FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We'll call our meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

We'd like to welcome today—on what I thought was rather short notice, but we certainly appreciate the fact you were able to come—members of the department, the deputy minister and his officials.

Just before we begin this morning, I'd like to indicate that we have a notice here that Mr. Lunn, representing the official opposition, has requested that the minister come before our committee to review the supplementary estimates of the department. Gary, this would have to occur before November 26. With our 48-hour notice, we will advise the minister accordingly, and we'll present this motion to our committee on Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): We don't see a problem at this time.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Sure, and I let Wayne know, so I think he has the wheels in motion already. I think this is just a formality.

The Chairman: I would assume the wheels will be in motion. In terms of our working agreements on 48 hours' notice, though, we will officially bless the motion, hopefully on Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Wouters, we've reserved some time. Undoubtedly, today we would have liked to have gone down to see you at your own location. With the way that some of these committees do meet in terms of records and not records, though, this was the only place in which our clerk saw it as possible to have the meeting today. We will listen intently to your presentation in terms of the department and how it works. All of us recognize—and some of us are learning more each day—that there are two sides to every coin. I think our good member from Nova Scotia looked at the other side of the coin just last week in terms of some of the work the committee has done.

• 0910

Anyhow, we welcome you here today. We'd like to ask you to introduce the various members of the department, and we will allow an hour for your presentation. Will that be sufficient?

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans): We won't need that long.

The Chairman: You won't need that long. We will then proceed with some questions from members, reflecting their own particular interests and areas. The floor is yours, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I plan to only make a short opening statement, leaving as much time for questions as we can.

We're pleased to be here—myself as a deputy minister, along with my management team. If you will, I will introduce the management team once I've made my presentation.

We do recognize the importance of the work of this committee that has taken place. You have done some fairly detailed and thoughtful reports that are most important to us. We have been looking at all of them, and I know the government has responded to two of them to date. I'm sure members will have questions to ask of me and my management team, and we're prepared to answer them as fully as we can.

Before I begin, I should point out that there's one area in which I probably will not be able to answer questions today, and it is in regard to the government's response to your two most recent reports. The government is studying these reports, and it will want to give your recommendations the fullest consideration before responding to them.

In my opening remarks, I would first like to focus on providing you with some context and background about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans today—who we are, where we come from, and what we do. Secondly, I'll give you an overview of the policy and management challenges and priorities that I face as a deputy minister of this department.

As I review the highlights, you may want to refer to our backgrounder. I believe it has been passed around. If it has not been, I would ask that we do pass it around here this morning. Copies were given to the clerk, and you just may want to refer to your own copy as I run through my presentation, since it outlines some of the details of the department.

DFO is clearly a very large department. In terms of employees, we are the fourth largest department in the public service. We have a workforce of 8,500 employees, located at sites across the country. Planned expenditures for the 1998-99 fiscal year are $1.1 billion. DFO is a very operational and very decentralized department. Eighty-nine percent of our employees work outside the national capital region. Fewer than a thousand DFO employees are in Ottawa. That's 11% of our workforce, which compares with 40% for Health Canada, 30% for Agriculture Canada—another resource department—and 20% for Human Resource Development Canada, which has some fairly significant regional presence across the country. We are the largest federal presence in five coastal provinces.

DFO is also a very diverse department. With the merger with the coast guard, we have become even more diverse. There are 40 different occupational groups in the department, spread across 11 business lines, such as fisheries management, science, marine navigational services, and search and rescue. DFO is a department with a large capital base and a complex technology to manage. There are 137 large and medium-sized vessels in our department, 10 scientific institutes, and thousands of conventional navigational aids.

The DFO of today is very different from the DFO of four years ago. We have gone through the integration with the coast guard. In our view, we have managed to meet the challenges of program review. We are a leaner, more focused department than we were in 1998.

• 0915

I'll now turn to the future. Looking ahead, there are major policy challenges coming for this department. These include emphasizing the department's leadership role in habitat and environment; reinforcing conservation as the cornerstone of fisheries management; moving forward on the fisheries management agenda, including co-management, licensing policy, and allocation policy; advancing on the oceans agenda; and maintaining the capacity of the coast guard to ensure marine safety and facilitate marine commerce.

To move ahead on these policy challenges and priorities, the department must focus its attention on building confidence and trust, managing financial pressures, managing strategically, and working better with our clients.

Let me first turn to the issue of confidence and trust. Over the recent years, the department has gone through a very difficult period marked by downsizing, the merger with the coast guard, and changing relationships with our stakeholders. These changes occurred against a backdrop of very serious problems in the mainstay fisheries on the east and west coasts. In my view, we are beginning to put behind the massive change that we've incurred, and I think we're now better able to look ahead and to plan for the challenges that we face.

As the management team, building confidence and trust is a top priority for us at DFO. To restore the confidence and trust of Canadians, of our stakeholders, and of parliamentarians in DFO, we must deliver on our fundamental objectives, which are conservation and marine safety.

The $1.1 billion in restructuring measures announced in June of this year, for both the east and west coast fisheries, represents important progress to bring about the permanent change required to reduce fish harvesting capacity and improve conservation. In the future, progress for fisheries management will depend on advancing fishery industry self-rationalization, institutional reform—such as new allocation mechanisms—multi-licensed and multi-species enterprises to foster greater business flexibility, and the continued implementation of integrated fisheries management plans.

Better modelling, technology and survey instruments are being examined to improve the science and reliability of stock assessment. The processes on stock assessment have been made more transparent, open and inclusive. I would argue it is probably as inclusive and transparent as any science work done in the Government of Canada at this time. However, we continue to look and implement new approaches to make our stock assessment processes even more transparent.

Implementation of the oceans strategy will help restore confidence and credibility. Under that strategy, the shift in science and fisheries management is towards stronger protection for conservation through a more precautionary and ecosystem-based approach.

I think the department also needs to improve the way it communicates with stakeholders and with Canadians. The public needs to know more about our success stories, and I think they are numerous each year. For example, in the management of the crisis like Swissair flight 111, our fisheries officers and the coast guard were some of the first groups on the scene, and have continued to basically provide support even up to this period of time. The role of our department, whether it was the coast guard or the fisheries people, in the Manitoba flood and the Quebec floods cannot be denied.

While we have difficulty in the salmon fishery on the west coast and the cod fishery on the east coast, many of our fisheries are doing quite well, particularly shellfish and pelagics. As a matter of fact, since 1993, the trend in total landed value for all fisheries combined has been upwards. For many of our fisheries, co-management agreements are in place, and I would argue that we have an excellent working relationship between fishermen and the department in many of these fisheries.

• 0920

Turning to bridging the gap on resources, budgetary constraints, together with program review initiatives, have challenged the organization to rationalize and integrate departmental resources. The department will continue to manage these resources in a prudent way. Over the next several years, tough decisions will have to be made to further consolidate financial resources in light of ongoing pressures. However, key policy objectives, like conservation and marine safety, will be protected, the ocean strategy will be implemented, and we are working to improve our business processes to better align our resources with core and changing priorities.

Turning to strategic management, it is recognized that many of the challenges now experienced by the department will continue to occur, given the complexity and scope of the department's mandate. The priority is to maintain quality public service while addressing these challenges, in order to get ahead of the wave of issues before they develop into major problems. This requires the development of an internal capacity to strategically plan and manage an environment of fiscal restraint and high public expectations.

In 1998, since I've become deputy minister, this department has launched a number of initiatives to improve the way it manages its people, its resources, and its activities. We've undertaken a review of DFO's vision so that all employees can see where they fit into this department. We've undertaken a fairly major strategic planning exercise, and we've created a strategic planning and priorities branch, to allow us to look forward, to anticipate issues before they turn into a crisis. In this department, I think it's fair to say we tend to deal with issues at the crisis level. We have to get ourselves out from under that.

We've created an ocean sector. We say we want to move on oceans. We've decided to give that more profile by creating an oceans sector in this department. We have developed a human resource strategy that has special emphasis on recruitment of new people in this department. We are going out and hiring, for example, 80 new scientists a year in this department. We think it's very important, because many of scientists are getting older and we need new scientists to replace those who are aging. As well, we need to bring them in now so that those new scientists can learn from the years of experience that many of our older scientists have.

We have reviewed, as well, the management framework. I know there has been a lot of confusion between the role of the headquarters and the role of the regions. We have been working through that with the management team here in Ottawa and the regions to have further clarity as to who's responsible for what.

Most important of all, I think if you're going to operate a department in an effective way in the 1990s and beyond, you have to do it in terms of good business planning. Our business planning process in this department is not well defined. We are working very hard to establish a much better business planning system in the department.

Finally, working with our clients, the Canadian public and industry are making strong demands to see continued evidence of efficiency and savings in DFO operations and service delivery functions. They are also asking to participate in governing and controlling services. All DFO business lines have made significant progress in recent years in improving departmental relations with clients and partners, including provincial governments, and achieving effective participation by clients in decision making, information sharing and program delivery. But I think we need to do more in this area.

I can give you a couple of examples. We are involving the fishing industry in stock assessment. As part of sentinel fisheries on the east coast, 500 fishermen are now working with DFO scientists to collect data on cod stocks. I know there are still some very major issues that our fishermen have with scientists, but we're trying to bridge the gap by bringing fishermen in to help us do some of the science work. The Moncton region is working with fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on snow crab. In the Pacific, DFO has worked extensively with the ground fish resource conservation and the herring conservation and research societies. As I said, we will continue to find new and better ways of working with clients.

