FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 25, 1998

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I'll call our meeting to order, with the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Thursday, October 29, 1998, supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, votes 1b, 5b, and 10b under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

• 1535

It's not often we're blessed by both a minister and a deputy, and we welcome them both here today, along with your other departmental officials, some of whom were here recently.

We understand that Madam Beal has to leave around 5 p.m., or shortly before that. I would like to point that out to the committee. We're talking about your HRD section with her position, and if members have particular items for that aspect of the department, they probably could put them on first.

Mr. Minister, the floor will be yours. We would assume 15 to 20 minutes for a presentation, after which we'll go party by party with some questions they might have of your department.

Would it be longer than 20 minutes?

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): No.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. David Anderson: You can make it shorter, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You may proceed, then, with your notes.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be back with you. I think it's the first time since May, and it's good to be here.

I'd like to thank you for the two reports you made. They're under careful consideration, but they are very interesting, and I will be reporting to you in due course.

I would like to put the developments of the last few months into some sort of context. We're trying hard to make sure that whatever we do is to advance the concept of fisheries of the future, which I've talked to you about before.

One of the key characteristics of that is that we're going to have a smaller industry, and we will therefore have fewer fishermen. The goal is to promote the development of a fishery that is therefore viable, sustainable, and efficiently managed; that provides a good living for the independent professional owner-operators and supports economically healthy communities; that is composed of healthy inshore, midshore, and offshore sectors; that supports a flexible, versatile, and self-reliant industry, largely self-regulating and operating without government subsidies; and that has room for all sectors—the aboriginal sector, the commercial sector, and the recreational sector. We want a fishery that has harvesting capacity in balance with resource productivity and where we can have the fisherman working together with the government—and of course the other industry players as well as the fishermen working together with government.

So that is a vision, a goal, and what we are doing is directed towards that vision. If we succeed—and I say “we” because you, the members of the committee, are very much involved in this, as well as the department—we will indeed have a healthy fishery for our children and grandchildren.

On that point, the first item I'd like to stress is conservation. To have a health fishery, you must have conservation as a top priority, and that's why I have made it the top priority for the fisheries management in the department. We cannot have a fishery without fish. Conservation therefore must be the driving force of the agenda of the department, and I believe in the last year and a half we have accomplished a lot in furthering the conservation agenda.

Indeed, even since I last appeared before the committee, there have been developments. The most significant was the announcement on June 19 of this year of a national fisheries adjustment and restructuring initiative. On the east coast we announced measures that will cost upwards of $730 million to assist those affected by the end of the TAGS programs and to assist in the transition to that smaller, more conservation-based fishery that I talked of over the last few minutes.

At the same time and on the same day, we announced a $400 million package on the west coast for restructuring the west coast salmon industry.

The east coast measures included $250 million for voluntary—and I stress the word “voluntary”—groundfish retirement program; approximately $180 million in final cash payments to former TAGS clients; $135 million in adjustment measures; up to $100 million for community and regional economic development; and $65 million for early retirement.

The measures for the west coast included $200 million for fishery restructuring, licence retirement, and other programs in fishery restructuring; $100 million to help people and communities adjust; and $100 million to protect and restore salmon habitat.

• 1540

In September I announced the membership of the new Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which will be an independent body to report annually on the status of British Columbia's salmon stocks, their habitats, and the related ecosystems.

I am pleased to report that the Hon. John Fraser was appointed as chair, and eight members were named to the council in September.

In its reports the PFRCC will advise the public, the provincial government, and the federal government on salmon conservation issues, and where appropriate it will provide recommendations with a long-term strategic focus.

In October the department released a paper entitled A New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fisheries, which was distributed to stakeholders. It contains the principles that will guide fisheries management in achieving conservation.

So I think you can see that we have taken a number of important measures and appropriate actions to restructure fisheries on both coasts so that the fisheries can survive and benefit all Canadians.

I'd like to mention the Washington State agreements, which again were done in that period. During the summer, in July, we achieved a breakthrough interim arrangement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In June and July we reached agreement with Washington State to conserve and rebuild Canadian coho stocks and Washington state chinook stocks.

Then in July we reached an interim agreement with Washington on Fraser River sockeye. We didn't get everything we wanted, but neither did the other side, and the agreement was a breakthrough because it was the first step towards reasonable compromises to protect salmon stocks as outlined by the Strangway-Ruckleshaus committee.

Co-management and partnering are important.

[Translation]

In September, responding to fishermen's concerns about the partnering provisions in the new Fisheries Act, I established an independent, three-person panel to advise DFO on these provisions.

If we want the fishery of the future to be viable, sustainable and efficiently managed, we need to involve fishermen in the management of the fishery.

The panel will consider the eligibility of partners, the approval process, the duration of Fisheries Management Agreements, and how to ensure transparency and openness. I'm expecting to receive the panel's report next month.

Many fishermen across the country are already involved in managing fisheries through co-management. They participate in stock assessment, fish conservation and monitoring, as well as in developing integrated fishery management plans and conservation harvesting plans.

Groundfish license retirement details: On October 1, I announced the details of the voluntary groundfish license retirement program for the Atlantic region and Quebec. This program was finalized following consultations with industry and the provinces.

We recognize that government must help those who choose to leave the fishery, and this program does that. And, as I have said publicly, I fully expect that this will be the last opportunity for fishermen to leave the fishery with government assistance.

Under the license-retirement program, fishermen must retire permanently and completely from the fishery to qualify for benefits. "Core" fishermen who received support under TAGS have priority. The deadline for submission of first-round bids was November 6 in the Atlantic provinces and November 30 in Quebec.

[English]

We have also made some significant progress internationally. In June, member states of NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, followed Canada's lead and agreed to a number of important conservation measures. Among these was NASCO's formal adoption of the precautionary approach in the management of Atlantic salmon. Canada had already adopted the precautionary approach in its 1998 Atlantic salmon management plan. Greenland agreed to join Canada in restricting its 1998 net fishery.

• 1545

In September, NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, formally adopted 100% observer coverage for all fishing vessels in the NAFO regulatory area—a very important step. In fact, this was one of the most important steps and one of the most important conservation objectives advanced by Canada at the NAFO meeting in Lisbon.

This month a joint proposal by Canada and the United States to formalize cooperation on marine science between the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission and the North Pacific Marine Science Organization was accepted by the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission at its annual meeting in Moscow. Canada is a member, and Canadians were chairpersons, of both the NPAFC and PICES. We played a key role in formalizing the working relationship between the two organizations, and our membership in the NPAFC also demonstrates our commitment to enforcing the ban on salmon fishing in the north Pacific.

Finally, I would like to remind the committee of the importance of Bill C-27, which will make it possible for Canada to ratify the United Nations Fisheries Agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Canada played a lead role in the United Nations conference that led to this agreement in 1995 and so far 18 states have ratified the agreement, including the United States.

As a leader in oceans management, Canada should be among the first 30 states to ratify the agreement, and I know you will wish to support this important legislation.

In closing, I would like to point out that Canada is not alone in facing the challenges of the fisheries. The plight of the world's oceans is a serious issue worldwide and will become more and more an issue in the decades ahead. Global overfishing harvests 70% of the world's species faster than they can reproduce themselves, and we know that the global fishery must undergo profound changes and that Canada must be on the leading edge of making those changes. We have already made significant strides, and we certainly have no intention of turning back on our goal of a fully sustainable conservation-based fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pleased to answer what questions you have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

For members, our clerk has been busy here and he has placed I think on each of our tables a brief summary—it's about five pages in—which is an explanation of the supplementary estimates broken down by votes 1, 5, and 10. I think everyone has a copy of that. The purpose of the meeting today is to look at these supplementary spendings. We've considered the main estimates before.

With that, Mr. Lunn, we'll give you the floor.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I'll defer to John for the first 10 minutes.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Based on the minister's comments in Question Period and his comments to the committee, I presume he's prepared to address a wide range of issues here, and of course they all relate back to the supplementary estimates if we drag it out long enough. I'm sure the chairman understands that point.

What I'd like to do is bring forward a couple of issues that would probably clear the air for the minister. They are a couple of issues that I think if addressed satisfactorily would go some way toward building confidence in the department and in the minister. So my questions are motivated by only the purest of intent, as I'm sure the minister would appreciate.

The first issue I'd like to address has to do with the red and yellow zones that were imposed on the west coast last summer—the red zones being areas where there is to be zero mortality for coho destined for the upper Skeena and for the Thompson River, and the yellow zones were areas where fishing was to be allowed provided that the coho mortality was minimal if not—

• 1550

The Chairman: Which vote would that be, Mr. Cummins? We're looking at the votes. Is that a particular vote we're looking at?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, it is.

The Chairman: Which number would it be?

