were in the program would be able to receive the benefit. It was generally viewed at the time that a figure of $26,000 generally reflected the past mean average incomes within the fishery and incomes that had been basically earned from the fishery. The fact that there's a cap there does not penalize people in the sense of taking money away from them, but what it does mean is that if one were to receive income over and above the $26,000, that amount of income would be reduced from the next year's TAGS benefit that this individual would be receiving. So the fundamental rationale was to set a maximum level on the program as part of the expenditure reduction and, secondly, to set it at a level that seemed fair and equitable in light of the medium or average incomes that prevailed within the industry.

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: With respect to your question, Mr. Matthews, my mandate from the minister is to provide him with a factual assessment of the impact of the end of TAGS on individuals, on communities and on provinces. I have not been asked to do either policy recommendations or program recommendations with respect to the future. But obviously, to the extent that I reflect the views of key stakeholders, where there are areas of key consensus I would obviously want to reflect that. So it's factual, it's reflective of the expectations of people, of key stakeholders, but it does not go as far as making actual policy recommendations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harrigan.

I understand, Mr. Matthews, that the $26,000 figure is the clawback point. I don't want anybody to misunderstand; you don't get $26,000 if you're on TAGS. That's the clawback point. If you make over that, it's clawed back dollar for dollar, which was Mr. Matthews' point.

Now, Mr. Easter, Malpeque, Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Reform Party basically asked why didn't HRD utilize the same income support programs that are normally in place? In fact, a lot of people are asking why that didn't happen. But I think we have to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the income support programs that are in place, EI, at that time UI, would not be triggered as a result of the crisis in the ground fishery. You weren't working to have the weeks and the hours and the money in order to be able to qualify. And whether we want to agree or not, I agree there are a lot of lessons to be learned here and I think we ought to look ahead.

• 1625

In terms of looking back, there's no question that the government acted in a time of crisis for the Atlantic groundfishery, for those fisherpeople and workers that were affected. At a time when the government was facing tremendous fiscal restraint, we acted.

Yes, when we got involved in the program, we found that there were greater numbers, and yes, I agree with the bill. Maybe a better evaluation could have been done, but we found that there were greater numbers, and those people that were affected had to be supported.

So I just want to lay those facts on the table, Mr. Chair.

Moving from that, in terms of our experience under the TAGS program, Mr. Good, you mentioned a few areas that have been successful, wherein success can be shown as a result of the TAGS program: people employed in self-employment or other industries. I think one of the things that at least Human Resources Development, and indeed this committee, is going to be looking at is what we are going to do in the future that works. What are the options available to us?

I wonder if Mr. Good has any suggestions in terms of what has shown success in the past. There's no sense in going into a community—we've done it before—where you train half the community to be hairdressers and the other half to be welders. That's not the answer. Can you give us an indication of what areas of success we've had, which may give us some options to go forward in the future?

Mr. David A. Good: Thank you for the question.

We have learned a number of things, and what we will continue to do is to learn the lessons learned of what works and what does not work, when it comes to the key question of how one deals with industrial adjustment of the magnitude that we're talking about in important regions of the country where the job prospects are considerably less than they are in other parts.

We have worked with the provinces in Atlantic Canada through our labour market agreements. We have signed agreements with each of the Atlantic provinces, and Quebec as well, an agreement in principle with regard to the transfer of labour market responsibilities, with a strict accountability framework around that to ensure that we are in place to look at the training and the needs that are there.

We are increasingly finding that basic literacy, and the programs that we can provide in that area, is paying dividends with regard to training. We need to work closely with our partners—with unions, with outreach agencies, with third parties—in the delivery and the work of training and development.

One of the things we're learning is to be realistic with regard to the kinds of programs that we can put in place and the kinds of results that we can find.

We have had success—it's important that the committee realize this—with a program called transitions job funds. This has been a successful program from the point of view of the kinds of jobs that it has created and the cost at which it has created those jobs throughout Atlantic Canada. As you know, this was put in place coming out of the employment insurance reforms. So we're learning a number of things.