• 0925

In my view, we've undertaken a path to change the department. Change does take time, but we are trying to proceed as quickly as humanly possible. I do believe we have a plan that will allow the department to move forward to rebuild the confidence and trust that Canadians have and to respond to the challenges we face in Canada's fisheries and also in Canada's oceans.

This is a very brief overview. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to come here and talk to you about the department and to respond to any questions you may have. May I also suggest—and I know you raised this at the start, Mr. Chairman—that we would welcome members of this committee to come over to the department here in Ottawa to meet with us on an informal basis. I must say, many of our operations are in the regions, but we do have a number of functions here, and we would welcome you to come over and meet with us at any time.

Before we open it up to questions, I would like to introduce the management team. We thought it was important for this discussion to have all the management team present to meet with you so that you can see their faces and meet them. They're here also to respond to any questions you may have. We have Jacque Robichaud, who is DG, fisheries management. Unfortunately the ADM, Patrick Chamut, is away in Europe on some fisheries negotiations, so Jacque is here in his place. We also have Carol Beal, who has recently joined us as ADM, corporate services; Liseanne Forand, who has also recently joined us as ADM, policy; Larry Murray, associate deputy minister of the department; Dr. Scott Parsons, who has moved over as ADM, oceans; Dr. John Davis, who has come in from the west coast, who is acting ADM, science; and Bill Elliott, who has recently joined us as the new deputy commissioner of the coast guard.

Those are my comments. We're prepared to take any questions any of you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

To those of you who haven't visited a committee before, we have sort of an order that we follow with our questioning. We begin with the official opposition, who are given ten minutes, and then it rotates from there, with our various political parties being—

Lou, I recognize you there, but we have to wait our turn.

Gary, are you going to—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm going to start.

The Chairman: It might be well for our visitors that we give them who we are and what area we represent. They in turn would know a little bit better where we're coming from.

Mr. Gary Lunn: My name is Gary Lunn. I'm from Saanich—Gulf Islands in British Columbia.

I want to start off by saying thank you for coming.

I'm probably equally frustrated at what I've heard today, and I'll tell you why. We had you come before the committee when I was on this committee this time last year—in fact, Dr. Parsons came. I got a warm, fuzzy, five-minute speech on how great the department is doing, everything they're doing and all the successes. But over the last year I've seen utter chaos on both coasts when it comes to the commercial fishery. I will get into that in a little more detail and ask you for some more specific answers.

I know there's Swissair flight 111. Those are nice, wonderful stories. I would applaud the coast guard and everybody else involved with that, to the highest degree. But I don't think you need to come here and hang your hat on that. We've seen all those success stories. But there are serious questions that have to be asked, and we're still not getting answers.

You talked about the trust and confidence within DFO. As you've seen in our report— And again, I put these out as constructive criticisms. Members opposite me, as well, at least the ones who were there last year, travelled to both coasts, as you know, to some 25 communities. If there's one overriding theme in every single community— And you have to remember, this does not just come from commercial fishers; it comes from community leaders, from the business community that's there. Anybody who is remotely associated continued to tell us, over and over and over, about the lack of trust and confidence in DFO. It's gone. The stories we heard were incredible, and we get those over and over again.

• 0930

Yesterday we had a delegation from British Columbia consisting of native leaders, local mayors, leaders from the regional districts, and fishers, and we heard the same things over again: this department doesn't listen. They dictate to us what they want. They talk, they sing these nice words—just as in your presentation—saying they're going to consult. But they said that at the end of the day they'd come out, pretend they're consulting, and then go back and tell us what they're going to do. There's zero participation with this department. That's one of my frustrations.

I'll give you some examples. We talked last year in these reports— as you know, foreign overfishing was a major component. Again, this was an all-party committee with five political parties—sixteen members of Parliament. I don't think the department is listening. In fact, I know the department is not listening. I'll give you some specific examples.

Let's not go into the past, let's just look at what you've done in the last year under this current minister. And he's ultimately responsible. As you know, you've moved the zone in 3L in the east coast. That was done for one specific reason: to give foreign nations access to shrimp. I know my colleague from the east coast, Mr. Stoffer, will be addressing this as well. That's just one example. It goes against every single thing the committee, the fishing communities— These people are crying for a resource.

The same thing has happened on the west coast with the aboriginal fishing strategy. We've had provincial court judges, who under law still valid to this day have stated right in their decisions that DFO is disregarding the law. It's not what they want to hear, so they throw it out. Not one of the native leaders I met with—we had a delegation two weeks ago—was in favour of the pilot sales project. Yet the department, in its own blatant way and in total ignorance of all other input, seems to be on its own. Just like a bull in a china shop, they're going to do what they want to do no matter what anyone tells them. I find that increasingly frustrating. I almost wonder if any of this is worthwhile. Is there anyone who is really going to listen? We're only reporting what we hear out there.

I'll end with—and you've touched on it—the cod and salmon fisheries. Yes, there are problems there. There are huge problems. I have to wonder who's calling these shots. I'm sure my colleague John Cummins will probably add to this, but the decision process out there was utter chaos in this last fishing season. I wondered if anybody was in charge. One day we were told one thing and the next day we were told something else. The list goes on and on. They change the fishery, they open it, they close it, all within a few hours.

Yes, I applaud the department when the conservation has to be done, but I question whether in fact there is a basis for it. Is there a political agenda? We created the yellow and red zones, which as you know were complete moratoriums. Overnight, these zones would change. It would appear to appease certain people in the commercial sport sector. We have great difficulties with that. Commercial fishermen are given no access to the resource, yet people like Bob Wright all of a sudden have pockets opened up so we can have access for sport fishing lodges. That's so plainly clear amongst all sectors of the community.

Again, you come before the committee and you give us this nice warm, fuzzy presentation about how great the department is, it's the fourth largest, and only 11% of our workforce— We still have over 1,000 bureaucrats sitting here in Ottawa. I've nothing against bureaucrats, trust me. I'm just saying this department has operated this way for the last 20 years, and the record has been dismal, to say the least, over and over. These same people are still at the top, and we're not seeing any change.

The Chairman: You've used all your time for your speech. Do you want to ask some questions?

Mr. Gary Lunn: The comment I have is that these are very real concerns. I want to know who was in charge on the Pacific salmon and where these decisions are taking place. On the east coast, in 3L, was anyone listening when they moved that zone to give access to the foreign nations? I will leave it at that.

• 0935

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, the member has made a significant number of comments about the department, and I understand the frustration he feels.

I think what I tried to do in my opening remarks was not to basically highlight all the good points about the department, but mention where I think the department needs to make some fundamental changes. I began with the question of the issue of trust and confidence, which I think he alluded to throughout his remarks.

There are frustrations out there. We understand that. We do think we have a plan on both the east and west coasts that will address those concerns.

In my view, we are bringing fishermen more and more into the decision-making process. But when you go through a fundamental change, such as what we've seen on the west coast, and people's lives are being affected through this, I understand that. It's a very difficult situation. But I think it's felt within the department that for conservation reasons on the west coast, when it comes to the salmon fishery, we had to make the decisions we did or else there would be no fish left for any fishermen in the very near future.

We had to take those decisions, in our view, and we did. Yes, we will now look at the decisions we made and how we implemented them in the 1998 season. We think we did many things right. If there are things on which we were off base, we will make those changes. We will work with our clients. We intend to consult with our clients on the 1998 season.

The minister has recently come out with the directions for how we should manage the salmon fishery as we go forward. One of the fundamental issues for next year to allow fishermen on the west coast to make some decisions about their future and whether or not they want to take licence retirement is the question of allocation. Allocation is, in many cases, the key to fisheries management.

The minister has made it clear that he will be coming out with a policy on allocation that will be discussed with fishermen. We think that will be a very important part of the overall management regime for the salmon fishery as we go forward.

I hear the member, and I appreciate the concerns he's raising. I'm not disagreeing totally with what he says. I think there are some things with which I would disagree, but overall, I understand this and I appreciate the frustration. Those are the issues that this management team here is trying to address.

Now, there will be cases perhaps when we find that we aren't moving as quickly as some would like. But I think we understand and are prepared to make the necessary changes.

I'll just ask Jacque to comment a little bit on the issue of zone 3L.

Mr. Jacque Robichaud (Director General, Resource Management, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): First of all, I'll look at the fisheries the member indicated whereby there have been great value increases.

We have about 100 fisheries in Canada. Of these, about 30 fisheries are managed under a co-management approach where fishermen and industry get together and have a greater say in decisions and can work together in assuming and sharing responsibilities. I believe it's one of the reasons why those fisheries, shellfish and pelagic species, have worked in ensuring an increase in landings in the last few years. This co-management approach and close relationship is a key element in the management of fisheries.

The 3M shrimp fishery was exactly one of those issues. It's not a co-management approach, but the negotiating group, which included a provincial and industry representative, as well as DFO, sat to discuss and negotiate within NAFO. Everybody was able to partake in this. It's a process by which we get views from the industry and the province in order to come to an understanding.

