FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 11, 1999

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): We'll call our meeting to order. I see we do have a quorum.

It's only a very brief meeting this morning to complete some unfinished business. We have been presented with two notices of motion, and according to the clerk neither motion has yet arrived. We do know the intent of one of them, which was to have the minister come before the committee to discuss the estimates.

In view of that being Mr. Lunn's motion and his not being here this morning, unless some member wants to open discussion on that, we probably should wait for Mr. Lunn's arrival. What is the intent of the committee? Would you like to discuss that possibility, or would you rather wait until Mr. Lunn comes to present his own?

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it would be beyond us to assume any motion for the Reform Party. If they're not here to make the motion, then I say there's no such motion before us and it requires no discussion. It's that simple.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins also had a motion, and apparently he's on his way. We could come back to that.

• 0910

The third item of business is a motion to travel. We have discussed this before. In terms of the House liaison committee, we have approached the chairman, Mr. Graham, on that. We would also like to point out that the speech that was made by the House leader of the Reform Party this week indicated that he would be reluctant to approve travel of committees.

It's not a human decision when you can go and see the whelping of the seals off the coast of Newfoundland. It's generally the seals that make that decision. With that we have to go toward the end of this month. It's quite important for us to consider this morning the possibility of placing before the House a report indicating that we want to do that. If I have permission from the committee, I will go to the House this morning at 10 o'clock to present an 11th report of our committee that recommends that the House agree with our travelling to Nain, Cartwright, and areas of Labrador and Newfoundland during the week of March 22. If I were to present that it would mean we would have to notify the House of a desire for concurrence, and we as members would have to be ready to debate that issue probably on Monday.

I'll recognize Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): I move that we give permission to the chair to take that to the House to present it.

The Chairman: I'll wait for John to have his seat and I'll go over that again.

John, what we've been discussing is that in order to make this trip to Labrador and to avoid difficulties that might be incurred with that in terms of the liaison committee and agreement among House leaders, we would seek from the House concurrence to travel to the sealing area and visit Cartwright and Nain during the last full week of March. A motion has been placed on the floor that we would, as a committee, ask the chairman to go before the House this morning to table an 11th report of the committee that would request such travel.

Is there any further discussion? Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): It shows on our radar map that Bill C-27 may be discussed that week. I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could verify that.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Bill C-27 is supposed to be debated on March 22 and 23, and I understand that travel would not be before March 23.

The Chairman: Is there anything further? Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): In regard to the whelping of the seals, how late can we go and still be accommodating that inevitable happening? Or is this something that has to happen that week? I asked that question the other day, and I didn't get an answer.

The Chairman: Bill, do you have any information?

The Clerk of the Committee: The contact I was talking to in Labrador said that was probably the last week we would have the opportunity. Next week is probably the best, but he said they should be around the following week also. The last week is the week of March 22.

(Motion agreed to)

• 0915

The Chairman: We have two other items this morning.

We have a letter to the committee that is expressing concern with the work being done by the Standing Committee on Environment. As you know, they're involved in a very lengthy process of developing Bill C-32. Someone asked the other day, when we had Mr. Bastien here, about some aspects of the hearings before that committee. It's my understanding, Wayne, that both ministers, Minister Stewart and Minister Anderson, are suggesting that our committees look at some of this together. Would you like to explain this to the committee?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bill C-32 is getting near the final stages of discussion by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It has some proposed amendments that are very hostile to the aquaculture industry. Those amendments were prepared after a very short period of debate, and I think with a considerable lack of understanding of the aquaculture industry.

I think both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are concerned about the implications in the aquaculture industry and have written a letter to you and the chair of the environment committee suggesting that those proposed amendments on aquaculture be set aside and that CEPA go through without those particular amendments relating to aquaculture, and that a subcommittee of fisheries and environment be set up to examine those issues in a more in-depth way than the environment committee has time to do, and make recommendations accordingly. That is the suggestion from both ministers, to try to set aside those amendments that, certainly in our view, are hostile to the aquaculture industry.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, I don't think other members have copies of that letter yet. Rather than getting into a debate on that, it probably would be best for you to give notice of motion that our committee would consider this.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, yes, we can give notice of motion if we're able to do so. The fact is if the chair and members of the environment committee don't accept that proposal and the amendments go through, it would be a moot point. We wouldn't need to do it; it would be handled some other way. It's a letter that went to both you and Mr. Caccia to try to show a way of getting out of the impasse with the limited discussion that has been held on the impact on aquaculture.

The Chairman: I'd like to just clarify what we're saying here, Wayne, with this. It's seems to be a matter of some urgency for us to respond to this. If we plan to set up a subcommittee on that, I would think what you said would be taken as notice of motion so we could do that. I think—I'll refer to the clerk here—we probably need a 48-hour.... Would we?

Okay, we'll let that go then, if it's only a couple of questions. But I do want to conclude this meeting a bit early this morning if we can. I think Peter was first, and then John.

• 0920

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would think, Mr. Chair, and I say this with all due respect to Mr. Easter, we would have to confer with our colleagues on the environment committee before we make any decision on our speech, at least on the New Democrat side, to discuss what we'd like to do.

Again, Mr. Easter, it gives the perception that the government wants not to have to deal with this—pass the bill, and then we'll talk about all the other ramifications later. I think I would have some problems with that. The aquaculture industry, as you know from Mr. Bastien, and I've read the minutes from our last transcript, is a burgeoning industry and one that if not properly regulated and controlled can have—it already has—some very serious environmental effects. And that's the point of Bill C-32—to protect our environment.