Mr. John Cummins: I'll let you determine that, Mr. Chairman. I'll get to the point. We'll draw that point out in conclusion, anyway.

But the point that's of concern is that it has been noted that any fishing mortality imposes substantial additional risk to populations already in exponential decline and rapidly approaching critical conservation levels. Any fishing mortality would accelerate the already serious declines. That comment came from the risk assessment for north coastal coho fisheries in 1998 in the salmon subcommittee working paper of the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee.

Now, the advice the biologists gave was that there was to be no coho fishing in that area—in fact no fishing. If we look at it from a historical perspective, in 1994 the gill nets killed 1,038 coho as a by-catch. This past summer, on your own, you decided that red area around Langara Island on the north coast of the Queen Charlottes would be a yellow area. In other words, you were going to allow fishing there by sport fishermen. Now, a modest estimate by your own department is that there were about 30,000 chinook harvested in that area and that for every chinook, 10 to 20 coho were hooked. Your own department estimate is that 10% of the coho hooked died, which means that probably about 30,000 coho died, because you overrode your scientists last year and disregarded the advice I read from the assessment for the north coast coho fisheries. I wonder if you'd care to comment on that and give your reasons for that decision.

Mr. David Anderson: Certainly, Mr. Cummins.

First of all, to correct the preamble, in no way did I on my own make such decisions; in fact, I did not make such decisions at all. I am totally incapable of deciding where the prevalence of coho is greater and where the prevalence of coho is less—in other words, which should be a yellow zone and which should be a red zone. My fishing experience over 30 years has convinced me that I'm not a great person for choosing where fish happen to be. So I had no personal involvement in this. There was no disregard, therefore, of science by me. I hope to be completely clear on that. There was no disregard of any management decision. It was in fact a departmental decision based on science.

The second point I'd make with regard to your preamble is that the total mortality of coho is expected to be below 1% for both the yellow and red zones where fishing took place for chinook. So I think your figures are perhaps a little bit inaccurate, because we had very close monitoring of the fishing in that area. It would be clear that if there were any substantial mortality of coho of any sort, we would be closing down other fisheries—chinook, sockeye, or chum, whatever other fishery it might be. So the number is less than 1% as given to me by the departmental officials.

What I will do, though, is turn that over to John Davis, who is the acting ADM of science of the department and the director of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, because he in fact would have a better idea of the science question you asked.

Mr. John Cummins: Before you do that, Minister, I'd like to challenge you on a couple of points. One is that your officials have advised me that the scientific advice you got was that that was a red zone and that you and your office chose the other way. Never have I ever—

Mr. David Anderson: No official has given you that information.

Mr. John Cummins: Your department also has suggested that the mortality rate for coho that are hooked when pursuing chinook is 10%. Most people estimate somewhere between 12% and 15%, and in fact that may be low. So it's at least 10%. Your officials have said that between 10 and 20 coho were hooked for every chinook caught.

Mr. David Anderson: Let me repeat with regard to this reference to my officials telling you.... If individuals of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have told you that, they are simply telling you something that is incorrect. I have had no part whatsoever in the yellow or red zones—none. I couldn't do it. I don't have the technical knowledge to do it. It's not a political question; it's a technical question.

• 1555

The objectives are made clear—that we wish to protect coho to the maximum extent—and I've had no hesitation about closing down fisheries, both sport and commercial, where we fail to get that.

So if you could name the people who have made these statements, we'll be able perhaps to find out. But I have to tell you that I know exactly what I've done, and that is nothing in this area whatsoever in terms of red or yellow zones. That's not a subject for me to get involved in. It's a subject for our officials. That's why I suggested that we might want to turn it over to John Davis. But if you do not wish to, I'm happy to respond with the little knowledge I have.

Mr. John Cummins: That's fine. My—

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I have a point of order.

The one thing I'd like to mention from my side is that if Mr. Cummins has all this, I hope he has it in writing from somebody. All we're doing is getting testy and going back and forth. I don't think it's healthy for either side. We have the minister who made decisions. I think he made very wise decisions.

The Chairman: That's not a point of order.

Mr. Lou Sekora: If he has anything in writing, he should produce it, rather than ramble on.

The Chairman: I'll give you an extra minute for that.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

Minister, did your office receive a briefing by DFO in either 1995 or 1996 concerning the department's response to the refusal by the Oak Bay Marine Group to provide test data to fisheries officers as required by the Fisheries Act?

Mr. David Anderson: I presume the department would have had some briefing where that was the issue. I can assure you—

Mr. John Cummins: You weren't the minister at that point, but were you briefed?

Mr. David Anderson: Prior to me being minister, I remember hearing of that case. You have to remember that the company you're referring to is the largest employer in the entire fisheries sector in British Columbia, and what happens to that company is pretty well known throughout the industry, both sport and commercial.

Mr. John Cummins: So you were briefed on that.

Mr. David Anderson: I had information given to me about it. I was aware of it. I can't say what level of information. It's some years ago.

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate your candour, but it is interesting, because when I asked that in an order paper question, the response was that you weren't.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm aware of that question. I'm aware of the issue. It's impossible to be a politician in British Columbia with a coastal constituency and be aware of what's going on in your area without knowing about it.

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate that. My point was that there's a conflict between what you said now—and I certainly accept your statement—and the response to the order paper question.

Mr. David Anderson: I would like to have a look at the actual wording of the question, because we took great care to check as to whether or not the department gave such a briefing. What I'm telling you is that I received information on that. Whether or not it was a formal briefing from the department, I'd have to go back and check the record. But I obviously knew about that issue, as did you.

Mr. John Cummins: It was a proper request. We asked you the question I asked you just now, and the access to information documents indicate that you were briefed by the regional director general.

Mr. David Anderson: Can we leave it at that, or do you have some other concerns about that? I would like to clear this up, John.

Mr. John Cummins: On that particular issue, as you're aware, the problem was that there was a shortage of chinook in the area at that time, and your own officials have indicated that it's important they have proper catch statistics to enable them to make the kinds of decisions they need to make.

So charges eventually were laid against the Oak Bay Marine Group for failing to provide the department with those catch statistics, and those charges were laid only after the Oak Bay Marine Group's offices were raided. The information about this whole issue was made available, right up to the Prime Minister's office. They tracked this issue, according to documents we have. Everybody seemed very interested in it. Eventually, the charges were laid and some court appearances were made. As you know, you went fishing with Randy Wright, a principal of that company, and a few days later the charges were dropped. I wonder if you'd care to comment or just to provide some enlightenment as to why those charges were dropped.

Mr. David Anderson: I cannot. It's impossible for me to provide information on a subject I had nothing to do with. This question should be addressed to the Solicitor General of the day or the Minister of Justice or the attorney general of the province. I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know who it would be. I don't have involvement in court cases of that type. I had absolutely nothing to do with this case. And as I reminded you with respect to Mr. Wright's operation, it is the largest single employer in the fisheries of British Columbia. You can't be involved, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, without being involved at one stage or another with the Wright organization.

• 1600

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate that.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins, I'm sorry. I've given you extra time and we will come back to you.

For the purpose of the chair, would you mind passing to the clerk the question and the answer that was tabled in the House? I would like to see that—

Mr. John Cummins: It is question 33.

The Chairman: —for my own reason, because it has been challenged by the other side. If you would leave that with the clerk, I'll review it while Mr. Bernier has his five minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: I still remain willing to answer the question with the science information on the red and yellow zones, but the offer was turned down by Mr. Cummins.

The Chairman: That will be noted.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I will try to be brief and take no more than five minutes. Unfortunately, I will have to leave after I've asked my questions. My colleague, Mr. Rocheleau, will replace me on the second round.

I listened carefully to your comments, Minister, and I took a few notes. There are three points of interest to me, which I will combine into one. As you will see, that is a logical approach.

I will begin with what you said at the end of your remarks. You spoke about the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, which you would like to ratify under Bill C-27. We had a meeting with your officials on this subject this week. I should tell you from the outset that I am not in favour of ratifying the UNFA under Bill C-27, because it barely touches on the issue of international relations as regards the conditions of boating or other similar matters.

I would also like to point out that the United Nations Fisheries Agreement covers other subjects not contained in Bill C-27. Moreover, you did not deal with either in your statement today. I am referring to Part II of the Fisheries Agreement, in particular article 5, which deals with the general principles of a policy on the fishery.

This summer we and your colleagues a little more to your right experienced the crisis in the fishery, on both the east and west coasts, but particularly in the East, because that's my region. People have lost confidence. I think they need to know, as far as possible, what you plan to do immediately, this year, starting in January. People must know when the fishing plans will be out, and whether the historical provincial shares and fleet shares will be respected.

On the subject of fleet shares, you mentioned in your statement that a joint study on co-management is being done with the industry at the moment. Respecting fleet shares, particularly in the case of those who are part of the ITQ system, would help you keep these co-management projects alive.