One of our key objectives was outside the 200-mile limit in ensuring 100% of the recovery and getting this commitment from all parties around. One issue that came into the discussion was with regard to the area outside the 200-mile limit on the Flemish Cap pertaining to fishing areas for 3M shrimp. It was agreed—this was in consultation with all participants, including provincial representatives, unions, and so on—that there would be a 6.8-mile extension to the west where the fishery could be conducted.

• 0940

This, because of their using the normal grade, had no impact on the cod fishery and the recovery of the cod. Moreover, it accounts for 3% of the fishing area, always outside the 200-mile. It was done through discussions and exchanges, and through this approach I've indicated of consulting with groups that participated.

So this explains the 3M and how we got to it.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Actually, I'll let Mr. Cummins carry on.

The Chairman: John, I'm not sure if you want to. We have less than a minute left on the first ten-minute round.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Maybe you can just add it on.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): I'll just add a quick question.

In one of the sections in your brief, you say “Building confidence and trust is a top priority for DFO.” I'd like to know, Mr. Wouters, if your idea of building confidence and trust is to lay charges against fishermen who are protesting when your department breaks the law.

I'll just quote Judge Thomas so you get it straight, Mr. Wouters. Judge Thomas said, in the court record:

—it seems to me, that a determination that the Fraser River Fishery was closed to non-aboriginal fishers necessarily involved a determination of how and to whom the fishery was closed, and how a limited class of users was purportedly excluded from such closure. I therefore conclude that the D.F.O. has chosen to disregard the law as stated in R. vs. Cummins.

How are you going to build confidence, Mr. Wouters, when you're laying charges against fishermen?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is referring to the pilot sales issue. There have been a number of legal charges on that question. As many of you know, the pilot sales program was developed as a ministerial priority to provide economic development opportunities for aboriginal people. As we know—

Mr. John Cummins: It deprived aboriginal people of economic opportunity, Mr. Wouters. The minister knows it and you know it. Natives from Campbell River were down here two weeks ago telling you how hard done by they were because of your policy. So let's just get things straight for a change.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: We know—

The Chairman: I'm going to have to cut you off, Mr. Cummins. Your ten minutes have elapsed, but you will have time later.

Incidentally, Mr. Cummins didn't introduce himself. I think you know who he is and—

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I'm prepared to respond—

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but the ten minutes are up and we turn now to the Bloc.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you requested, I will introduce myself. My name is Yves Rocheleau and I am the member for Trois-Rivières, a riding on the shore of the St. Lawrence. I am also the critic for the Coast Guard.

I want to talk about two things: fishing and, of course, the Coast Guard.

As far as fishing is concerned, you undoubtedly know that the department has been the subject of some severe criticism. I heard some criticism when I travelled with the committee to Nunavut and the Canadian West. As my colleagues just said, there is a very deep feeling of dissatisfaction towards your department, and we're wondering how you are going to rectify the situation.

Mr. Deputy Minister, you talked about crisis management. Some people feel that you are part of the crisis and that perhaps you even triggered it. Everyone working in the sector is saying that an independent body should review the way you operate, particularly in the areas of resource management and allowable catches. We'd like to know what you think about the recommendation, one which has already been made with respect to the fishing sector.

The other aspect that is dear to my heart is the Coast Guard. Over the past two to three years, we have heard many witnesses tell us about their dissatisfaction with respect to the way the Coast Guard is being run and the way that it has been integrated into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where the Coast Guard is viewed as being somewhat unimportant. Because of the organizational culture, people are unable to have satisfactory contact with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through the Coast Guard. It's as though the Coast Guard were a foreign entity.

• 0945

My first question is therefore how are you going to rectify the situation so that people feel that they're an integral part of the consultation process? And that leads me to another criticism that we've heard. Meaningless consultations have been conducted throughout Canada for the past two to three years, particularly in Quebec, where the people actually have the impression that they're being laughed at by you, particularly by the people in the Coast Guard. How, therefore, do you intend to rectify the situation in order to restore their confidence?

I would like to ask you some more practical questions.

How can you recommend to the Minister that the federal Coast Guard ships be exempt from ice-breaking charges when the Quebec ferryboats aren't? Both are public services. There is a constitutional provision concerning Newfoundland's ferries, which is another question entirely. How can you have such a double standard whereby the Quebec ferries have to pay but the federal ships don't?

And how can you uphold the decision pertaining to the Magdalen Islands radio station, that you shut down? You maintain the lighthouses in British Columbia and in Newfoundland, but in Quebec, you modernized the facilities, which resulted in all kinds of layoffs. How can you explain the double standard? Despite the fact that the people are unhappy, you shut down the Magdalen Islands radio station, whereas you maintain some lighthouses in two provinces of Canada. How do you manage to convince the minister to get the Quebec users to foot 80% of the bill, in total disregard of Quebec's economy, and with all of the dangers that this entails, when in fact ice-breaking costs in the St. Lawrence account for only 33% of the cost?

Finally, I'd like to ask a question about the Coast Guard's management of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Who looks after the Seaway? We'd like to have some names. Is there an organizational chart? Does the St. Lawrence River have a special status because of its complex nature? Maybe it doesn't have one. I'd like you to tell the committee how the Coast Guard manages the St. Lawrence River so that we know who we're dealing with.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address the first question. Then my associate and the deputy commissioner for the coast guard could respond to that.

On the first issue, in terms of the fishery, we're quite aware of the criticism from and the dissatisfaction among our stakeholders and clients. I've tried to address this in my opening remarks, as well as the point that we seem, as the member has indicated, to be part of the crisis. I guess this is why I have tried to outline the need to do more effective planning, to look forward and anticipate the issues coming up, to be prepared to deal with them before they become crises. I think this is one of the important steps forward.

In terms of the coast guard, Larry and Bill may want to respond.

[Translation]

Mr. Larry Murray (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the questions on the Coast Guard and the merger, and Mr. Elliott will deal with ice-breaking.

Mergers such as the one between the Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans are very complicated and take some time. However, in the end, Canadians will benefit from a more effective and professional organization. We have to train people. I spent yesterday and the day before in Sydney where I visited Coast Guard cadets to discuss training with the young officers. A great deal of progress has been made in both organizations. When you visit the Coast Guard stations in Quebec City, Halifax, Vancouver or Esquimalt, you can see some very positive changes in this regard. Our officers and ship crews are much more comfortable with their role in Fisheries and Oceans, with the scientific sector.

• 0950

We saw a good example of this last week, when the Governor General and the Minister welcomed the Des Groseillers, which had spent 17 months in the Far North doing some excellent scientific work. I think that the co-operation between the Coast Guard and the scientific sector in Fisheries and Oceans is all the better for the merger. It will take some time because two very different cultures have come together, but I think a great deal of progress has been made in this area. I'm quite objective because I joined the department a year ago. I think that this was a good decision and that, at the end of the day, we will have a better organization.

As for your question pertaining to ice-breaking, I'll ask Mr. Elliott to answer.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Elliott, I'm sorry, but our time has lapsed.

Mr. Rocheleau, if you would permit, I will get back to you later to finish the question on ice-breaking services.

We are going to the ten minutes for the government side. Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm new to this committee, but I was the mayor and a council member for 25 years in the city of Coquitlam. I also saw some really sad cases of things that happened between the fisheries and the municipality, or the fisheries and the different communities.

I begin to wonder. Why are there a thousand people here in Ottawa on fisheries? There are no fish in Ottawa, except maybe the politicians. That's about the only fish to be had. So I think there's something drastically wrong with this.

Secondly, we have a provincial government with a department of fisheries. Then there's the federal government. What happens if they don't work with each other? And if they do, it's like johnny-come-lately.

When I was mayor in Coquitlam, there was a development that I had a tremendous time putting through. A creek had to be relocated, and if it wasn't the provincial fisheries, it was the federal fisheries, but never together. Either one or the other was the stumbling block. Finally, as the mayor I got them all into one room. I said to them, “Look, this thing has to be resolved. This creek can be replaced or diverted. Otherwise, I'll fly to Ottawa or Victoria.” Both levels of government came together in half an hour and agreed the creek could be replaced.

That development has now created 200 jobs. It's done very nicely. There were certainly no problems. But it was a holdup for forever and a day.

I travelled through British Columbia this summer. I was in Williams Lake. There's one there involving the mayor, the council members, the chamber of commerce, and business. It is mining. There's a place where there could be 800 jobs, millions and millions of dollars of employment and a few other things. But there is a little creek that needs replacing, and your department of fisheries said no.

You know, it's easy to say no. But how can we come together and say yes? How can we work together and decide we can make this work? It was like in my city. It was very easy for the departments to say “No, and that's it.” But where is the yes, where we can work together and maybe make it work?

We're 4,000 miles away and it's easy for Ottawa to say no. But how about these jobs that are very badly needed in British Columbia? And how can we make it work? Those are the questions I would like to ask.

There's another thing we are doing. The provincial government in B.C. wants a 150-foot setback on development from any creek or water course. In British Columbia, there are many water courses. And I guess the federal fisheries department is working with them, and saying: “Yes, we need that setback.”

I'm all for environment, believe me. But, say I own an acre or two acres of land and there's a creek running right in the middle of my property. I can't develop that property. The next-door neighbour can't develop his because the setback is 150 feet. So I'm now affecting the neighbour's property.