I just want to make one final point. It was contained in the Auditor General's report that we were not continuing with an evaluation of the adjustment. I want to clarify that we are continuing with an evaluation of the adjustment results. So we will have in place, in February, what are the results of the adjustment that has and has not worked within the TAGS program, to have this information available so that, coupled with the information that Mr. Harrigan will have, we will be in a much better position to examine the situation that we'll find post-TAGS.

Mr. Wayne Easter: My second question is to Mr. Harrigan, but I do want to point out to Mr. Good that although there is a move by the Government of Canada, really, and Human Resources Development to transfer labour market training to the provinces, I believe there are some problems with that. Keep in mind that the transitional jobs fund, which you outlined was successful, in fact stayed in the federal jurisdiction, without provincial involvement. That needs to be noted.

Mr. Harrigan, my question to you really relates to process. I am pleased you said you're going to get beyond the numbers. As I said this morning when the Auditor General was here, there's a lot of information in the Auditor General's report, but it is all based on numbers. At the end of the line the Auditor General's report hasn't examined the human and the community element. I'm pleased you're going to do that, but can you outline for us the process that at least you're anticipating following in terms of moving from A to Z, so we can get an idea, in talking to people in our community, to keep them up to date too?

• 1630

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: Mr. Easter, it's my intention at the moment, given the pretty limited timeframe I'm working with, to do a preliminary visit to all five provinces. During that visit, in talking to key stakeholders, one of the things I'm asking them is how you get at this human dimension; particularly how you get at the community dimension. It's an awful lot easier to find analytical data on income, etc., at the level of individuals.

Finding data at an aggregate level, at the level of communities, I think will involve several things. One is I think we can work closely with provinces on how we get at some of that data by using aggregate postal codes and rolling up some numbers. I intend to augment that by actually getting out and visiting a representative selection of communities, talking with people there, community leaders, people actually involved in the processing plants, or fishers, and hearing what their stories are. In fact, I hope to be able to reflect that real human dimension in the final report.

I see that in the next couple of weeks I will wind up the preliminary round of consultations, getting to know some of the key stakeholders. Certainly I intend to spend most of the month of November in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, obviously meeting with people and trying to get at precisely that dimension. I would recognize too that if one looks at the total number of participants...in allocating time, while I obviously intend to visit everywhere, 70% of all the recipients are in Newfoundland, 20% are in Nova Scotia, for 90% of all recipients, so there will be some balancing of time and consultation to reflect that reality.

So I see it as a mixture of using the current data available either to us or to the provinces and supplementing that by actual meetings in communities and with people.

The Chairman: Let's now go to Nova Scotia, Mr. Stoffer, Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a point of clarification on a question Mr. Duncan asked. Was the question asked about the reduction of the TAGS program from five to four years, and was the answer that the decision was made by cabinet? Is that correct?

Mr. David A. Good: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Good.

I'll start off, Mr. Good, by thanking you and Mr. Kerr and Mr. Harrigan for appearing today, especially when I know you have to catch a plane to beautiful Nova Scotia.

Under a question I asked a few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he would reinstate the TAGS program until the contractually promised date of May 1999. His response was that he will not, because he was in consultation with people within the industry. I'm confused. I didn't know cabinet was in the industry of fisheries and oceans. We have a problem here. I'm going to pass a motion later on asking Mr. Anderson, the minister, to come down here and clarify exactly what he said and now what you're telling us.

Mr. Harrigan, you indicated you want to work with the provinces. The last time the government worked with the provinces, three of them ended up with the HST, the most dreaded tax of all besides the GST. It was devastating to the people of Atlantic Canada. I would be very cautious when you say you work with the provinces. Being from Nova Scotia, where people on fixed incomes have the HST, and now of course with the TAGS concerns, I caution you when you speak about working with the provinces. The last time the government did that we didn't elect one Liberal in Nova Scotia.