How do you plan to restore people's confidence regarding the three issues I just mentioned, and how do you plan to approach this? If you don't have an answer today, I will not hold it against you, but I am telling you that in that case, I will not be able to ratify the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, because it does not refer to these issues.

We need a plan of attack to deal with these issues. If you do not have an answer today, could you tell us what your plan is and when we can expect answers to these questions? Do you at least have a timetable?

Mr. David Anderson: A timetable... You have asked some very good questions. We at DFO are not the only people concerned about this matter. Foreign Affairs has an interest as well. As you know, a meeting is scheduled in the next few days with the European Union.

I hope it will be possible to have Bill C-27 approved by the committee as soon as possible, because that will enable us to sign not only the United Nations Fisheries Agreement on Migratory Stocks, but also the Oceans Act.

I will ask one of my colleagues to answer your other two questions. Like you, I want to have the earliest possible date for the fishermen. It is very important that the plan be in place as soon as possible, at least an interim plan, for purposes of discussion.

• 1605

Mr. Yvan Bernier: When I was involved with the fishery in the past, we fought with the Conservatives, but we had the plans by the end of December. Will they be available by the end of January? And what about respect for historical shares in this plan? You will need help from the provinces to get your boat and license buy-back programs through, because if people don't go along...

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, I agree. I'm going to ask Mr. Robichaud to answer the question, but I would like to start by saying that we should not feel too bound and have too narrow a view about historical fleet shares. The value of the fish landed in the ports of Quebec, over the past eight years, has increased by 39 percent. The increase in the Atlantic provinces was only 19 percent. Thus the increased value in Quebec ports was twice that of the other provinces.

Had I thought that everything should remain as it has always been, that historical shares should be maintained regarding the value of the fish caught, Quebec fishermen would have been much worse off than they are at the moment.

I therefore think that we have to look at all the factors, not just one, if we want a good overview of the situation and a proper understanding of it.

Mr. Robichaud.

Mr. Jacque Robichaud (Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The honourable member has raised a number of points, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by pointing out that in his introductory remarks the Minister said that a review process had been established, and that this was the first step toward co-management—namely, partnering. This review is being done by three representatives and will be completed shortly.

Co-management is in place on all the coasts, including the Arctic coast. We now have more than 30 projects underway. For example, people from his riding worked with the Department this year to sign a multi-year agreement on shrimp in the Gulf. The agreement involves a co-management approach including an integrated plan, work with fishermen and a joint agreement.

Of course, it took some time to negotiate the agreement and, as a result, the announcement was somewhat delayed.

A number of other co-management agreements, with the crab fishers, for example, have already been signed in his riding. But it is true that the integrated management plans were very late this year.

In the near future, the Minister will be able to present a series of plans with a timetable about which we want to inform fishers at least one month before the beginning of the fishing season. We will be able to inform fishers about the main plans very soon. They understand that the groundfish plans, and others, have been submitted to the Minister for approval. We hope the plans approved in the regions will follow the same format.

In places where we get scientific advice late, particularly regarding groundfish, we will have to let one cycle go by before we can adapt the timetable better. In future, the schedule will be amended so that we can make the announcement one month ahead of time and still take the scientific advice into account.

Now—

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Robichaud. I've actually gone over a bit....

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Just when he was ready to speak for once, for Heaven's sake!

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Chairman: It sounded so good I hated to cut him off.

Mr. Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): I would like to thank the Minister and the officials for coming to explain their view of things and for giving us this opportunity to discuss specific points in the Estimates that concern us.

I am a newcomer to the Fisheries Committee. I would therefore ask for your indulgence.

Under Vote 1, we see that a new amount of $53 million has been earmarked for operating expenses. After the Minister's statement today, I would like to know whether any money could be used for ice-breaking in Quebec City, because this is a hot issue we've been hearing about for quite some time.

I would like the Minister to answer the question.

Mr. David Anderson: The current budget does not include the funding required to pay the ice-breaking costs in the eastern part of the country this winter. I think that vessels using these waterways during the winter are asking for $13.7 million for ice-breaking services.

• 1610

We can always change the budget. Our budget is very high, and it is always possible to change it. In the matter of the fees charged to cover ice-breaking services, we have to take into account the burden we have already placed on fishermen's shoulders.

We are making them pay a number of rather high costs. The financial demands we place on them are quite significant. For example, the cost of fishing licences has gone up. We have added costs for ports and other things that now have to be paid by the fishers. And we thought that the same should be true of ice-breaking services, that there should be a cost recovery policy.

We have been having discussions for three or even four years with the industry. We set up a 10-member committee, all of whom were from the private sector. I don't think there was a single departmental representative.

[English]

Was one a departmental person?

[Translation]

One of the ten was from the Department or from the Coast Guard. The committee suggested a scale for determining the fees to be paid.

Last week, the industry presented a counterproposal that broke down into two parts the $13.7 million mentioned in the original request. I am studying that proposal closely, and if it is possible to change the budget, I would be happy to do so, and if it is possible to reduce costs, I would be happy to do that as well.

However, we do reach a point at which we have to realize... Is the cost-recovery principle for a service that benefits a particular sector a good thing or not? I leave it up to the committee to express a different view. I acknowledge that both views are valid.

However, the government has accepted the cost-recovery principle. We suggested it. There is a counter-proposal that I take very seriously. I'm meeting with the industry committee this afternoon, when I leave this meeting, to discuss the counter-proposal they made last week.

I'm open to any possibility for change. However, ultimately, we must remember that a number of other committee members and other fishermen are also trying to get services from DFO, and that if we don't have the money we need for the former, we might have to make cuts to the latter.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Minister.

[English]

The Chairman: There are a few minutes left on this side now. Lou, do you have any comments?

Mr. Lou Sekora: No, not right now.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I've had my hand up several times, Mr. Chairman. I don't think you're recognizing it.

The Chairman: I apologize, Mr. O'Brien. I didn't see it; that's true. You have the floor.

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

Mr. Minister, first of all, I'd like to thank you for the forum I had with your staff in terms of dealing with issues. There are two or three points I'd like to discuss. One is a follow-up to a previous meeting we had here and it is on shrimp enforcement.

I'm still very concerned about shrimp enforcement offshore. I've had a very degrading letter from the executive director of the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers, Mr. John Angel. He thinks I'm nothing more than scum. That's fine for his part because I guess he represents industry, but my concern is for the welfare of the stock.

Minister, I will give you a suggestion. I think we need two observers on each of these boats. I've heard from the observers on board, the industry and workers on those ships, and I am extremely concerned. I know you are. I know everybody is, and we should be. I've discussed it with a number of your officials. I think the only answer on the offshore and the 17 licences is to put two observers on the boats. Industry has to pay for it anyhow. There's no cost to the department, but it would do a great service to the industry in terms of conservation of the resource. That would be my recommendation here.

• 1615

The other point is on salmon enforcement in Atlantic Canada and R and D. I'm extremely concerned about the level of enforcement in all Atlantic Canada, but particularly in Labrador. We're working through the closing down of the fishery and the new compensation package and so on, but we need some level of enforcement. It either has to be done directly from DFO and some dollars have to be allocated, or we have to work toward getting the province to take over the enforcement of these kinds of resources.

Those are my main points. Certainly on the R and D side, very little is being done on the inland side of R and D, and that concerns me as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. O'Brien, I'd certainly like to thank you for your representations, which were most useful the previous time, as well as today, with respect to the enforcement of shrimping. It is a major concern, because after all, if we don't have proper enforcement we won't have proper statistics and figures, and therefore the conservation margin we have to leave will be increasingly large and the opportunity for fishermen will decrease and won't be what it should be. So failure to enforce directly affects fishermen's incomes, and you've made that point very clearly. I'd like to thank you again.

We'll certainly follow up on that. We do a fair bit of monitoring offshore and there is also reporting on inshore vessels. We'll certainly take your suggestion about two observers. Perhaps it may be necessary to do that on some particularly questionable vessels, if I could put it that way, where we have concerns with respect to cheating. It's a difficult business, and you explained correctly last time the problem of the single observer.

Second, with respect to enforcement of salmon, this is again a very important issue. We have found that by giving more ownership to local people, in other words more involvement of local people, we have a much higher sense of observing and reporting of infractions than has been the case. I would think on the whole—again, I don't want to sound like a Pollyanna—things have been improving in Atlantic Canada with respect to salmon enforcement.