• 0955

The provincial government says to the municipality: “You're going to have to enforce that law.” Who is going to pay these people for their land? Am I—and I don't really own any land with creeks running through it—going to swallow this, as a person who probably has had this land for many, many years? So this was my retirement deal, but somehow the federal government isn't going to pay for it. The provincial government isn't going to pay for it. The municipal government can't afford to pay for it.

Those are some of the questions I'd like to ask. What takes place really irks me. I think we have to come together with the federal and provincial fisheries, to where we're one body or we relate to each other. If there's a development that has a problem with fisheries, don't have the federal fisheries one month, the provincial fisheries the next, so the development is held up for a thousand years, maybe more.

I was there for 25 years, and not one development went through that was not frustrating to me when it came to both sides of the fisheries. It seems like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Those things really concern me. I'd like to ask someone to answer some of the things I'm bringing up.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the honourable member raises some pretty significant issues.

First, on the head office versus the regions, I know this has been raised on a number of occasions in the past. I guess our view is that we are one of the most decentralized federal departments, if not the most. We have 10% to 11% in Ottawa. This may sound like a lot. If you're running an organization of 10,000 people, I suspect, or if you look at any business in Canada or United States of this size, it would probably have a head office that would come close to this.

Of those 1,000 people, about 370 are coast guard employees who are managing the fleet. In certain cases, the issues in the coast guard have to be managed nationally. If we're moving ships around from coast to coast or in the north, there has to be a central location for that.

We have very few fish managers. I think it's about 85 or 86. When it comes to science, only about 112 of those 800 or so scientists are here in Ottawa. The rest are in the regions.

When it comes to the minister's office and the policy side, if you were to move everyone out to the regions, then you would duplicate your corporate services. You'd need five or six HR human resource capacity. You would need your finance and administration there in all the different areas. The view is that to achieve efficiencies you have them in one place and provide that service to all the regions, but give the regions enough economy and staff to make the decisions they need to out there.

In our view, 1,000 out of 9,000 is not a very large complement. It may sound like a lot. In our view, if you look at the efficiency we can achieve that way, and the need to do some things centrally through the coast guard, it isn't a significant number.

The honourable member also raises some environmental issues. In terms of federal-provincial working relations, these have always been difficult ones. I can't speak to the provincial proposal on setback. But on environmental assessment, we are trying to perhaps untangle some of the confusion. We have been working across the country with the provinces to see if we can delegate certain responsibilities for habitat. At the same time, we've tried to enter into working arrangements and agreements with a number of provinces, including the province of British Columbia, where we have made some progress in how we do environmental assessments with them.

Maybe we haven't gone as far as the honourable member would like us to go. But we've signed a memorandum of understanding with the province on habitat protection, where we've agreed to try and untangle some of our roles and responsibilities, and to provide a clearer focus for those individuals who want to proceed with development in that province.

• 1000

So we are making some progress there, and it is an area of federal-provincial overlap that we're trying to untangle.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

And now we'll go to the west coast. Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a final comment on what I was mentioning before, Mr. Wouters. For your information, provincial court law is as valid as the law of the Supreme Court of Canada. If you don't like a provincial court decision, you have the opportunity to appeal it to a superior court, to ask that court for clarification. Your department didn't. You went out and you broke the law; you took the law into your own hands. You, Mr. Wouters, are the lawbreaker. I did the jail time, but you're the lawbreaker. And that's the last word I'm going to alot to that today. I want to see you withdraw the charges against those guys; that's the way you can respond to me.

The last section of your paper is an introduction to senior management. I'm going to give you the opportunity to do that. What I'd like to know, Mr. Wouters, is what was the last job you had before you had this one? How much time have you spent in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? I'd also like that from the high-priced help you have brought with you who are involved in the fisheries component of your department. Answer me if you would, please.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: If I understand your question correctly, are you asking basically what the background is of each one of us to bring to this job.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to know about your background before you took the job you now have and about how much time you've spent at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, your experience at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I'd also like that from the senior managers you have with you who are involved in the fisheries management in your department.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I've spent 20 years in the public service, beginning my career in the public service of Saskatchewan, and moving to the federal government. The initial part of my career was in the resource sector, in the energy sector, where I spent seven years. It was at that point the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Mr. John Cummins: I would like to interrupt for a minute, Mr. Wouters. I'm not interested in the complete résumé. All I want to know is how much time you've spent with the Department of Fisheries in fisheries-related management. That's all.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I've been in the department for one year now. Prior to that, I had experience in the fisheries area when I was in the Privy Council Office. I did a lot of work on fisheries-related issues in British Columbia. I was involved in the negotiations leading to the memorandum of understanding that we entered into with the Province of British Columbia.

Prior to that, I was head of a task force in the Newfoundland economy that had the overall responsibility of looking at how we could diversify from the fishery and as well at what measures we can put in place to deal with the moratorium. Some of those discussions led to programs like TAGS and others. At the same time, as I was involved in those discussions I also took on the job, while head of the Newfoundland task force, as acting ADM of policy in fisheries for a period of time.

So I've had some background experience in the fisheries department. Most of my career has also dealt with different resources other than fisheries, so I do have a significant resource background in the public service.

The Chairman: Mr. Robichaud.

Mr. Jacque Robichaud: I have had 34 years in the service of the government. Out of 15 years in fisheries, I have spent most of eight years managing fisheries in the Maritimes, in the Quebec region, as well as coordinating various fisheries across the Atlantic.

The Chairman: Miss Beal.

Ms. Carol Beal (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I joined Fisheries and Oceans about a year ago. I'm a Maritimer, so I have an empathetic view of the fishery, but not much practical experience other than over the last year.

The Chairman: Madam Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I joined the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1986. I took leave from the department in 1993 and I served as director general of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. I just rejoined the department starting in April.

• 1005

The Chairman: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray: I've been in the department for one year. I've been in the public service, mostly in the armed forces, for 34 years, including commanding three ships and a squadron of destroyers.

Mr. John Cummins: You are combining the navy with fisheries, are you?

Mr. Larry Murray: In my naval career, in my sea time, I was significantly involved at all levels in fisheries patrol, fisheries enforcement and overseeing. As deputy chief of the defence staff, as a commander in the navy and as acting chief of the defence staff, I was involved in monitoring recent fisheries disputes in which the armed forces were involved. So at least in one aspect of that business, I have some experience. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Scott Parsons (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I was involved previously with science. I've worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its predecessors for thirty years and six months, and then prior to that four years as a summer student while I was going through university.

I was born and reared in a small fishing community, Lumsden, on the east coast of Newfoundland.

The Chairman: Dr. Davis.

Mr. John Davis (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm the acting ADM, science. I'm from the west coast. I started with the department 27 years ago, on graduation from university. I worked primarily in habitat and environmental work, looking at pollution problems with salmon. I came up through the ranks. I was director general for the Ontario region, and director general of our fisheries operations fisheries management function for five years here in Ottawa. Currently I'm the science director for the west coast, where I've been since 1986.

The Chairman: Mr. Elliott.

Mr. William J.S. Elliott (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I've been with the department a little more than three weeks. My previous job was as a lawyer, as head of legal services for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Wouters, some of your people obviously have a long and I'm sure a very positive career in the department, and others are very new to it.

I want to know how you can hope to build confidence in the department when, for example, you appoint as a regional director general someone from the heritage department who has limited experience in the fisheries. Years before that, the regional director general was someone from Agriculture Canada who hadn't been in the department for years before that. How do you pull these people from somewhere else and put them in the Department of Fisheries, which is a very complex operation? How do you expect that you're going to have a positive feeling in your employees? And how are you going to get the confidence of the people who've been working in that industry all their lives? How can you possibly do that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, a good management team is one that is well diversified and has had experience in the public service with some related experience, including the fisheries. It is a complex area, as the honourable member indicated. If you look at this management team, you have that combination.

This department has been criticized for having managers who have been around too long, for having people in places far too many years. We need to make changes and bring in new people. What I've tried to do is to combine those who have some fairly long experience in this department who can contribute to the knowledge that we need to have as a management team with some new people with new ideas, new views on how we should manage the fishery. May I suggest—

Mr. John Cummins: In view of your experience with the department, your response is appropriate, but it's certainly not one I agree with.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, John, your time is up again.

We can get back to that, but I think Mr. Wouters probably didn't indicate that as a deputy minister he doesn't control all appointments. Some of these come from the Privy Council Office, I believe. You might have asked whether he made those recommendations. Probably we will ask that question later.

We'll go now to the east coast. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you all very much for coming. We're going to take you up on that invitation to come to 200 Kent Street.

• 1010

First of all, I want to compliment the coast guard on the work they did on the Swissair disaster. It was outstanding work. I know those people went through a private hell, and I'll comment on that in a second.

Also, you should be complimented for the information I've been able to give to my students in the schools on Oceans Day and the Year of the Oceans. You should be complimented on that.

Further, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography had an open house thing, and that was very successful. It's only too bad the thing's been gutted and filleted like a fish, when you compare what it used to be in the 1970s and 1980s to what it is now. In terms of morale, this is an absolute disaster. I'll get into that later.