You say, Mr. Good, you're in general agreement with the Auditor General's report on the TAGS, yet in 16-7 it says “the Minister of Finance announced, in the February 1994 budget speech, a five-year program”, not a four-year program.

• 1635

Mr. Harrigan, you're saying that time is of the essence, that you only have until December to table a report. I think that's rather short, and I feel you may not have the time to fully implement a comprehensive recommendation at this time. as bad as TAGS was as a policy, Mr. Easter was right, the money was definitely required for those people. I would think the best recommendation you can make is to maintain the TAGS program until the contractual promise date of May 1999, and then you would have more time in which to do your work. I don't think you'll have enough time, come December, to come up with a comprehensive recommendation to the minister.

As well, my fear is that at the end of all this the federal government is going to download this responsibility to the provinces as they have done with every other aspect of the CHST. It's just something that rubs me the wrong way, that this is the recommendation and this is what's going to happen. We're going to sit here next year, and the four provincial ministers are going to come up here just rattling and shaking your bones because of the fact that this effort will be downloaded to the provinces. I can assure you, Mr. Harrigan, that is one recommendation I would not want to hear you make—passing it on down to the provinces—because that would definitely cause a major riot.

If you want to know what's going to happen if TAGS isn't implemented in some form again after May 1999, just go back to the videotapes of all the newscasts in 1995 when we had occupations of the federal buildings throughout Atlantic Canada, especially in Nova Scotia. I'm not saying it will happen again, but there's an awfully good chance that the people will be at the end of their rope and they'll have no choice. We've already had an example of that last winter when those fisherpeople were rocking the bus. Now, they got the wrong bus, and ended up with the media bus—sorry, folks, but that's what they did. That's the kind of frustration they're going to experience and express upon anyone who comes down there.

My last question, sir, or statement, more or less, is that when you go down to Atlantic Canada, take the tie off, put the sou'wester on, and as Mr. Hubbard said earlier, get the feel of salt water under your feet, and talk to the fishers in their shacks, not necessarily in their hotels.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Do any of the witnesses want to comment? Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: I'll just comment a little bit on the timeframe, Mr. Chairman. We recognize it's a very tight timeframe. I think it's helpful that a lot of data is already available. That helps with the time.

Secondly, I think we have to be conscious of the fact that for people who are looking at the end of the program in May, one can't keep them indefinitely in a state of suspended animation. It's unfair to people. So I think we're somewhat pressed on a number of fronts to meet that pretty tight timeframe.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, did you want to add something?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is just to Mr. Harrigan. When he hears the term “TAG team”, it's the reference of Nova Scotia fishers to Mr. Pettigrew of Human Resources and Mr. Anderson of the DFO. They now call them the all-star TAG team wrestlers of the federal House of Commons, so when you hear that term, that's where it came from.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer, for that bit of information.

We'll now go to Mr. Hubbard from New Brunswick, and then back to Mr. Lunn of British Columbia. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we are the fisheries and oceans committee and we're looking at another department here that is very closely tied in with us because of the tragedy that has occurred with the groundfish area in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

But being from New Brunswick, I also have to remember that in terms of HRD, in the last fewer than 10 years, we've had more than 4,000 people who were woodcutters in the woods cutting pulp who were displaced by mechanical harvesters. This tragedy in fisheries—and I think in Quebec too—is not just for one particular industry in this country. While we certainly are supportive of ventures to assist those who have been affected in this way, we also have to recognize, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of HRD Canada there are many, many people in other occupations who are measuring their needs and their desires and their wants in terms of bread and butter, as you say, against this TAGS program.

• 1640

So I think, Mr. Harrigan, when you go down there to visit you will not just be looking at the 40,000 people—it's down to 25,000 now—who are affected by TAGS.

Mr. Chairman, even in your own area you'll find people who compare the attitude that government has toward them with what people next door are receiving from TAGS.

So it's not going to be an easy task, Mr. Harrigan, I warn you, and Mr. Good as well.