We have a report on enforcement that I believe was given to you with respect to Labrador. I would be most interested in your comments, Mr. O'Brien, on how we could improve it. There is the issue of financing. I have to say, just as I said to the earlier question, that every part of DFO could use more money, and that is certainly true of your third point, the science and research work we do. I recognize it's low compared to historic levels, and the one clear reason is lack of funds.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: On that point, I think it's time DFO sat down with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do that, because the province is probably much better equipped now to deal with the inland side of the salmon and char and so on, once it goes out in the marine side, into the rivers, streams and lakes, than DFO. I'm really concerned about it. You said to me the north Atlantic has probably less than 800,000 salmon at this time. If we're in that state, we need to look after every salmon possible.

We went through the hardship of dealing with the buy-back, and we are still going through it. Certainly if we're going through the hardship of the buy-back, we have to go through what needs to be done to safeguard, preserve, and make that stock something to be reckoned with in the future. I am very concerned about that.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, again. It's 800,000 large salmon, or gross in addition, but you're absolutely right, this is an historic low in numbers.

I should quickly say we are hiring 48 new enforcement officers this year and 48 next year. They'll go through their training and they'll be put on the beat, but even an extra 96 officers is not a large number. There were also issues with respect to the age of officers. I think the average age is now 49. The new groups this year and next will reduce that, but we have concerns as well about the demographics of our officer force.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'll continue to work with my colleague—

The Chairman: Mr. Minister and Mr. O'Brien, I'm sorry.

We're into five-minute rounds now. Mr. Lunn, are you on?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to thank the minister and his staff for coming to our committee. Again, as I've done in the past, I would like to applaud the minister for his efforts on conservation. I think that's very important. I would also like to start off by offering my personal congratulations for the award he just received in New York.

• 1620

Now we'll cut to the chase. We'll get to three issues that I have concern with, and I'll point them out quickly.

One of them is the seals, Minister. I've seen all kinds of evidence—and I look forward to your comments—that the population is somewhere between 6 million and 7 million and they are eating 600 tonnes of fish every year. It's exploding out of control. As you know, I was with you in meetings in London, and it is a problem over in Europe. I appreciate your difficulties, but I think it's time that we put all the political differences among all the parties aside and go out and cull about 4 million seals. All-party support—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just let me finish. I say this with all seriousness. Excuse me, can I have the floor?

I appreciate your concerns with some of our challenges. You and I are fully aware of some of the challenges that we face against the unreal numbers, against IFAW, but I say that in all seriousness. We have to get the seal population under control. And I know I have some support from other parties.

Point two is that the voluntary retirement program, Mr. Minister—and this is being brought to my attention on both coasts by all sectors—is squeezing out the little guy. It's squeezing out the guy who can't afford it. The only ones left are the big companies, the people with deep pockets who can afford to ride out the storm. I think we need to look at that so it's not strictly a voluntary program, so that there is some proportionality between the gear types, and also in order not to squeeze out the little person.

Last, I'll bring up the issue you invited me to pursue again today in Question Period, and you and I both know what we're talking about. This is the department's announcement to relax the Canadianization policy for Seafreez, and the suggestion that they're going to create several hundred jobs in the Canso fishing plant.

Mr. Minister, if this is not a policy change, as you've suggested, then I'd like to know what it is. I know you're getting tired of hearing about it. You heard about it in caucus this morning and you heard about it in Question Period, and you're getting it again in this committee. But again, we have on file, as you do, letters from 21 fish companies who are demanding access to this resource, and giving it away to foreign vessels just because of cheap foreign labour is not the answer.

I would argue that in fact, if it's not a change of policy, then you've just violated your own policy because you've given this a one-year exemption. I was speaking with Mr. Wiseman yesterday, and he has no idea what's going on. He thinks this is only applied until December 31, 1998, when in fact it's a one-year exemption from this Canadianization policy.

So we have grave concerns about that. Yes, you're trying to create a few hundred jobs, but you've forgotten about the thousands of fishermen out there who have left their boats tied up at the dock, which is absolutely not acceptable. So I'd ask you to review the decision to give that exemption and look at how we can get our own fishing vessels out there on the water to catch these fish and still create the jobs for the Canadian fish plants.

Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: Well, in terms of the three—

The Chairman: In fairness to the minister, we have only about two minutes left.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's fair.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. In terms of these issues, seals—

The Chairman: I just want to clarify this for the committee.

I'm a bit confused. You mentioned Mr. Anderson attending your caucus this morning.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, no, the comments in his caucus this morning.

The Chairman: His caucus? You were in his caucus?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Baker were questioning on the same issue.

The Chairman: I'm a little bit confused. But, Mr. Minister, you have two to three minutes to answer those questions.

Mr. David Anderson: Many times I have difficulty understanding the honourable member, and this is one of them.

On seals, where you had the largest hunt ever last year, the problem we now face is lack of markets for pelts. Industry has brought that to our attention. We are having meetings with Greenland in December. We have industry meetings taking place shortly after that.

You know full well there are differing views being expressed in the various newspapers. You also know full well from our previous work here that we did not have the population assessment, the overflights on the ice, that we expected last year because the ice simply wasn't of adequate thickness to make such overflights worth while. It costs about $2 million to do that population survey. We will do it this year.

But we have no concerns with the population being in decline, as some have claimed. That does not appear to be the case at all.

• 1625

We do have concerns that the Asian economic slowdown has damaged the market for seal pelts in particular. We want to go through with the discussion with Greenland, go through with the discussion with scientists, and then come up with a proposal for the hunt next year. I would only remind you that the largest quota ever given in recent years was last year.

Second, on voluntary retirement, you said flatly that you do not think it should be voluntary, that we should not help the little person who wants to get out; we should prevent them from voluntarily getting a cheque from the government. I appreciate your candour that this should—

Mr. Gary Lunn: If I could just clarify that, I raised this as a concern that's been brought to me, that we may look at something different. I'm not saying that we don't provide help, but we are squeezing the little guy out by strictly making it voluntary. If there's some way of looking at it to ensure that it's across gear types and we're not just.... You know, there are some little guys who have no other option because they're in such financial constraints.

Mr. David Anderson: But the program is voluntary, Mr. Lunn, and if in fact you leave it open to people to enter and they decide to enter because they feel they have financial problems, they have that voluntary choice.

What you have said to me, and I think I'm quoting you, is not a voluntary program. You proposal is that we want to get away from that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Some other type of....

Mr. David Anderson: Well, if you don't have voluntary, you have compulsion by government.

The Chairman: Our time is up again, Mr. Anderson. I'm sorry.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm sorry, because I was wanting to get into Seafreez. But I'll be happy to deal with Seafreez later.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'd like to hear about Seafreez.

The Chairman: We could do that with a later round.

Nancy, do you have anything?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I don't mind waiting a few minutes.

The Chairman: No, it's not a question of waiting. Their time is up, so we go now to your side.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I wouldn't mind hearing about Seafreez either, because that affects my riding quite a bit.

The other area I wanted to get into was research. When we were in Nunavut, there were so many requests for research to be done, because they have no idea what the stock numbers are for some of the mammals and whether we're even fishing or hunting the same stock as Greenland. We don't have the numbers to support any of the claims. I wonder if any extra money is being put in for research.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much.

With respect to the second aspect, the research, I entirely agree with you, Nancy. When you took me around the Arctic earlier this year, we did hear that story time after time, that it's the area of Canada where the least work has been done, and where a burgeoning population of humans and the desire to stay with traditional lifestyles mean, of course, that there's increasing pressure on resources. So I do believe this is a serious lack and we certainly will be doing our best to transfer funds to Arctic research, because it is critically important for the mammals.

As you point out, we don't even know, for instance, how many beluga go off to Siberia from the western Arctic, or indeed in the eastern Arctic how many go off in the other direction, towards Greenland. So there may be double counting on the Greenland side and on the Canadian side that we're unaware of.

With respect to Seafreez, all I can say on that is that this has been requested by every single political party that has seats in the maritimes of Canada. The NDP and the Conservatives have all said we should help out the town of Canso, that Canso was unable to keep its plant running unless it was possible to land that last fraction, the 40% of the turbot quota. The town has literally no other economic opportunity, and Liberals, Conservatives and NDP—I hate to speak for the Tories and the NDP, but I'm sure they'll speak for themselves if I'm wrong—have all said that this is a good idea. The mayor of the community has implored me to do this. The Premier of Nova Scotia has implored me to do this.

It really was a question of blind adherence to ideology and saying to hell with the jobs of the people in Canso, or making a variation on the policy for this last period of the year, between now and the end of the year. I preferred to go on the side of assisting the people, adjusting it.

I think the figure is still that 87% of the fish caught in area 0 will be caught by Canadian vessels, but it was simply not possible to have Canadian vessels fish this last section of the Canso quota and come up with something that's economically viable. In other words, if we hadn't done this, it wouldn't be the Canadian vessels catching those fish; those fish would not have been caught at all.

• 1630

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Is this for the next year or for the rest of this year?