Mr. Wouters, you are constantly talking about your clients. Would a person like Eric Himmelman, a scallop fisherman down in Shelburne, be a client? Would Scott Nickerson, an inshore fisherman from Cape Sable Island, be a client? Would Merle Hewison of the Saskatchewan Federation of Aboriginal Fishermen be a client? Or, in those instances, would a client referred to be a Mr. Bob Wright, a Galen Weston, Jim Pattison, Harry Dumoine or John Rifley of Clearwater?

The reason I say this, sir, is because the salary of every one of you here in this room is paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, and from what I've seen since I've been a parliamentarian for a year and a half, the perception now from the fishermen on the east coast, the central inland waters and that, is you don't give a rat's ass about them.

I hate to use that type of strong language. Let me give you some references. First of all, on page 4 of your documentation you say: “These changes occured against a backdrop of serious problems in the mainstay fisheries on the East and West Coasts.” There's not a mention of your responsibility on inland waters, on freshwater. I don't think anyone's here from freshwater, so I won't comment on it. But what I would like to ask for right now is a meeting between myself and someone in the department to discuss three separate things.

First is the post-TAGS adjustment program. Second is the diamond mine in the Northwest Territories. The reason I ask for that is because your mandate is no net loss to habitat, and there they drain lakes and destroy the habitat of thousands of fish, and we don't see any recommendations or where the mainstay of that fish is going to happen. Third is the Red Hill Creek in the Hamilton valley. Those are three things I would like to personally meet with the department on at your convenience. What I'm asking for you is someone from your department for those specific areas. The fourth one is on freshwater. I would like to meet with you at your convenience. You tell me the time when I can meet. I'd like to meet with those individuals regarding those specific objects.

Now, on the coast guard, in my opinion the only thing the coast guard and DFO had in common was water and ships. When they merged I said this was going to be a complete disaster for working people within the coast guard and DFO, and I've been proven correct.

Mr. Anderson, to his credit, sent those people of the Mary Hichens a letter complimenting them on their work on the Swissair disaster. Within breathing time, they also received a lay-off letter indicating that the ships they were on are were going to be laid up for an indefinite period of time and their positions with the coast guard would be on lay-off for a while. They won't have any work. This was in the same breath. It's an absolute disgrace that these people are treated in this fashion.

You also said, Mr. Wouters, that you're talking about your review policies and you'll be reviewing them again. On November 9 of this year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appointed three people to the board of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. This was a week after we released our freshwater report. I know you can't comment on this, because you had mentioned that. But you had said you want to be open, transparent and clear. Is this a new policy effective today, or is this something you plan on working on in the future?

It's an absolute disgrace to the people of the inland waters, especially in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that appointments would be made without any consultation with the people up there, or even our committee after the report had just been released. It's absolutely unbelievable you would do this in that kind of a manner.

There are so many other things I could mention. I'll mention zones 3L and 3M. Our information, sir, is that the line has moved not just 6.8 nautical miles, but 80 nautical miles. Minister Anderson had said publicly that the United States are a powerful nation and we have to tread carefully when we deal with them. Yet the Faroe Islands, through the European Economic Community, insisted on an excess allocation of shrimp resources, and they received it. The trade-off was foreign observers. My question to you, sir, is who are those observers? Who appoints the observers? Have you seen foreign observer reports? Earle McCurdy of the FFAW has said no, and Keith Colwell, the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia, has said no.

The fact is, gentlemen, the towns of Canso and Mulgrave have absolutely no access to shrimp. The town of Mulgrave's shrimp cleaning and processing plant will be shutting down at the end of this year to move to Arnold's Cove in Newfoundland, because Newfoundland has an excess amount of capacity and they can't get all the shrimp.

• 1015

The town of Canso will be claiming civic bankruptcy in the new year because they can't get access. I was out there, and I saw 14 tuna boats from P.E.I. and Southwest Nova, and not one from Canso, although they have two tuna licences and I could literally throw a rock from the wharf to where the boats were. When you talk about adjacency and allocation, you're not doing it for the people.

I can go on and on, but I'll let you answer some of those other questions.

The Chairman: I'm having trouble as chairman again. We allocated five minutes, and you've taken nearly the whole five minutes, if not all of it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They can get back to me; they don't have to answer it now.

The Chairman: To the witnesses, we will have to wait to get those answers, unless the committee wants to allow two or three minutes for a reply. What is your wish?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The last second I had—

The Chairman: But we're allocating two or three minutes now for a reply. I'll use a little bit of the time to mention that if what you're saying on the record today, in terms of your request to meet with departmental officials, is you have requested that in the past and it has not been met, I'd be very disappointed. I assume that you have written a letter and they have not complied. Is that what you are saying to the committee?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, the last comment I was going to make is that there are a thousand people here in Ottawa, and I would think you should be able to get a response from a letter a lot quicker than three months. I've written many letters to the department. I've received some responses, but other people have called me and sent me documentation—

The Chairman: To establish the first part, I would assume the witnesses will answer you by letter in terms of your requests for meetings.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, that's new; that's what I want to—

The Chairman: But have you requested meetings and have you not met with a favourable reply?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, I haven't. I'm asking them now.

The Chairman: Okay, but for all members I think you certainly can write to the minister or to the deputy and I believe that most departments are quite good in answering members.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I asked them that now on those specific points so that they can get the people regarding those specific questions I had for future.

The Chairman: Yes.

Now, Mr. Wouters, we'll allow you two minutes to try to answer.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I don't know if I can respond to all of the honourable member's comments and questions in two minutes.

As for the first comment in terms of who we represent or don't represent, I find this one quite interesting, because if I talk to a lot of the offshore people they think we tend to be biased for the inshore, and if we talk to the inshore people they think we are always biased against the offshore and that we are always pitting one fleet against the other. We're consistent in one thing, and that's not pleasing anyone when it comes to our consultations.

I would argue that we try to consult and work with all fleets in all sectors. I think we are not in any way attempting to be biased against any one fleet, whether it's the large recreation or the lodge owner or whether it's the offshore fleet. If you look at the whole question of partnering, which is one this committee has spent some time on, I think you've raised some major, fundamental questions that we've listened to and we've said before we move forward— They are major questions because largely those questions have come from many inshore fishermen who are asking what this means for them.

As a department, I think the minister has listened and the department has listened and said that before we proceed on that we need to do more work. And we've hired Donald Savoie to help us on that. I would argue that the department tries to be balanced in its policies and in our consultations with all fleets in all sectors.

The honourable member raises some issues on freshwater and freshwater strategy. I think we will in due course be coming out with a policy statement on freshwater to ensure that there is more clarity on that issue, so I think we can respond to that. I will not comment on the freshwater marketing. The minister will be here on the appointments and you may want to refer to him on that.

On shrimp, I think it's fair to say there was an increase in the TAC. I probably have not seen more representations in the department than on this fishery. It's always when a fishery is going up that we tend to have a lot of interests who want access. I think we had representations from every province in Atlantic Canada for access, from many different communities in Atlantic Canada for access, and from those in Newfoundland who are most affected by the cod fishery wanting access.

• 1020

I think the minister has tried to address the issue through the adjacency, the temporary licence, to ensure that existing licence holders are not unduly affected by the increased allocation. But in the end, in this business there is always a case where someone does not necessarily get all the fish, or the share they think they're entitled to. That is always the difficult issue around allocation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: May I just make one more point, Mr. Chairman?

We will accept his invitation on those issues. We're prepared to have him come over any time. We'll sit down with him and go through those items he has raised.

Mr. Larry Murray: I think it would be useful as well to close the loop in detail on the coast guard issue, which we didn't have time to address. Mr. Stoffer spoke—

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer will have more time later this morning, but I want to move now to the Liberal side of the House. Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, and welcome.

I'm new to this area as well. I've travelled with the committee, and I think you admitted the anger and frustration that's out there in the fishing community. We've seen it and stated it vividly in the report, and we recognize things have to change from this side.

But in fairness to you and your management team, we can't have it both ways in this committee. We said a year and half ago, when the minister was before the committee, that we wanted changes at the top. When I look at the personnel who are here today versus those who were here last time, about two are the same, and even one of those I believe has shifted positions. So I would doubt, in terms of looking at the management team, there's a department in Ottawa that's had the substantial shift in management of this department.

On the difficulties we're having with you today and members opposite, I don't think there's a problem with differences on policy. As a management team, you have to take your direction from the elected government, which happens to be our side at the moment, and manage that policy accordingly.

The difficulty we're seeing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is when you talk to the fishing community there isn't a feeling that we're headed in the same direction. You mentioned that in terms of trust and confidence, and we somehow have to establish that trust and confidence. The bottom line is although we may disagree on policy, we have to somehow agree that the direction in which we want to go is the same. That's what we have to somehow achieve over time here.

When I was first appointed parliamentary secretary I did a tour of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. I want to know if there have been any shifts—I haven't checked since—in management. I'll use St. Andrews as an example. I went to St. Andrews as one of the stops. There were three offices with site managers in one, scientists in the next one, and an engineer—I'm not sure if it was engineer or not—in the third. But in managing that site, if the site manager had a problem and he wanted the scientist to address it, he couldn't ask the scientist on that site. The scientist first had to ask Halifax, and Halifax had to authorize the scientist to do A, B, C, and D. If the engineer was involved, he had to go to the engineer and get authorization from Moncton.