Let's look at some of the figures here. If we take $1.9 billion, bring it down to 76%, and look at about $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion among 40,000 people over four years—and I think probably the press are here—we're thinking about a lot of money. But if my figures are correct, this is about $10,000 per person per year, which is not a great amount of money for people to support a family on.

Some of the criticism we're getting in terms of people from other places in Canada—and they're saying this to us from the west—is that this is a great expenditure. But in terms of per capita and per family, $10,000 amounts to less than $1,000 a month to live on.

I have one question for Mr. Good in light of that statement. In terms of the 15,000 people who have been taken off the program—we're down to 25,000—and in terms of our attitudes in the future, can we somehow get to a bottom number of people who really can hope to go back to the groundfish fishery in 2004, or whenever the next five-year period will be up? How long can we keep these people waiting?

As a subsidiary question, in terms of the amount and in terms of those who apply—those nearly 60,000 who have applied—I thought it was a collective decision to put the money over four years. It was not simply a minister of fisheries deciding or a minister of HRD Canada deciding; I thought there was a good amount of input into the idea that there was to be a certain level, and even if it ran out in four years we would have to look at it at that time.

Mr. Good, could you answer that question in terms of your workings within the department? Was there a collective decision made or was it a single minister making that decision?

Mr. David A. Good: The decision was made by cabinet, so it indeed was a collective decision. There was consultation undertaken in an examination of options. There was consideration obviously of the pros and cons, but it was not a decision taken by one single minister. It was taken by the cabinet of the day to reduce the program, which at that point was expending at the rate of $500 million over the $1.9 billion.

So that decision had to be taken, to live within the $1.9 billion budget. It was indeed a collective decision.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In a sense...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...it was a decision that went beyond cabinet. There was input back at the level at which the program was working. Is that correct or not?

Mr. David A. Good: Yes, there was consultation in Atlantic Canada. There was consultation with a number of associations, fishermen's unions and others. It was a very hard choice, obviously, that had to be made, but there was consultation.

It was well known that the program had to live within the $1.9 billion given the fiscal parameters that were being faced. It was also well known at the time that, as I indicated earlier, because of the large number of clients in the program over and above what had been initially anticipated, the lion's share of the funds were being used for the income support program. There was not a desire to want to reduce those levels or to reduce the number of individuals actually receiving that. Hence the decision taken to shorten the length of time for the program as well as to eliminate the areas of adjustment and restructuring that were part of the program.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have to go next to Mr. Lunn. Before I do, Mr. Good and Mr. Kerr, if any of the fishermen or fish plant workers were listening to us, and to the fact that you didn't know how many people would be applying for the program, my reading of section 16.29 is that there were no existing data on the number of days spent on the groundfish fishing over the course of a year or on the percentage of a fisher's income that it provided. Similarly, there were no data on the time spent by plant workers to process groundfish or on the income they derived from it. That's what you were lacking.

• 1645

An ordinary person reading that would ask why you didn't consult the unemployment insurance records. That's on everybody's unemployment insurance record with their records of employment they submit to the unemployment insurance commission. I want you to think about that.

We're going to hear from Mr. Lunn, from British Columbia.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I'm sure Mr. Good knows, the creator of this program, Mr. Tobin, stated back in 1994 that this program was the end of all programs. Yet this same creator stated only a few weeks before the release of the AG's report that, if you create a program that creates a dependency with no end plan, you can expect the result we got. Those are the words of Mr. Tobin on September 18.

I have a simple question for you. When did you become aware of this total disaster that the Auditor General has described, and can we assume that when you became aware of it you would have warned your superiors of the impending catastrophe that was about to face them?

The Chairman: Mr. Good.

Mr. David A. Good: I'm going to indicate that the complexity of analysing the program and the numbers was very great. As you've indicated, we did not have the proper information from the predecessor NCARP program in order to do the assessments.