Mr. David Anderson: This is the Canso plan.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: This is for the next few weeks, right?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, that's right, end of the year.

So it's a question of deciding whether we want to be blinded here as to ideology or whether we want to make a practical decision. The latter would be supported by the CAW, the local union, the mayor, the province, and the three political parties that have seats in that part of the world. And this is what we did. I'm quite proud of the fact that we made that decision. We are not taking blind adherence to ideology. We're trying to help people, not just simply trying to meet paper requirements.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you.

Just to keep on that, yes, I do thank you and your department for doing that. I just wish that for next year Canadian fishermen could be catching that fish and bringing it into Canso.

But, as you know, you've written me back a letter on the Mulgrave situation. We have the same situation in Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, which is just down the road from Canso. All they wanted was 2,000 metric tonnes of shrimp from the 28,000 metric tonnes that were allocated, and they couldn't get it. That was it, more or less.

That's not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to say, sir, is that I have a thing here from the Telegram. Because it's in the paper, I just want to ask you if it's true that you acknowledged that in the past, in the 1970s and 1980s, governments may have favoured corporate interests over the inshore fishery. No question about it.

But I came in 18 months ago and I have no baggage from the past. Well, I worked for the airlines for 18 years, and I know a lot about baggage, and I don't think you're the one they're concerned about having the excess baggage. I think its concern is the department.

I mentioned a couple of things to Mr. Wouters before. People feel very disheartened when they write a letter and they don't get a response within three, four, or five months. As I mentioned before, your department could go a long way in public relations by responding to correspondence a lot quicker than they do now.

Second, I don't see any estimates for the Coast Guard anywhere. Mr. Murphy was here and indicated that $200 million was diverted from Coast Guard operations into DFO operations. I'd like you to clarify that.

And Mr. Neil Bellefontaine, the regional director, indicated that $45 million of a national cut was almost near. What I'm asking you, sir, is how many more cuts will DFO have to face in 1999 and in the year 2000?

Also, the Southwest Nova fleet will be gearing up for the winter season very quickly. They're very concerned about the three Coast Guard ships that will be laid up for a period of time. We've been hearing about a contingency plan for their replacement. I would like you to be able to at least explain, if not now then maybe later, what that contingency plan would be.

Also, sir, on November 9 you appointed some people to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation board.

These are quick and fast, you know. You don't have to answer some of them now, but....

You must have known about our recommendation way before our report came out. The number one recommendation of the committee was that the board should have been elected. I'd like you to respond to that, please.

That should be it for now. Thank you.

I have more, by the way.

Mr. David Anderson: I'll start with the baggage.

I think that comment must be right in context. I think I also said that no doubt in the last 20 years decisions have been made that favour the inshore over the offshore fleet, as well. It was simply a comment to the effect that if you ask me at this stage to correct every “error or decision of the past”, we would never stop looking to the past.

I think it is important to look forward and not to keep repeating the same stuff we've heard time after time. We want a fishery of the future. We don't want to simply have a rehashing of the fishery of the past. That was the point there.

I thank you for your support on Canso.

Mulgrave...to 2,000 tonnes of shrimp? Look, we made the decision of the excess shrimp over the regular licence-holders' quotas. We made it on the basis of proximity. We wanted to make sure that was the case, because we don't think it's necessarily going to continue.

Mulgrave is not the only community throughout the whole gulf region that wanted that shrimp. Had we broken, though, from the principle of adjacency, which I think most of this committee has accepted in its reports from time to time, there would have been no end. We would have had to divide up everything everywhere.

Perhaps we could have a comment from the Coast Guard.

Ms. Carol Beal (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'll be happy to answer that, Minister.

I believe the member, Mr. Stoffer, is referring to the $200 million cut the Coast Guard has taken since the 1994-95 year. It's a fairly complex trail, which we can draw for you. But, in effect, a number of reference-level cuts as a result of program review are incorporated in that number.

• 1635

A number of them relate to the sunsetting of programs related to the Green Plan, and some overhead studies that were done within the Coast Guard when it was part of the Department of Transport. At the same time, we had a second round of program review cuts to which the Coast Guard similarly contributed.

Also, when the departments merged, the Coast Guard became part of DFO. A number of responsibilities were transferred. For example, I now have responsibility for the infrastructure related to the Coast Guard bases. So some of the funding that was originally booked into the Coast Guard was transferred to a different component of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

So the trail is fairly detailed and complex, and we'd be happy to go over all the details with you at some later date. It would be my privilege to do that.

But, in effect, it is not a question of money being taken from the Coast Guard component of DFO and deployed in another component of DFO. It's simply being part of the same program of program reductions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I'm just reviewing our minutes from the meeting, and that's exactly what Mr. Murphy said. It was diverted from the Coast Guard to DFO. So I'm just repeating what he said.

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I think when I was here at the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, we agreed to sit down with the honourable member and go over a number of items. We'll add this one to those.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Great, thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Stoffer.

Now back to the government side. Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Knowing Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Wouters, I believe you'll have another six items by the time you get to it—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Two more.

Mr. Wayne Easter: —but that's good.

In any event, Mr. Minister, I thought some important points were made at the Fisheries Council of Canada meeting the other day, and they do relate to the supplemental estimates in some fashion. There was a lot of concern expressed by fishermen.

The general feeling out in the public arena and in the headlines is that the fishing industry on both coasts is a basket case.

They do not believe that to be true. Yes, there are difficulties—we're making some gains in overcoming those difficulties—but there's also some good news. I just wonder if you can relate some of those better news stories to us. How in fact can the supplemental estimates—and we're talking about a substantial amount of dollars coming to the fisheries sectors—contribute to moving us towards the fisheries of the future you so often seem to want to talk about?

Mr. David Anderson: I appreciate the question. The fishing industry of Canada provides about $3 billion of exports, and we export about 80% of our product. It's a very important component of our overall exports.

With respect to the impact it has on coastal communities—I mean, large chunks of Canada and northern Canada as well—essentially it is really the only game in town for many communities.

So I think this concept that it's a basket case is dead wrong. I think it certainly needs to have a reinvigorating effort so that what we're trying to do with our vision for the fisheries of the future....

Let me just give you two quick figures. I'll repeat the one for Quebec. We've had almost a 40% increase, a 39% increase, in the value of landings. That's what goes in the fisherman's pocket, the value of landings. We've had that in the province of Quebec, between 1989 and 1997. That's dramatic, and I give that figure because it's the highest figure of eastern Canada, of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

I keep hearing, stick to historic shares, stick to the past, don't make a change. If we did that, who would be disadvantaged? The fishermen of Quebec.

The second item I will point out to you is related to Newfoundland, the province of Mr. O'Brien. Well, Mr. O'Brien is from Labrador, so I have to be careful here. The southern appendage to Labrador is perhaps the way Mr. O'Brien might refer to it.

But Newfoundland and Labrador as a province is going to have a dramatic increase in gross provincial product this year. It is not coming from Hibernia; it is coming from the fishing industry.

• 1640

I wish people would simply pay a little attention to the positive aspect of fisheries. True, there are difficulties. True, we're in the middle of restructuring. But the purpose of restructuring is to make sure we have that viable industry for the future. It's not just simply sort of a farewell money idea; it's an attempt to get an industry that can stand on its own two feet, make major contributions, and pay the people who participate in it, either as shore workers or as fishermen themselves on the ocean, what's considered to be a respectable income.

I could mention lobster from your own province. Boy, the value of lobster exports is dramatic. The impact that lobster income has throughout Atlantic Canada is dramatic. Indeed, that's so in Quebec as well.

I'll restrain myself because the chairman is getting nervous about the time.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews has been very patient.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I'm always very patient.

I'd like to thank the minister and officials for appearing. I just have a few questions, because most of this has been covered.

In these supplementary estimates, I see there's some $4.5 million, I believe, for capital expenditures or new appropriations. Am I correct about that?

I'm just wondering where most of that would go. Would that be through your small craft harbours branch for infrastructure or whatever? Maybe you could comment on that when you get a chance.

Consider groundfish licence retirements. I know you really can't give a firm figure on it. I guess it will largely depend on the process and how many fishermen volunteer to retire, but how many licences do you realistically expect to retire under this program? You talk about a fishery of the future and how we have to reduce the number of harvesters. I'm just wondering if you have some figure for how many you're hopeful to retire in the groundfish licence retirement program. I'm just wondering if you have some idea.

The last one we had, as we know, didn't prove nearly as successful as we wanted it to be. If anything, in some areas, I think we had an increase in licence holders, not a reduction.

The other question I have, Mr. Chairman, is on the minister's comments on NAFO observer coverage. He talks about the 100% observer coverage as a result of the recent meetings in Lisbon. My question is, what did we give up for this 100% observer coverage?