Why wouldn't we have a system of management set up where the site manager is in charge and if the site isn't operating we do the same as we do in the private sector—fire him? If he's not doing his job, you fire him. So I want to know how those sites are managed now.

• 1025

The other big problem I see—and sometimes it's us putting political pressure on from both sides for a different kind of decision—is when a decision is made on a fishery, be it lobster, tuna or whatever, and we're down to the last 48 hours, the fishermen are sitting there wondering “Am I going to go fishing or not? I have to get my gear ready.” Some are getting their gear ready without being authorized to go. So how can we improve on that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I will try to address a couple of these points and will ask my associate deputy minister to address the issue on the maritime region.

On the question of confidence and trust, I think we really have a challenge here, as the management team, to get what we think we need to do down to the front lines and bring those individuals on board. I think we should all appreciate where we are, as a department, and where our employees are.

We have those 7,000 people outside Ottawa in the regions, and they're the ones who have had to go through the dramatic changes in this department. They're the ones who have had to take the coast guard and the department and bring them together. They're the ones who have had to deal with the 35% cuts, and at the same time they have to come to work every day to deal with the crises they see, whether they're on the east coast or the west coast.

Furthermore, they have to face the criticisms. I'm not disputing whether those criticisms are valid or not; they're just criticisms. It's very difficult for an employee to face all those changes, plus deal with that. Sometimes our employees begin to look within, and the result is somewhat of a bunker mentality, as we say. So we have to get our staff and our employees away from the bunker mentality. With the changes and criticisms they've had to deal with and the workload, the pressure has been very significant for them.

So whether you're in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or Nanaimo, our employees are feeling that. We have to help them sort of rebuild the confidence in the organization and with our clients.

On fish management plans, you raised the timeliness. That's an excellent point. We hope this year to be in a position to have our plans finalized and announced far in advance of the season openings. We would like to—and intend to—develop a schedule as to when we will be in a position to announce management plans, so not only our employees but fishermen who are waiting to fish will know in advance when the plan will be finalized and announced. We think that will help deal with the problems we encountered, particularly last year.

Mr. Larry Murray: In terms of the management structure at the regional or sub-regional level, that is a good question. Certainly in the Maritimes and in all the regions, post-program review, a number of changes were made in terms of science. An effort was made in the Maritimes to produce centres of excellence so everyone in the region could draw on St. Andrews for aquaculture, and other centres of excellence for other things. I presume that's part of the change that happened in the context of program review. It's part of the disconnection Mr. Easter encountered.

As the deputy mentioned, we have been taking a fairly across-the-board look at management within the department. There have been some recent actions taken. The minister announced the re-establishment of the gulf fisheries region in Moncton a month or so ago, which we hope will deliver the department closer to clients with the necessary expertise, regionally in particular, in relation to the fishery.

Throughout the country, we are now looking at the area management structure. The issue becomes one of trying to serve clients as effectively as possible with one-stop shopping, while at the same time ensuring, in relation to Mr. Cummins' point, we have the necessary expertise at the local level to make decisions and so on. So we are having a look at all of that.

• 1030

We're bringing all the area managers to Ottawa in the next few weeks to visit that issue, but we think they need to have a voice in how this unfolds across the country. At the end of the day there will be some further refinement and adjustment in that structure, but it's a question of balancing expertise and one-stop shopping.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

We probably have time this morning for at least one round of questioning. For the witnesses, unfortunately Mr. Matthews, representing the PC Party from Newfoundland, is not here today. As a result, we are maybe a bit lacking from that province.

I can't help but think it's a concern when we hear that 10% of the staff of the fisheries department is in Ottawa. But the witnesses should also realize that if you add up the city versus fishing communities the fisheries department works from—if you add together Ottawa, Vancouver, Halifax and St. John's—you might see some of the frustration really that's out there among the rural areas where the fishing really happens. When you go back to your office, I hope you will add up those totals to see how people back at the 40-boat wharves perceive what's happening with your department.

Probably for Mr. Matthews too, I would like to hear something on management of the seals. Fisher people get a very bum rap when it comes to sealing. Certain provinces in the west have been very successful in maintaining their environment, in terms of various species, with annual kills. Now we've seen a tremendous explosion in the number of seals. I know the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland has been here in Ottawa talking to you about that.

I hope you will reflect upon the sealing. A major attack on the fishery is being put forward by that species. We're led to believe it's going to be a major factor unless we get some control of the estimated probably 4 million to 6 million seals we have on the east coast. Perhaps one of you could comment on the sealing business, for Mr. Matthews, and how we as a department can attempt to have a better balance between fish and seals to enable at least the fish side to survive at an acceptable standard.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will do those numbers as you have asked, and will also look at the regional headquarters staff compared to the staff outside the regional headquarters and just see what numbers come out of that.

On the sealing issue, the management plan the minister has announced is to try to maintain a sustainable yield for the sealing industry. That has met with different degrees of controversy, depending on who you speak to. But that has been the overall policy intent. At this time we are undertaking some consultations with the sealing industry to determine what the overall tack should be this year.

We have the Greenland situation where we're getting more up-to-date information. A joint ICES-NAFO working group has just come out with a report that has indicated the Greenland harvest has been significantly higher than what we had anticipated. So we have to look at that in the context of our own fishery to determine what the tack should be. But the policy has been to try to manage to the sustainable yield. There are some other issues pertaining to marine mammal regulations where we've undertaken some consultations with the industry.

We think it is very important, in dealing with this issue over the longer term, to undertake a survey again. I think the last survey was in 1994. We wanted to begin this survey last year. If we're managing to the sustainable yield, how many seals are out there? We have an estimate that's quite old. We tried to launch that survey last year, but because of ice conditions the seals were not on the ice. The ice level was not there, so we couldn't carry forward with that survey. We intend to do it this year. Hopefully with that information, along with our discussions with Greenland, we will be able to come forward with some recommendations for the minister on setting the harvest level for this year and beyond.

• 1035

The Chairman: Does your department have any number, a gross number of seals that can be supported on the east coast?

Mr. Jacque Robichaud: Do you mean the number—the level at which it should be?

The Chairman: Where they should be to be sustainable, yes.

Mr. Jacque Robichaud: In the 1970s, pretty well at the end of the whitecoat hunt, the harp seal was at around two million. In our 1994 survey it was presented at 4.8 million or thereabouts. Following two fora with stakeholders, we've established the replacement yield at 286,000. Now, is that level too high or too low? It is to maintain the population at 4.8 million. Some people will say there are a lot more than that being killed and the level is lower. Others would say no, it's bigger. That's why, as the deputy indicated, we want to conduct a survey.

As well, my colleague could explain there has been a point put forward that seals have an impact on the recovery of the cod. Well, a couple of years ago ICES concluded that because of different factors, they could not determine the level of the impact. To this end, I believe there will be some workshops.

The Chairman: I only have a short time—I'm doing this for Mr. Matthews, maybe for all of us—but my question is whether the department has a number to strive for in terms of the number of seals we can sustain with a balance in the fishery. We know each seal probably eats between 20 to 40 pounds of fish per day. I think that's an acceptable— It's broad enough to make me not too wrong. In any case, what numbers do we see on the east coast as our objective of how many seals should be out there?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I would like to have Dr. Scott Parsons, who has worked in this area for some time, respond to that.

Mr. Scott Parsons: Thank you.

The seals issue and the impact of seals on fish is of course, as the committee heard in its travels around Atlantic Canada, one of the most sensitive and frustrating issues for fishermen around. To come to your question—

The Chairman: I'd like an answer to my question. I have seen some of your reports on how you've done work on seal stomachs and you say there are no cod there. But for the people in Newfoundland, there's no cod in their stomachs either. I don't think that report really reflected the relationship between cod and seals. I'm asking you today, Mr. Parsons. You've been in the department for 30 years. Somebody there must have an answer for the people of Newfoundland and eastern Canada about what the optimum level of the number of seals on the east coast is.

Mr. Scott Parsons: Seals obviously eat fish. We have quantification now that the quantities of fish consumed by seals is something in the order of seven million tonnes of fish a year. The bulk of that is species like Arctic cod—not the Atlantic cod, but the northern species—and species like capelin. But they do eat Atlantic cod, as well—several hundred thousand tonnes a year. The several hundred thousand tonnes of Atlantic cod they eat tend to be the smaller cod, the younger cod.

There is an issue, which Jacque Robichaud referred to, in terms of what the impact of that is on the rebuilding of the cod stocks. There was a conclusion by the NAFO scientific council in 1987 that this amount of consumption of young cod could be impeding the recovery of some cod stocks. But a broader group of scientists looking at this internationally had difficulty in actually quantifying the impact. If you change the level of the seal population, what would the actual impact be on the rebuilding of the cod stock? There is a workshop occurring in December on that.

• 1040

The Chairman: In our minds, collectively, the seal is one of the few species that are handled by Fisheries and Oceans where you can get a fairly accurate count. The ones under the water you have great trouble trying to predict, but the seals we can predict. What, in your opinion, for the record, is the maximum number of seals on the east coast that should be sustainable, should be kept, should be maintained? In other words, if there's a cull, what is the number?

They do this with the bears out west. There's not a lot of public outcry over it. In many communities in western Canada the environmentalists and the various natural resource people have a number of bears that they want to maintain in certain communal areas over a projected period of time.

Are you able to tell us today what the number of seals should be?