And that is precisely the reason for the important work Mr. Harrigan will be doing now to examine the post-TAGS situation in terms of the individuals and who they are, where they live, what their status and income are, what their attachment to the fishery is and what their age is. This will allow one to get a much clearer sense of the post-TAGS situation in terms of where the clients are, in time for the situation to be dealt with.

In terms of the actual handling of the TAGS program and when this information became available, I'm going to ask Ken Kerr to make a comment on that since he was involved more directly than I at the time the program was set up.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think you've missed my question. I don't want to dwell on this, because I have another one I want to ask you, but at some point in the TAGS program it became very evident, at least to all the people of Newfoundland, this was not doing what it was intended to do. It did not follow the original mandate. It became very much just a welfare system, if I can put it in those words. In essence, that's what it became. It was not doing what it was originally intended to do.

When did you become aware of that? And when you became aware of that, did you advise your superiors of that? That's my question.

The Chairman: Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kenneth Kerr: The program had a range of objectives. The primary objective, especially for HRDC, was to provide people with livelihoods, given the collapse of the groundfish stocks and their failure to recover within the period of NCARP. To quote one of the provincial ministers,“TAGS provided an important lifeline to the citizens of Atlantic Canada.”

Obviously, based on reading the report, there are issues. TAGS was incredibly complex to manage. We managed it within budget. Each year HRDC senior management was apprised of the budget situation, and as you can see from the report, modifications were made to the program along the way to live within the budget. Budgets for active labour market adjustment measures were adjusted. Finally in July 1996, after the difficult debate Mr. Good described, cabinet decided to focus the resources on the income support component.

• 1650

I think your question is a bit...why did we stop beating our wives?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Let me move on. There's nothing new in this book. We have this book that was put out by the AG. Most of the people in Newfoundland, most of the people in Atlantic Canada knew this was coming. We've seen it. There were fundamental flaws in this program and today the people of Atlantic Canada are paying the price, not the bureaucrats or the politicians. The people who are suffering are the people who this $1.9 billion was supposed to help. We sold Atlantic Canada a false bill of goods, but let's not dwell on the failures.

I also want to ask you about your earlier comments on the 15,000 people who have been adjusted outside of the program. You also commented earlier, Mr. Good, that 10,000 people have apparently voluntarily taken themselves out of the program.

Forgive my cynicism, but the Auditor General has devoted three chapters in the AG report to criticizing the entire TAGS program. I don't know how you can possibly claim 10,000 success stories. It's ludicrous. I'd like you to explain that.

Also, the most important lesson out of all of this is that we should learn how not to administer a program. We should acknowledge that it is a total disaster and not sit up here trying to find some good and patting ourselves on the back.

We are as concerned about the people in Atlantic Canada, in Newfoundland, as anybody and weren't opposed to the $1.9 billion. We supported it because it was going to help these people, but it did not do that. That's what the people are so upset about. People are patting themselves on the back and talking about success stories, which is absolutely ludicrous.

But most importantly, I'd like to know if this department is willing to commit to launching a full investigation to find out where these funds went. The people of Atlantic Canada are the ones being hurt and they have a right to know. Will you agree to come back to appear before this committee and report to this committee on where all those funds went?

The Chairman: We want to go around the table on a second round very quickly and give each member a minute, because I know we have to be out of here in about eight minutes.

Mr. David A. Good: I can be very brief. Of the $1.9 billion, $1.5 billion went to income support to maintain the livelihoods and incomes of people in a very difficult situation, facing a disaster in the Atlantic fishery. Some $200 million went into active programming for adjustment, while $50 million was used for administration of the program. Another $100 million was used for the DFO licence buy-back in the early retirement program, and $50 million was used by ACOA and FORD-Q for community economic development.

The Chairman: We'd like to go to Mr. Duncan and then we'll go over to Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Bernier, Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Easter. We'll call them short snappers, because we have to finish the meeting very shortly. Our witnesses have to catch a plane to Nova Scotia.