I understand that we did, for the first time since 1949, allow a change in a fishing line of one of our zones that allowed, I believe, the Norwegians and Danes to fish shrimp in part of what we call the nose of the Grand Banks. I'm wondering what the size of that real line zone is. How many square miles or kilometres is it? What's the size of that area that we now allow those people to fish shrimp in?

When Mr. Wiseman was here just a few days ago. He indicated that the Law of the Sea Convention, even though we haven't signed it, gave us control of up to 350 miles of the seabed and what's under it. I'd like to hear your comment on that, because there are those who sort of doubt whether that's correct.

As you know, there are those who today are pushing for us to sign on to the Law of the Sea Convention. In that convention, article 76 gives us up to 10 years to register or object to seabed damage for gear types and whatnot that could give us control over that same area, which is known as the continental margin. So if indeed Mr. Wiseman is correct that we now do control what's on the seabed and what's under it for up to 350 miles, then there's no point or no need for us to even talk about article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention.

I'd like some clarification on that. I'd like to know if that's indeed correct. It's something I wasn't aware of. I think most other Atlantic Canadians are not aware that we now have control of the seabed and what's under it for up to 350 miles out.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much indeed.

I can give you the number of bids put in. I can't give you our expected numbers. The first reason for this is that we don't know them.

Again, I repeat what I said to Mr. Lunn. We have tried very hard to make this a voluntary program. What I did not say to Mr. Lunn, for example on the west coast, was this. We asked in a survey we did of all licence holders, who were the people who actually were potentially selling their licences, whether they thought we should take into account considerations such as the community or the fleet structures that Mr. Lunn mentioned. Well, 80% of them said no. They wanted us to just consider them. This is a buyout of their licences, so they told us to not do social engineering at their expense. That was a very clear message.

So we have difficulty, as it is voluntary. We have had 2,200 people in Newfoundland putting in bids in the first round. We had another 300 or 400 in other provinces putting in bids for the first round. I don't think I've got the figure for Quebec here. I think this is for the other maritime provinces. We haven't got them for Quebec because the Quebec round will end on the 30th of the month.

• 1645

We have about 2,500 to 2,600 from the Atlantic provinces. Some are unrealistic. Of course, these will not be accepted. But we believe the response is quite good.

There's no final figure. That's perhaps because it came by way of the amount of money we had. If we had more money, we could have put more money in the pot.

The problem with trying to put target figures out there is that fishermen—no group of people is more skilful than this one—would instantly start dividing the number of licence holders there are by the amount of money in the pot so as to then come up with the expected figures for their licence, which would skew the operation of the reverse auction and make it less effective probably both from their point of view and the department's point of view.

So that was that. With respect to the change for NAFO, there is no change to the nose and tail. The change is a sliver.

You asked for the size of it. You can multiply it out. It's 80 miles long and 7.4 miles wide. I believe it's at 47°, 30 minutes north and about 47° west. I think those are the coordinates.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews has been there, I'm sure.

Mr. David Anderson: I know Mr. Matthews knows the sea. It's in that little sliver on the western side of the Flemish Cap.

As for the purpose of it, Mr. Matthews, it was requested by the Faroese and others who did the fishing. It's not a logical line; it was an artificial line drawn on the map. It didn't follow the contours. They wanted to be able to follow the contours, because there's contour fishing at certain depths. It just made it more difficult. It didn't reduce the amount of shrimp they took. All it did was add to their cost.

So this change was made. It's outside the 200-mile limit. It's on the Flemish Cap, not on the nose or tail. We felt it was reasonably fair. It's a gift to them that simply reduced the institutional difficulty in fishing, but did not increase the take.

A witness: It has no impact on groundfish.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, it has absolutely no impact on groundfish; it's for shrimp, of course.

The final question was on the 350 miles. I have absolutely no reason to suggest that Mr. Wiseman is not 100% correct. Outside the 200 miles, on the continental shelf, we can have responsibility for minerals or biological resources attached to the bottom of the ocean or embedded in the bottom, such as a clam would be. But it doesn't cover, of course, the water column.

Mr. Bill Matthews: No, I know that.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Matthews made that clear in his question. I have no doubts whatsoever that Mr. Wiseman was accurate in his portrayal of the situation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly take to heart, Mr. Minister, your comments about looking at the many positive sides of the fisheries. There are realities, and these realities have some negative implications.

It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that you could characterize a lot of the submissions that were made by many witnesses on the east coast and west coast as being a question of whether there's fish in their future. Now I know that sounds very general, Mr. Minister, but I think it's something that has to be taken to heart, because that's the question posed on both coasts. If the reality is that there aren't fish in a fisherman's future, then it seems to me that reality has to be communicated.

You mentioned with respect to the voluntary groundfish licence retirement program that you fully believe this would be the last opportunity to exit with government assistance. So that's a reality.

I have two questions. One is specific to that statement. What is your department doing to communicate that reality to the groundfish licence holders?

• 1650

Secondly, with respect to the larger question, what is your department doing, where you know fish is not in someone's future, to effectively communicate that reality?

Mr. Minister, you know we can't continually be providing assistance, but I'll let you answer those two questions, please.

Mr. David Anderson: Those are very good questions.

The dilemma one faces as a government is, of course, that this is a free society and we can't dictate everyone's position and where they might be. So the question has major philosophical implications. What we've tried to do is point out what we think the size of the fishery will be in the future, when we talk about numbers. Where we can do that, we do it.

We've had to face up to the reality that with groundfish, particularly cod, the expectations of the last six years have not been realized. We expected a recovery similar to the Barents Sea off Norway; it didn't occur. Similar to the recoveries off Iceland when they've had a slump—it didn't occur.

So we have to say in all honesty to the people that we cannot tell them. But if and when the fish do come back, we do not expect them to be in the numbers; therefore, there must be a reduction and therefore you must explore other species. In fact, shrimp, crab, herring, and lobster have provided some very good incomes for fishermen, not always the same fishermen, unfortunately.

We try hard to provide that information as honestly as we can without being there as a sort of Big Brother government of the novel 1984.

With respect to the west coast, it has been a little easier in some respects. The major problem here on the west coast is price. The price of salmon is one-third of what it was ten years ago in 1988. I'm using rough figures. It may be slightly up at this particular time, but it's about one-third. The reason for that is farm fish. In 1980, farm fish were 1% of the total world sales. Last year or this year—I'm not sure which—it's 50%, and it's this that has driven the price of fish so far down. So we're able to get perhaps a little more information on the west coast, but it isn't going to be like it was before.

Furthermore, when we get into the issues of global warming, warming of the oceans...on the west coast we have warming of the oceans, and on the Atlantic, ironically, because of warming in the Arctic, we have more cold water coming out of the Arctic into the Atlantic, but it's still the same causal effect.

We have tried hard to give them the best science we can, and Dr. Davis is here to say a great deal more because he's very much more knowledgeable than I am. However, I do warn people, as I've said before. As Nancy mentioned in her question and as others have mentioned, we're not doing as much science as I would like. If you're to get a handle on what may be happening in the future, decades hence, you need to do some basic research, which has no economic payoff in the short run, and we're not doing a great deal of that, for economic reasons.

I'm going to be perfectly candid with the committee. That's the situation we face. But if we're going to spend money on that, I have to again be candid with the committee that it has to come from somewhere else, and we know the many other demands on departmental money.

I appreciate that it's a really fascinating philosophical question. How interventionist should the government be in telling people what their future will be? We try hard to provide information, not to provide direction.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I have a very quick supplementary question.

It gets more specific than that, Mr. Minister. When you say “I fully expect that this will be the last opportunity for fishermen to leave the fishery with government assistance,” has that been made clear now?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Now is the time they have to make the decision.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, sir, we have made that clear at every opportunity, that this is the last round. They may stay in beyond the government program and they may later get out, but if they were to get out later, they'd have to sell their licence to someone else currently in the industry and it would not be with government assistance.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, as chairman, if I could, I'd like to ask two questions.

Many little fishing harbours on the east coast are concerned about the future of their navigational aids. In terms of the concerns they have and the possibility they're getting cut back, is that on the agenda? Maybe Mr. Wouters can answer that.

Secondly, with that, how much money would it actually cost the department to maintain the aids that these small harbours have at present?

Mr. David Anderson: I'll turn the second question over to Carol. In terms of the first question, it's part of that overall cost pressure we're under.

• 1655

I fully understand the dilemma of the people who use small harbours in various parts, who are relying upon a certain aid. There have, of course—and I have to make this very clear—been dramatic improvements in navigational systems, in particular with global positioning, so that the original system of navigational aids does not have the same importance as they might have had 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

But I would turn it over to Carol to comment.