Mr. Scott Parsons: There is not a magic answer to the question of what the optimum number of seals should be. As referred to earlier, after years of intensive hunting the population was around two million seals. In a survey that was done in 1994 it was 4.8 million.

The Chairman: I find it very difficult to believe today that your department still doesn't have an answer on this very important element of the fishery on the Atlantic coast.

I know I must move on. It's my own time, and I'm only allowed five minutes. I would hope you can come back to this committee sometime so that we can tell the world what is happening out there in terms of the seals.

We've seen seals in the minor waterways of eastern Canada this year, as much as 50 miles inland looking for fish. We have a serious problem with seals that are under great stress because they don't have enough food to eat. Yet we've seen this go from two million to four million to probably as many as even six million seals out there. Somehow as a department and as a government we have to address this issue. I would hope you'd take that under advisement.

We'll now move on to the Reform Party and John Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Wouters, let's take a look at your objective of reinforcing conservation as the cornerstone of fisheries management. Last spring, as part of your coho protection plan, you designated red zones and yellow zones, red zones being no-fish zones to protect the coho, yellow zones being fishing on the condition that a few coho or no coho were intercepted.

On the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, when your scientists were developing the charts that would designate red and yellow zones, the whole area was designated as a red zone. Some suggestions were made by the Sport Fishing Institute that there really weren't any coho if you stuck to an area that is only a mile or so offshore, along the top end of the Queen Charlotte Islands and around Langara Island.

That observation by the Sport Fishing Institute is simply false. There's a point there called Cohoe Point, and it's not called Cohoe Point because there are no coho. It's called Cohoe Point for a very good reason.

The Haida natives and the locals from Masset tell me—and it's a matter for the public record—that in the 1997 season gillnetters probably caught a little better than a thousand coho. It's estimated this year that the sport fishermen at Langara Island were killing about 900 coho a day. This was happening in a time when there was supposed to be a moratorium against harvesting coho. Your scientists were opposed to it. You overruled your scientists. Why did you ignore your scientists' advice and create the yellow zone on the top end of the Queen Charlotte Islands?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, I will have our senior scientist for the Pacific region answer that question.

• 1045

Mr. John Davis: The honourable member refers to the situation where red and yellow zones were created. The red and yellow zones were designated as areas of prevalence or absence of the stocks of concern. The red zones were described as areas where the stocks of concern from the Skeena River drainage would appear and also the stocks from the Thompson River, which were the ones that were more depressed. Those were the basis on which the maps were developed.

In his announcements the minister pointed out that there would be various types of experimental fishing carried out in some of these zones, including the red zones, using techniques such as barbless hooks. Therefore, the whole objective was to be as conservation conscious as possible in the prosecution of those fisheries. It was not that the red zone was a definitive, absolute, no-take zone, but it was flagged as an area where the stocks of concern may be prevalent.

The whole fishing plan was developed on the basis of the differentiation of the seaward distribution of the fish. It was the opinion that the mortality could be kept to a very low level. In the pursuit of those fisheries we were embarking on a new and different way of fishing on the west coast, moving to barbless hooks, moving to very selective fishing techniques in the commercial fishery. That was the basis on which those plans were prosecuted.

Mr. John Cummins: The fact is that the policy and the charts did not reflect the recommendations of your scientists. There are estimates that probably 50,000 or 60,000 coho were killed in this area by sport fishermen last summer. That's the reality of it. You ignored the best advice of your scientists. There's absolutely no question about that.

I want to switch to another area very quickly. On the marine conservation areas and subclause 4.(2) of the bill before Parliament, it says:

(2) Reserves for marine conservation areas are established in accordance with this Act for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) when an area or a portion of an area is subject to a claim by aboriginal people that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada under its comprehensive land claims policy.

When an area has been accepted for negotiation by the federal government under its comprehensive land claims policy or a treaty negotiation process, does the department tend to designate that area as a marine park? Such a policy could eliminate non-native fishermen from virtually all of B.C. under the current land claims. Is that the intention of the department?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Before we answer that question, Mr. Chairman, it's very important that we respond to the comment made that science was ignored in the west coast fishery. I would like Dr. Davis to respond to that point. He is our senior scientist, who has the overall responsibility for science in the west coast. He was very much part of the decision-making process on the west coast. Then we will turn to the next question the honourable member has made.

The Chairman: Dr. Davis?

Mr. John Davis: The honourable member suggested that the science was ignored. That is not the case. The science was used throughout the whole development of the plan. Scientists were fully involved in all stages of the execution of the plan. They were actively involved in looking at the catch rates associated with different types of fishing practices. In a lockstep fashion throughout the whole management of the fishery, there was a very solid science involvement.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to that.

Your scientists told us that their advice was not followed. They described that action as bunk. I've been through this with this department before.

The previous minister sent a letter to all of the underlings and said “If Cummins or his researcher phone you, you have to let the minister know within 24 hours”. Some of your guys didn't follow that rule. They told me that what you just told me is bunk. That's not the word they used; that's the polite word I'm going to use today. Don't try to pull it over on me, sir.

The Chairman: For the record, John, you're talking in generalities there. If you would like to indicate—

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'm not.

The Chairman: If you have people who have given you different information from Dr. Davis', you should put it into the record so that we can reflect on what the differences are.

• 1050

Mr. John Cummins: The difference is very clear.

The Chairman: Do you have names?

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not going to attach a name to that. I don't give my sources. But I'm telling you very clearly that what has been said by the gentleman at the far end of the table is simply incorrect.

The Chairman: I'm not sure we can really deal with something that is not specific.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm being specific, very clear. That's my point of view on it, and I want that on the public record.

The Chairman: I would like to maybe hear a short comment on this marine conservation. It's being handled by another department. Are there concerns within our own department of the outcome of that particular bill if it does become law?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Yes, and I'll turn to Scott.

On the science issue, if there are specific instances where there's a view that in fact we did not respect our science, then we're quite prepared to hear that and respond to it. In our view, we definitely did follow the scientific advice in making the decisions we had to make, and I guess on that issue we can agree to disagree.

Mr. John Cummins: Perhaps you'd be willing to provide me with all the correspondence between your scientists and within the department on that issue, without me going through access to information. That might prove interesting.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Can we respond to the second question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Scott?

Mr. Scott Parsons: I believe the honourable member's reference was perhaps to the national marine conservation areas legislation.

Mr. John Cummins: That's correct, sir.

Mr. Scott Parsons: That, of course, is legislation that is being put through the parliamentary process by the Minister of Heritage with respect to Parks Canada.

Mr. John Cummins: I understand that.

Mr. Scott Parsons: There is collaboration among departments on this issue, in addition to the national marine conservation issue, which is really marine parks. I guess that's what you're talking about there.

There is also under the Oceans Act, which went through this committee three years ago, provision for the establishment of marine protected areas, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Also, under the Canada Wildlife Act there are provisions for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries for migratory birds and that sort of thing.

Mr. John Cummins: On that point you just raised, why is the federal fisheries minister, who is constitutionally responsible for fish, delegating his responsibility for fish and fish habitat to the Minister of Heritage? Is that legal?

The Chairman: John, I'm sorry to have to cut you off again. The time is getting short.

Mr. John Cummins: I think that's an important question. I'd like an answer to it.

The Chairman: I'm not sure we have time for it right now, but maybe we will get back to you.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Once again, I have a two-part question. My first question will deal with the fisheries, and then I'll turn to the Coast Guard.

As for the fisheries, Mr. Deputy Minister, earlier you referred to a recommendation that the committee had made in one of its reports, namely, that an independent review be conducted of the methods used by the department to set the allowable catches and manage resources in general. I would like to know what you intend to do with this recommendation, initially.

Secondly, in order to restore the confidence of the users, industry and all of the coastal communities, what concrete things have you done in the past and, more especially, what concrete things do you intend to do now?

As for the Coast Guard, one of the key concepts of the Coast Guard rating table is that users should pay the costs. Up until now, to the great dissatisfaction of the users, the Coast Guard has never provided an accurate and complete description of the services it claims to provide, in order to get along with the users. I would like to know whether or not the Coast Guard, to improve the dialogue with industry, intends to provide, once and for all, the list of services it claims to provide instead of saying that, from now on, users will have to pay the costs for such and such an activity. This is what we have been living with up until now. We have not been told: "I am providing you with such and such a service and you owe me this amount." We have never discussed the services that are truly provided.

I will repeat my request: we would like to have the list of individuals who look after the St. Lawrence River as well as some type of organizational chart with the titles of each of these individuals working in the Coast Guard in the St. Lawrence.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1055

The Chairman: Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member first referred to the method used to assess, independently, the way that the department manages resources.

The Auditor General of Canada is continuously auditing the management process for our fisheries in all sectors, and this includes the scientific and management aspects. Approximately one year ago, he tabled a report on the management of the Atlantic groundfish. He is currently auditing the way that we manage shellfish.

In his recommendations and suggestions, the Auditor General makes comments on the approach taken, meaning the integrated approach taken to prepare management plans for these species. There are about 45 plans.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, that is not in keeping with the spirit of the recommendation, which was to conduct an independent review, a review done by an agency which was outside of the government.