Mr. John Duncan: This morning we've become aware that 2,200 TAGS recipients are really questioning where some of the moneys from this program went, to the point where they've signed a petition. A printout was passed around listing some of the payments, which would lead to someone asking questions.

Mr. Lunn talked about having Mr. Kerr reappear, and I moved that this morning. Would this be an appropriate time for me to reintroduce that motion or should I wait until after the witnesses have left?

The Chairman: I'm sure our witnesses, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Good, would be willing to appear before the committee again.

Mr. Good, do you anticipate any problem with not being able to appear before the committee in a week or so?

• 1655

Mr. David A. Good: If we're asked to appear before the committee, we will appear before the committee.

Mr. John Duncan: With some specific requests. Basically, there's a request for an accounting of the moneys that were paid out. I think they are largely payments to outside interests—not payments to individuals but to outside interests. The specifics of those payments is what we're looking for.

The Chairman: Fine, Mr. Duncan. During our steering committee meeting we can schedule a meeting time for our witnesses again and then consult with them.

Mr. John Duncan: Right. In addition to that request, we've heard testimony dealing with the 10,000 stories. I assume they are success stories. I wonder if I could add to that request that we get a description of the criteria for those 10,000 clients who are adjusted out on their own, in your words.

I want to get my little west coast point in here. We had an announcement in January. We had a press release from the Minister of Fisheries. It was not directly related to any one of our witnesses. This press release talked about a retirement program, a post-Mifflin plan retirement program, of $7.7 million. The minister called on the province to contribute on a 50:50 basis.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the province wasn't even consulted before this announcement was made. Expectations were raised in the fishing community. We talk about a human dimension to all this, what governments say and do. In this case all they did was raise expectations. It fell flat. There has been no commitment and there is apparently no commitment from either level of government.

I say we should not be telling people we're going to do things if we have no intention of doing them. That is a part of the human tragedy in all of this.

I just thought I'd bring that in.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. Harrigan. I have some suggestions too.

I would like to make mention of a particular issue with HRD which we as Atlantic MPs, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, earlier this spring...the labour force attachment to TAGS, or related to TAGS. We finally got some breakthrough on that from the department. I want to thank the officials and the ministers for that, because I think it will help quite a few former or current TAGS recipients make their transition from TAGS into a new life. I think it was very important.

The other point I want to make, sir, is this; and I want to make a specific point. If you came to Labrador, you would find that out of the 1,000-plus TAGS recipients in my riding, if we had adjustments in Government of Canada policy—and maybe the parliamentary secretary could take note of this too, Mr. Easter, if you wouldn't mind—related to boat upgrading, upgrading sizes of boats from 34 ft. 11 to some others—so you might want to introduce some of this into your points—some overlap in terms of 2J and 4R and 3K—and get a few things straightened away, things that have now been bogged down in such a cumbersome way by the various bureaucracies of government, I may not be here begging and bugging for too much of a TAGS program, because most of my people, and most of yours too, Mr. Minister, in a lot of cases—Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry; you're not a minister yet; it's coming up one of these days—a lot of our recipients would be back into the fishing. It would not necessarily be into the groundfishery, I might add, but we have the shrimp and we have the crab.

And we have the seals, let's not forget. We do have the seals; and I tell you, I am an advocate of making a sealing industry, a full-fledged, full-utilization sealing industry, from the many, many harp seals. It's too bad some of that couple of hundred million dollars that went to this great list of companies we see there didn't go into a focused sealing industry. Then more of our people who are on TAGS would be doing something today that has been traditionally their way of doing things.

• 1700

That's the way we have to do things bureaucratically, and that's the kind of policies that have to come forward. If we do these kinds of things, we won't be sitting around here crowing like we are right now.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

We're going to go to Mr. Bernier, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Steckle.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We have every right to ask questions. Twice I heard that the witnesses had not had a chance to answer. You want us to be quick? Well I have three questions. If you can't answer them today, I would appreciate receiving the answers as soon as possible.