Ms. Carol Beal: It's about $1.2 million to maintain the ones you have raised, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Are you confident that by saving $1.2 million it is a good disinvestment to the many fishers who are out there who might benefit in times of necessity when those aids are so required? Is it a good investment or disinvestment in terms of the future of the Atlantic fishery and those many small boats that use those aids?

Mr. David Anderson: Sir, all we can do is say we've done the best analysis we can. You must remember that in addition to all marked navigational dangers, hazards, there are tens of thousands of others that are even now not marked. So you can always have a choice as to where you put your marker and where the best deployment of any particular amount of money for aids might be used.

We believe, though, that you have to take into account the improvements in positioning. Global positioning systems are now universal. They cost in the neighbourhood of $250, and there are very few boats that are without them. So we've had to take that into account. Most of the boats that are without them are pleasure craft—recreational vessels, not commercial vessels or fishermen. But we recognize that, yes, out of the $1.2 million worth there may be some that could be important at a certain point in time for an individual person.

The Chairman: I have one other question before we turn back to Mr. Cummins. In terms of licence buyouts with the Atlantic salmon, in the province of New Brunswick we still have approximately 12 licences left from the old buyout. Would the department consider buying out those licences with the present rate purchase of some of the cod and other groundfish stock licences?

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Hubbard, you are echoing a question I put to my deputy. We are under strict instructions from Treasury Board not to fudge on the groundfish money. My efforts—I won't call it to fudge—to be more generous in another area met with outright blunt and vigorous refusal. So the answer is clearly no, we won't succeed. It was voted for a particular purpose. There are, as you say, 12 licences. There are six on the island of Newfoundland that still exist—six or eight, I'm not sure.

A voice: One hundred.

Mr. David Anderson: Sorry, 100. I'm wrong in my number. But there are a few among people who did not take out previous buyout proposals. At the present time, we have no plan to buy them out. But you're right, it's something still kicking around that's left over from the past.

The Chairman: Mr. Wouters, would you also comment on that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I would add that there was a voluntary program for those licence holders, both in Newfoundland as well as in New Brunswick, and we did offer to buy them out over a period of time. They decided not to take up the buyout. That's the situation we're in right now.

The Chairman: If you are buying out in Newfoundland, would the New Brunswick people be considered?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: If we were, we made the offer as well. It was a voluntary program as well to Newfoundland, so that offer was made. They were given a certain period of time to decide whether they wanted to stay in the industry or take the buyout, and they decided not to. When the program was over, the program was finished.

The Chairman: So our department is saying to those fishermen, pay your licence fees each year, which they've done each year since 1990 or 1991, but you cannot fish.

Mr. David Anderson: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay, thanks.

Mr. Cummins.

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

I want to go back to Mr. Wright, Mr. Anderson. He sent a letter to Mr. Goldenberg, senior policy adviser to the office of the Prime Minister, dated June 21, 1996, complaining about the charges that were outstanding against him. And there were other letters as well. Enforcement officials on the west coast were made aware of the those letters and were asked to comment.

Do you think it appropriate that correspondence and inquiries from Mr. Goldenberg of the Prime Minister's office were directed to enforcement people handling the marine crisis?

• 1700

Mr. David Anderson: The letters in question, as I understand it from what you've told us just now, were written by Mr. Wright. If anyone in this room knows Mr. Wright, they know he's on the air frequently, he's in the paper frequently, and I'm quite sure he makes his correspondence available to everybody frequently. That's the nature of the person he is. I don't see how we can stop people writing to a government minister or a person in the Prime Minister's office and then handing the letter over to the press. I don't see the problem.

Mr. John Cummins: The problem is that senior officials were asking officials down the line for comment on Mr. Wright's letter. In other words, they were making them aware of that problem. Is that appropriate?

Mr. David Anderson: If Mr. Wright has a concern, if any fishermen have a concern, I send a letter to the deputy, or to whoever handles the correspondence unit, and they presumably go down throughout the department and ask people for their comments. If they're handling the management of the fishery that Mr. Wright's involved in, it seems appropriate they would be the ones to comment on it.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

I have one question here, and it's one you've responded to before, but I want to put it to you again. Before I do that, I want to preface it with some remarks that Senator Forsey wrote in a book on how Canadians govern themselves, which has a chapter called “The Rule of Law and the Courts”. It says: “Responsible government and federalism are two cornerstones of our system of government.” There is a third without which neither of the first two would be safe, the rule of law. He says: “What does the rule of law mean?” He says: “It means that everyone is subject to the law; that no one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law—not the government...”, and he goes on—and I would presume not the Minister of Fisheries.

As you know, Judge Thomas, in the case subsequent to mine, where the fishermen were charged and he stayed the charges, concluded that: “DFO has chosen to disregard the law as stated in Regina v. Cummins”. You suggested that somehow he was acting on his own. The fact of the matter, as I pointed out to you before, is he wasn't. If you look, for example, in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Nikal, the Supreme Court justices said:

1.The Crown in all of its manifestations was consistently clear in its statements that no exclusive fishery should be granted to Indian bands in British Columbia. This is consistent with the fact that the Crown had no power to grant an exclusive fishery, and that after Confederation this would involve the grant of provincial property.

The fact of the matter is that on any count, whether you reference the Magna Carta, whether you reference the Supreme Court of Canada quotation in Nikal, or the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladstone, you have been breaking the law. In fact, your department has acknowledged that, because they threatened charges against fishermen last summer and now recently have indicated they will compensate three fishermen for the fish that were confiscated when they went fishing with natives last summer. They're now going to reimburse them.

My question to you is, when are you going to stop breaking the law?

Mr. David Anderson: My response to you is thank you very much for the question. I spent five years teaching constitutional law. My lectures used to be 50 minutes each, and I'm happy to give a number of them right now, because it is—

The Chairman: It could be arranged. If Mr. Cummins would like one of your lectures, perhaps we could do that after.

Mr. John Cummins: I would like to have on the record what he has to say.

Mr. David Anderson: That's right. I would like to point out—

The Chairman: If we could have a very short answer....

Mr. David Anderson: I'll try to be brief.

Senator Forsey wrote an excellent book, which is about 60 pages. It is not, however, the full constitutional law. The provincial court system is set up for quick decisions; it is not based upon the precedent system of the other courts, the federal courts such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada or the Federal Court Trial Division or the Federal Court Appeal Division. It's not based on that. It's for speedy decisions.

In addition, Judge Thomas' words were unnecessary for deciding the case and therefore they became obiter dicta, to use the Latin term—in other words, words by the way.

• 1705

Mr. John Cummins: Not so. I challenge you on that one—

Mr. David Anderson: You can challenge me as you wish, but—

Mr. John Cummins: —as would Judge Thomas.

The Chairman: Our time is running out—

Mr. David Anderson: I don't think either of us should assume anything about Judge Thomas in that regard. I think it's inappropriate for politicians to make assumptions.

Mr. John Cummins: It's in the statement here.

The Chairman: Can we get back to the meeting for a minute?

Maybe you have a video of that lecture you could give to Mr. Cummins outside our committee.

Mr. David Anderson: Touché.

The Chairman: Ms. Beal has to leave, and we will excuse her if no one has a specific question for her. Does anyone have a question for Ms. Beal? We are going to go down the row again. Is your question to her, Peter? We're going to give you time now, but does Ms. Beal have to answer your question or someone else?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Somebody else—that's great. Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Bickerton will join the table then. Welcome.

Mr. Minister, we had a 5 p.m. time for the conclusion of the meeting. How much more time can you afford to the committee?

Mr. David Anderson: I have to meet the coalition of shippers of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system in ten minutes.

The Chairman: We will hurry down the row then.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): As you might have guessed, my questions will be about the Coast Guard. Let me ask you two quick ones.

The people you will be meeting with, Minister, from what they say in any case, are lobbying the House so intensively because the current situation is a threat to the competitive position of the whole St. Lawrence Seaway, from Thunder Bay to Gaspé and Sept-Îles. They are facing a threat from foreign competitors, from American ports in particular. We are talking about the competitiveness of the whole network, not just the part located in Quebec. Is your department aware of that?

They are being insistent for good reason. The accumulated dredging and ice-breaking fees on the waterways will be such that over 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes will no longer be competitive. That is the threat we see and the one mentioned to us by users. That is my first question.

I come now to my second. Given what you tell us in the House, namely that everything concerning the fees is under review and that you have not yet made a final decision, would it not be wiser to declare a moratorium immediately? Otherwise, what good will it do to meet with users here next week, to hear them call for certain things or try to influence the machinery of government? What is the point of that if on December 5 and 21, from what we hear, the regulations will start being in force? Where are we heading here?

Mr. David Anderson: To answer your second question, I am well aware that we do not have much time left. We had three years, but we just received the counter-proposal last week. However, I meant that I wanted to meet with them at least before making a decision. I want to at least meet with the parties concerned, and that will be done an hour from now.