We know that the Auditor General audits every aspect of the federal government to the extent he can. The committee recommended that an independent review, conducted by an agency outside of the department, be done in order to improve the situation. The committee recommended that individuals who are not an integral part of the process take a fresh look at the way the department operates.

Mr. Jacque Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I could provide the following answer.

Various processes were established. Let's take science as an example. We set up an independent committee that assesses a scientific sector for the Atlantic Region. We recently announced that a similar committee would be set up for the Pacific Region. Consequently, in the scientific sector, there was an independent committee that reviews the departmental interpretations with respect to allowable catches and makes suggestions to the Minister as to what these catches should be.

These committees are composed of representatives from the universities and from industry and the department has only one representative who looks after technical support. These are, therefore, really independent committees.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I had asked some other questions about the Coast Guard, particularly with respect to the confidence that needs to be restored.

[English]

The Chairman: With the coast guard, I assume they've taken that under advisement and would provide you with that information. I'm not sure about the word “all”, but it may be my translation. If you could provide Mr. Rocheleau with the information he needs in terms of the organizational chart, the line and staff of how this works on the St. Lawrence— Yves, is that—

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I would like to point out that I had asked some other questions. How do you justify the fact that Government of Quebec ships have to pay fees whereas those from the federal government do not? I had asked a whole series of questions and I'd like to add one more question to the list. Will the Coast Guard describe, once and for all, the services that it provides?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: You're wrong. The minister does.

The Chairman: We're going to move over to the Liberal side. Mr. Easter and Mr. Sekora each have a short question. Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm looking at the top of page 3, where you see the percentage of the workforce in Ottawa as compared to the other departments. That puzzles me, because who's to say the others are right or wrong? How do you measure that as far as 30% versus 20% versus your 11% are concerned? Maybe all those figures are wrong.

Again, I have to go back to when I was a mayor in a city. Our department heads always used to measure other cities that were much higher than our city in order to justify 20% increases in taxes. I said, hold it, just a second, what about the other cities? Maybe we were more efficient and that's why we had much lower taxes than anybody else. Maybe the guy who stayed there for many years as the finance chairman—that was me—just controlled the purse strings a little tighter. For many reasons, it was maybe more efficient.

We're going to go back again to Williams Lake and to Mr. Davis, who's apparently from the west coast. I was there, again with a couple of the ministers, and certainly some of the MPs were with me. On this mining in Williams Lake, what happened? These people are even saying there are no fish there. But they're willing to stock this lake full of fish. It doesn't have any fish in it. They're willing to work with the community.

• 1100

If there were some hue and cry out there against this, I could see it. But there is no hue and cry from the mayor, the chamber of commerce, the Rotary Club, or the business community. Everybody's for it, and it apparently can be done. It would create thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of investment.

The fact is that there's a member of DFO who says no. I'm wondering if there is anybody who's going to look into this and get me some answers. Why can't it be yes?

Again, in my city, department heads found it easy to say no, because it's the easiest thing. But I changed their ways. I said that if it's a no, how can we make it a yes?

The Chairman: You've made a very strong representation on behalf your province and Williams Lake.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes, and I'd like to have some answers.

The Chairman: I think it might be best if the department got back to you in a day or two.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Oh, yes. I don't want an answer today, but I'd like to see if there's anybody, like Mr. Davis, who would fly there and spend some time in Williams Lake talking to the community leaders and the community. He should maybe see for himself whether or not it could be done.

The Chairman: I would think, from my perception of the problems in B.C., that it's not just simply the federal government. But if it is, then we probably can hear about this.

Mr. Lou Sekora: This is the federal government.

The Chairman: Would you let me, as chairman, know how the department responds to you?

Mr. Lou Sekora: Sure.

The Chairman: We'll go to Mr. Easter now for a quick question.

Mr. Wayne Easter: This is just on enforcement. This is first on Mr. Rocheleau's point.

The Maritimes would look at it that the St. Lawrence is getting a pretty darned good deal. The issue of enforcement was one of the issues raised with us numerous times when we travelled in all areas of the country. What's happening there? Is there an increase in enforcement officers?

Second, what other tools does the department need to do its job? When penalties are imposed by courts, often, for a person who was fraudulent, having been caught with $10,000 or $12,000 worth of lobsters, the court only imposes a $1,000 fine. How do we get around that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, on the first question, yes, as part of our overall recruitment efforts, we're putting special emphasis on fisheries officers. In fact, I believe 45 to 50 officers have been recruited this year. We intend, over the next several years, to recruit from 25 to 50 people per year to go through our program, which includes training at the RCMP depot in Regina. Normally, that takes about eight months. Then they're out in the field working as fisheries officers.

So again, we understand the problem we have. We need to get new fisheries officers in place, and we're doing that.

On the question of penalties, the real difficulty we have here, as the member may know, is the fact that without the passage of the amendments to the Fisheries Act, we don't have those sanction provisions so that we can levy the fines that, through our act, we feel are appropriate. As a result, we have to rely on provincial means and other means to do that. That's the difficulty we're now facing.

I think we would therefore like, in order to provide the appropriate sanctions, to have amendments made to the Fisheries Act to allow us to do that.

The Chairman: We'll go to Peter for one minute.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If Mr. Sekora had a problem with DFO, he should have moved for concurrence on the west coast report.

A voice: Why would he want to do that?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There are three things you can do to improve your communications in order to approve the position of the DFO.

First, when a person writes you a letter, a response within thirty days is much better than a response in three months. It should be an answer to the question, and not a political answer.

Second, if you're going to hire new scientists and people of that nature, you should be able to allow them to speak freely to members of Parliament. I've been across this country speaking to DFO people who said that if some people knew they were speaking to me, they would be fired.

Third, you have to get the minister himself, whether he likes it or not, out of Ottawa and into the communities. I know he's had a lot of travel, but he needs to be more and more inclusive. The reason I say this is that you're saying the resource is actually improving in terms of financial resources, but the average fisherman is thinking that it's going into fewer and fewer hands.

• 1105

These are my final comments, Mr. Chair.

A 26-year-old fisherman from Cape Sable Island committed suicide two weeks ago. He occupied DFO offices. He did everything he could in a democratic society through civil disobedience to get his point across. His last note said that if the government won't allow him to look after his children, maybe God will.

I'm not saying that you personally are responsible for that, but the policies of DFO, in his perception, caused him to lose his dignity. If you want to turn this department around, start talking to people like that in those small communities. Explain the situation to them and get out of the boardrooms of the large corporations in the fisheries and you'll improve it greatly.

There are other questions I'd like to ask for the future. Sydney Bight is in Nova Scotia. There are concerns about dragging operations there.

The Chairman: Peter, I allowed you a minute.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll ask it afterward then.

The Chairman: We're always so good to our NDP opposition. If you have particular questions, you can do that off the record by letter or whatever.

In concluding our meeting this morning, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Wouters, for coming with your staff. Now, at least through your organization, we have faces for the names we often see.

I think we all recognize that scientists are like lawyers, in that every lawyer has a different opinion, quite often, and you have to pay a certain price to get it. The reason that scientists are scientists is that they all have their own search for the truth. But they don't all arrive at the same place at the same time.

In any case, it's good to hear you. You heard some of the criticisms we have. I know you may feel you've been under attack here this morning. We feel the same way when we go across the country to meetings.

I think the big issue—Peter did refer to this—is that there have to be more people from your department who have to be seen more in the rural areas where people fish. With many of the cutbacks, I know you did suffer. It happened, in a lot of cases, in the very bottom areas.

I'm glad, as a New Brunswicker, to see you back in Moncton in greater strength. It certainly helps our Acadian friends, who had language difficulties with the office in Halifax. We look forward to more changes, because without changes and a better system of communications with fisher people across the country, we're all in a very difficult situation.

We enjoyed Mr. Cummins. You've met him now, Mr. Wouters. He told me the worst part of his situation there was when they took his glasses before they incarcerated him. For a member of Parliament or any of us to be without our ability to read or see adequately— I think you really at some time have to deal with poor Mr. Cummins. He's making a point that he represents his people. We always have to uphold people who do that.

Thank you for coming. We enjoyed this morning. We could spend more time. We would look forward to an invitation to come down to Kent Street so we would be able to maybe have a coffee and see how your thousand people out there work.

Being from the Miramichi, I have trouble seeing a thousand people in one building. I think probably even in Trois-Rivières it might be difficult to see a thousand people working under one roof. For rural people it's a difficult concept to imagine and accept.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. Rocheleau, I'm sorry, we're all finished.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Why won't the committee be hearing witnesses from the Coast Guard next week? The committee had in fact decided to do this.

[English]

The Chairman: Our agenda for next week will be on Bill C-27. We have senior witnesses and—

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The committee had decided to hear witnesses from the Coast Guard, and now I find out that we are going to be studying Bill C-27.

[English]

The Chairman: No, we agreed that we have a date to sit on December 1 and 3.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: It appears that the regulations are going to be issued on December 5 and we're going to be hearing witnesses during the week of December 1. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We had decided that this would occur during the last week.

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman: That's not the case I'm aware of it. If you have information contrary to that, I would entertain it. It begins November 30, which is the last week of November. It's that period of December 1 and—

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I recall that there was the study of the two reports, taking translation and all that into account, and then I thought we would be hearing witnesses from the Coast Guard.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau, would you look at the record and see the minutes?

The meeting is adjourned.