TAGS, as it is currently structured, is subject to a variety of moratoriums that have been declared by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am thinking in particular of the one on cod fishing, both inside and outside the Gulf, and of other moratoriums affecting the redfish fishery in the Gulf. These moratoriums came into effect at different dates and people did not necessarily have as much time to adjust and change their way of living.

And what about the link to biological data on the status of the fish stock? Let's be clear: the time required to rebuild cod stocks, based on its reproductive capability, is biologically shorter than for redfish. What exactly should people affected by the redfish moratorium expect, given that some biologists are talking about a minimum of fourteen years to rebuild the stocks?

I would also like to find out whether one of you three gentlemen knows how much it will now cost the government to keep its promises. The program is expected to end in May 1998; if it were to be extended until May 1999, though, what would that cost? I'd be interested in getting that information.

And finally, as an NDP member, I would like to know how much the government is attempting to save by doing this, since it did make certain commitments and certain promises. While the gentlemen appearing today may not be able to answer that question, perhaps our researcher could provide us with an answer to the following question: in the wake of the Government of Canada's broken promise on the Pearson Airport contract, how much has had to be spent to buy our way out of that promise? And how much did it cost us to buy our way out of the broken helicopter contract? Then maybe we'll see whether we can afford to cling stubbornly to the view that there is not enough cash in the till to honour a promise made to fishers and workers.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Before I go to Mr. Stoffer, I understand, Mr. Harrigan, that you have to catch a flight right away to go to Nova Scotia. Did you want to make a parting statement?

Or, Mr. Stoffer, did you want to say anything to Mr. Harrigan before he goes?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is for Mr. Good.

The Chairman: Mr. Harrigan, would you like to make a closing comment?

Mr. Eugene Harrigan: I would only say that one of the things I plan to do over the next very short period of time is write to all of the members of Parliament in the areas affected by this issue and, hopefully, over the next number of weeks, can plan to meet with them as well. I'm very much interested in hearing their views, amongst all of the other people that we obviously plan to accommodate as well.

So I look forward to doing that, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your time today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harrigan, and the best of luck to you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a quick question, Mr. Good. The reason I'm asking this is because I want to make sure it's crystal clear. When I asked earlier about the consultation aspect and who made the decision to reduce TAGS from five to four years, you said it was a cabinet decision. Then it was mentioned that there was consultation.

Can you tell me very quickly so I can go to my supplement for you—there are three important points—which groups were consulted in reducing TAGS from five years to four years?

The Chairman: I want all the questions to be asked and then give Mr. Good the chance to—

• 1705

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Right. While you are answering that—and also to Mr. Lunn's thing about the 10,000 people of the success stories, I think 9,993 of them moved away and 7 of them are working for that telephone company, as well. I just had to throw that in.

If there was consultation, which I don't think there truly was, with fishers, unions and working groups in Atlantic Canada, I do not believe for a second that these people would have said to the Government of Canada, yes, by all means reduce our income support program from five to four years. I cannot believe that for a second.

I would like the answer as to who you consulted with so I can have those names or those groups, so I can go back to them and see if indeed that is correct.

Thank you.

The Chairman: We're going to Mr. Steckle, whose district is Victoria—Haliburton in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my district is Huron—Bruce.

The Chairman: That's John O'Reilly's district I just outlined, isn't it? He replaced you earlier on. Huron—Bruce, a famous riding.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I am indeed pleased to sit on this committee, because I believe I can bring a central Canadian perspective to it. While I'm not as closely related to the saltwater fish industry as I am to the freshwater one, it's with that background that I come here, of course, largely from an agricultural riding. But I can tell you that had the fish industry been managed as agriculture has been over the last 40 years, we wouldn't be here today talking about this issue.

A recent editorial probably said it better than I can say it today, in terms of drawing the analogy of the fish industry comparable to the agricultural industry.

When I look at a list of places where money was expended, I have to wonder whether, Mr. Good, you feel that good value was received by those moneys expended on retraining.