Your first question is very important. The impact of the rates, the cost in particular ports, for particular vessels or for particular companies is very important. We have reviewed the question carefully and have concluded that the ports on the St. Lawrence River were in very good condition.

At the same time, we set a rate of 17.5% of the total cost. Of course, one might wonder whether the Coast Guard has not inflated the costs somewhat. Do they really amount to some $80 million? We may ask ourselves these questions, but we are not actually asking for a large percentage of the cost.

The next question was who would pay. It would be mainly the large foreign ships. Two-thirds of the ships are from foreign countries. We reviewed the situation and asked why they are now using ports on the St. Lawrence so often and in such a sustained fashion, and why they are cheap compared to the others.

• 1710

The last point I want to talk about is competition. The fact that Canadian taxpayers continue to pay all the costs of the Port of Halifax, which no doubt is of great interest to Mr. Stoffer, and of the Port of St. John, which no doubt is of interest to the chairman of this committee... Year after year, all the taxpayers of Canada have paid the costs of certain ports, and the ports with a natural advantage were disadvantaged because of the federal expenditures.

Let me mention one final point on this subject. We should remember that east of Quebec City, the federal government pays out $36 million a year for the bridges over the St. Lawrence, to enable people to cross from one shore to the other. The federal government does not pay this money for any other province: up to $36 million a year. I don't know whether we pay...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, you'd better stop, because Quebec is feeling so good at hearing all that and—

Mr. David Anderson: And the Maritimes is feeling so bad.

The Chairman: I don't know how Quebec can be so well off, Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. David Anderson: But there are a number of things.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

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

My big concern, of course, with the fees is that hopefully they won't deter business from going into the proposed Panamax arrangements going into Halifax. They're very concerned about that.

My big question is the one I asked you earlier about the Coast Guard. With the lay-up of the three ships, including the search and rescue one—the only one that's there—the fishermen are gearing up fairly soon and would like to know if you could explain—if not, I would ask your department through the communications secretariat in Nova Scotia to get the information out—what the plan is for this winter for Coast Guard activities for the fishing fleet.

Mr. David Anderson: Perhaps Mr. Turner could answer that question with respect to the Coast Guard vessels.

Mr. Michael A. H. Turner (Acting Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) Thank you.

First, it is correct that we are expecting to lay up a number of the vessels over certain months of the winter period, but in several cases this is the norm in any event. Some of the ships are not operated on a full-year basis. In this case we've had to lengthen somewhat the winter shutdown period because of our current financial situation.

You referred specifically to the search and rescue vessel, but I should emphasize that with the multi-tasking of the fleet, there really are very few ships that are dedicated solely to one function. In the particular case you are speaking of, the ship known as the Mary Hichens will be left alongside during the winter. However, we are putting back into service the just refitted vessel that was formerly used largely for fisheries patrol work. That ship will now be available to do both the search and rescue and fisheries patrol. So we do not anticipate overall a significant impact on the search and rescue capability.

The Chairman: Mr. Turner, thank you.

Our time has really gone over and we have votes here to consider. Mr. Minister, I'd like to thank you and your staff for coming. I'm amazed at your depth of knowledge of your department and the intricacies of the fisheries. We're very much impressed; at least I am, and I hope both sides of the table are.

Mr. Bill Matthews: We still won't get any shrimp.

The Chairman: We have different options with the estimates. One is to vote on them; the other is to simply let them go and let the House.... They're deemed to be adopted November 26, in any case. What is your pleasure? A motion to adopt?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Let them be deemed. They're good.

The Chairman: Is it unanimous then that we accept them to be deemed?

Mr. John Cummins: I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Do you want to vote?

• 1715

FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Vote 1b—Fisheries and Oceans—Operating expenditures ...... $53,119,642

Vote 5b—Fisheries and Oceans—Capital expenditures ...... $4,549,000

Vote 10b—Fisheries and Oceans—Contributions ...... $331,208,000

The Chairman: The major portion is the $325 million toward the fishery adjustment and restructuring plan. Would you like to deal with these separately or as a total of $388.8 million?

It's moved that they be adopted as votes 1, 5, and 10. All those in favour, please raise their right hand.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can you say that again, please? We were talking about lamprey eels here. Sorry.

The Chairman: It's for Paul Steckle that I do this. As we pointed out at the beginning of the debate, we have votes 1, 5, and 10. The largest amount of money deals with vote 10, with some $325 million for restructuring and adjusting. The motion has been made that we adopt or carry these five votes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's more money for the fisheries. Yes, of course, we want to do that.

The Chairman: All those in favour, please raise their right hand. Is there anybody here who wants their names recorded as being opposed to any of those votes?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just for clarification on this, Mr. Hubbard, will we be getting a further explanation as to the particulars of these as well?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No? Okay.

An hon. member: They do what they like with it once you give it to them.

The Chairman: There being no one—

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I don't approve of this increase to the AFS. There is no accountability in that at all. Its on page 5.

The Chairman: So are you voting against all three?

Mr. John Cummins: No, just the appropriation of the AFS.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Is it the aboriginal fishing strategy you're talking about, John?

Mr. John Cummins: Just that appropriation to it. That money is just a bottomless pit, a duplication.

The Chairman: Should the record indicate that you're in favour of all except for the AFS expenditure?

Mr. John Cummins: I don't know whether I'd want the record to indicate that I was in agreement with the minister.

Mr. Lou Sekora: John, make it easy.

The Chairman: Could the chair say, then, that you are opposed to the approval of these estimates? We've had a vote. Unless, you want on the record John...but you voted against it.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, record me as being opposed.

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to)

The Chairman: The next meeting of this committee is tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, to consider the approval of the Nunavut report and to introduce the P.E.I. reports.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Oh, we're going to get to it!

Mr. John Cummins: I have a question on that report business. One report—was it the central Canada report?—showed up under this committee's name in the House. It was not supposed to. I understood that we had agreed to allow these reports to pass through without comment because they were supposed to be attributed to the previous committee, not to this one.

The Chairman: It's not possible to do that, John.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, by motion of the committee—and I forgot about the 48-hour notice—I think it is possible that this committee could recognize that the report was done by the previous committee and should be recognized as such. I think we could append that to the front of the report, could we not, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, we could.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It would just be a motion that this committee is tabling this report on behalf of the former committee.

The Chairman: Do you have a question, too?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I just want to mention that I unfortunately won't be here for the morning meeting. I support the Nunavut report—as does our party, and I just want to reiterate that fact—but I did have one question on it. Will we be getting a translation of that report in Inuktitut for the people up north?

The Chairman: Apparently, yes. Maybe the clerk could tell us, too, whether there is a minority report with the Nunavut one.

The Clerk: I haven't received anything yet.

Mr. John Cummins: That was the previous committee.

The Chairman: The time has expired.

The Clerk: Tomorrow, November 26, is the last day to have it in, but I haven't received anything.

Mr. John Cummins: The travelling was done the last time. When we discussed it, I understood that in all of these reports, it was to be indicated that they weren't reporting to this committee but to the previous one.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We're just cleaning up old ones.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think we'll make a motion tomorrow to clarify that on these other two, John.

The Chairman: Paul Steckle.

• 1720

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the concern I have is that my office has been receiving phone calls for copies of the central Canada report. There just aren't any copies left. In fact, the Auditor General got his copy from my office. I think the situation we're in is a bit of a sorry state. Obviously, the central Canada report may not have the wide interest that the east and west coast reports have, but I have to think there are more people interested in this report than the committee may be giving credit for. I'm just wondering if we can get more copies, or do we have to take it out of our own office budgets to have more produced?

The Clerk: The standard is that we get 550 free copies. Anything beyond that comes out of the committee's budget. We have to pass a motion to print more copies, and that cost is covered by the committee.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Is that what we did with the other reports, the east and west?

The Clerk: For the east coast report, yes, we did. We passed a motion to print extra copies. For the west coast report, we passed a motion to print an extra 1,500. This time, we didn't do it for central Canada.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't want to spend a lot of money if it's not necessary, but we're getting calls. Maybe no one else is. Maybe I'm the only one.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could each check our offices to see if we have extra copies first, and we can give them to Paul. All mine are gone, with the exception of one.

Mr. Paul Steckle: You gentlemen have already given me your copies, I believe. At least, some of you people have.

The Chairman: Paul, could we consider that tomorrow maybe?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, I'm just putting it here for our.... If you have copies you don't need...I've given my west and east coast copies to whoever needs them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You don't have to come to room 368. I'll send them.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay, thanks.

The Chairman: In concluding our meeting today, then, shall I report to the House that we have approved the estimates this afternoon with one dissent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Very good.

The Chairman: Thank you, then, and we'll see you tomorrow morning. We're a hard-working crew, I tell you.

The meeting is adjourned.