I share with my colleague Mr. O'Brien the sentiment that we ought to have been producing and creating a sealing industry. I happen to have relatives in the maritimes who share that feeling, and it's through them that I've received some of this information. I even took the liberty to go out and do some real cod fishing a number of years ago, where I saw how hard those people work. I can understand why agriculture and fishing are co-related when it comes to the kind of work people do.

I have to wonder whether, when this was begun a number of years ago, there was a real intent on ever finding a better way for those people to make a living. Obviously we know that fish stocks don't come back overnight; therefore I have to wonder.

The way you have experienced this, now looking back, do you feel that good value was given for some of the money that was expended in some of these retraining programs?

The Chairman: Mr. Good and Mr. Kerr, could you take a crack at answering all these questions that you've been asked?

Mr. David A. Good: Let me begin with regard to Mr. Bernier's questions concerning the moratorium.

The Chairman: I wonder, Mr. Good, if we could just hear one short question, as well.

Mr. David A. Good: Sure.

The Chairman: From Prince Edward Island, from the member from Malpeque, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I guess the question, if you can answer it, is to HRD. With the tabling of Mr. Harrigan's report, the Minister of the Human Resources Development, and certainly the cabinet, is going to have some tough decisions to make.

I asked Mr. Harrigan what the process was for him. We know that; it's on the record.

What will happen at HRD once that report is tabled? How are we going to get to an ultimate solution to this problem at the end of the day? Are you going to consider such other emerging industries as sealing, aquaculture, shrimp harvesting, etc.?

In relation to what Mr. Steckle had asked earlier, originally we had hoped that the fishery might come back. Given the FRCC report that came out just the other day, it certainly looks as if that will not be the case. So we're dealing with a different reality now.

Mr. David A. Good: With regard to the question by Mr. Bernier concerning the moratorium on fish stocks, with due respect, I think that's a question that should be addressed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are not qualified to answer that.

• 1710

With regard to the question of the contracts, I'd indicated earlier that that matter is now before the courts, and I do believe it is inappropriate to comment on that.

I will, however, respond to the question on the costs of the program. Right now we are spending at the rate of $6 million a week to maintain the income support levels that are required there.

With regard to the question from Mr. Stoffer vis-à-vis who exactly was consulted on the restructuring of the program prior to consideration of the matter by cabinet, I do not have a list of that in front of me, but I will furnish that to the committee as quickly as possible. In fact I can ask Ken Kerr to embellish that in a moment. Let me just complete the other questions.

With regard to the question concerning the value for money of the program, that's a judgment question that you're really asking officials to pass judgment on. What I can say is I think we have learned from this program and I think we've learned from this exercise.

We've taken very seriously, as I indicated in my opening comments and as we have said throughout this afternoon, the importance of learning from what has gone on in the evaluations by the Auditor General and the evaluations we will take, as well as setting in motion the review of the post-TAGS situation so we are in a position to have better information to address that post-TAGS situation in the future.

It will be up to the government of the day and the minister, with cabinet, to examine the report that Mr. Harrigan produces, and we will be working in close collaboration and cooperation not only with our colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, ACOA, FORD-Q, and other departments, but as well with the provincial governments as we move forward.

The Chairman: Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kenneth Kerr: Relative to consultations to present options as to what the alternatives were to remain within the $1.9 billion budget, the department consulted with the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, which is an umbrella group that represented all the concerned people in the industry, including the fishers, plant workers, and their unions. We did that in all the regions. The framework for the consultation was how best we might remain within the budget envelope.

The Chairman: Fine.

We want to thank the witnesses for their appearance before the committee today: Mr. Good and Mr. Kerr. We will be hearing from fishermen on Thursday, in a couple of days, in room 701 at 9 a.m. by television. We're going to have TV videoconferencing with fishermen from eastern Canada concerning the testimony given here today and with the Auditor General. We have a steering committee meeting tomorrow in room 208 of the West Block at 3.30 p.m., so we'll see you at that time.

The meeting is adjourned.