I think your comments may be fair about the fact that they haven't got all the information they require, but I would think they should hold off on the bill until they get the information, and not make any of these sidebar deals. That's my first impression of that, so I would be very cautious about agreeing to anything of that nature.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): I think I appreciate and could support what the member opposite is proposing, but I want to point out that the same thing applies to that Marine Conservation Areas Act. That act really is imposing, if you will, on the authority and obligation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I think there should be some discussion on that. I noticed in the House the other day that they're declining to proceed with marine parks in certain areas in Newfoundland, and we've got similar problems in B.C. I'd be happy to support that motion, but I think there should be another one dealing with the marine parks. I think we should be involved with that issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): I think that in an area such as aquaculture, we can't be in the wake of another committee. As was said, this is an economic area in full effervescence. It is important for Quebec, among other regions. It is important for several regions and demands an in-depth look.

I would see it in a very unfavourable light if the Environment Committee were to pass a bill on aquaculture without our previously having taken a more in-depth look at the topic.

That is why we must have a joint subcommittee to settle issues because I feel that there is some urgency here. We must ensure that we won't, as we say back home, be bamboozled.

I am also in favour of the environment, but we mustn't try to go too far. We also have to ensure that we will be able to settle issues in this area through a gentlemen's agreement by striking this subcommittee. But I would certainly see it in an unfavourable light if an environment bill involving aquaculture were to be passed without our having taken a further look at the topic.

If you need a motion and 48 hours' notice, I think that we could obtain unanimous consent here to say that because of the urgency of the situation we will immediately undertake to meet the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and strike this subcommittee.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there further discussion then?

Mr. John Cummins: I'd be prepared to provide support on that, but as I said, I'd like to see as a condition that a similar proposal be made on marine parks.

A voice: Canadian Heritage.

Mr. John Cummins: Canadian Heritage, that's correct.

The Chairman: Just for your and other members' information, the day we visited Fisheries and Oceans I approached Mr. Wouters, the deputy minister at that time, about the so-called conservation areas, and how under Canadian Heritage it was being.... I told him if there were any concerns in terms of fisheries on that, I'd like for him to get back to me. He has not done that. Whether he overlooked it or whether he felt there were no concerns.... But I too was surprised yesterday in the House to find that people in Newfoundland are concerned. I originally thought that people in the areas would be concerned.

John, you'd have to bring that back, after we concur on Mr. Easter's request for a possible establishment of a subcommittee to discuss with the environment committee. Would that be acceptable to you in terms of unanimous consent?

• 0925

Mr. John Cummins: Go ahead, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: As I understand it, the marine park areas would be dealing with heritage instead of with environment. That's the difference. I don't disagree with you.

Mr. John Cummins: All I'm saying is that we should—-

Mr. Wayne Easter: We have to know the implications on fisheries and fisheries management relative to those points.

Mr. John Cummins: Precisely. Could you support that?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I don't have a problem with it.

Mr. John Cummins: I have no problem with what you're proposing. We could do that.

The Chairman: So we have unanimous consent then that we could proceed with the establishment of a subcommittee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I think we have agreement to move toward the establishment of a subcommittee, but we will have to have agreement from the environment committee as well. I think that's understood.

The Chairman: Yes, definitely. It's just that we would be ready when it's discussed with Mr. Caccia.

With that, we will note then according to the record that we do have permission to do such, and with that, Wayne, you will have permission to discuss, as I will, with Mr. Caccia the possible establishment. At our first opportunity then we will establish the names for the committee, which will have representation from all sides of the House.

I think probably, Peter, with you and Bill, that when you break it down in halves or whatever you'll have to look at that situation in terms of parties.

The only other information I have is there was circulated a letter on cost recovery. John, do you want to bring that up?

Mr. John Cummins: If we could have a similar motion.... I'd like to make a similar motion but with regard to Canadian Heritage and marine parks.

The Chairman: Again, John, to clarify this, it would mean that Wayne and I would approach the heritage committee to see if such an arrangement could be made.

Mr. John Cummins: Precisely.

The Chairman: Do we all concur with that? Agreed. Again, we will do such and we'll inform the committee.

We have a letter here that was circulated from the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada talking about cost recovery. I think everyone has had a copy of that. I'm not really sure how we should deal with it. Are there any suggestions from members of the committee? I have one copy. Perhaps we'll wait then and bring this up at a later date. I think it was sent to all members. I think it was circulated yesterday. Maybe it didn't get back to your desks yet.

Is there any other business before the committee this morning? Yves.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Could the parliamentary secretary tell us again what is happening with Bill C-27? I'm not sure I understood correctly earlier. What is happening to Bill C-27?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, it's our understanding that given the House schedule, the debate on Bill C-27 will take place on March 22 and March 23. The members of the committee have been given a letter outlining the areas that will be amended by the government. The amendments on the government side will be placed on the Order Paper very shortly. The intent of the amendments for the government was outlined in that letter to members of the committee.

Yves, I know Mr. Turp had some areas that I think he was thinking of putting amendments on. They would have to get on the Order Paper sometime early next week prior to Thursday in order to have time to be on the Order Paper and enough time to be debated.

The Chairman: Peter, do you have another point?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's something for the benefit of the committee members, who may not be aware of it, but I handed Mr. Easter a copy of an article in the magazine called The Navigator, which is published in Newfoundland, about a deal that was struck last December between Spain and Cuba. What Spain basically has done is loan Cuba some money in order to build five trawlers in Spain. The purpose of those trawlers is that Cuba would then fish for hake inside our Canadian limit.

• 0930

There's a quotation in there by Earl Wiseman that says that Cuba is assuming they'll have some quotas in the future for hake within our waters. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, if it's possible, if he could verify whether this article is correct. I spoke to the ambassador to Spain yesterday at a breakfast, and he was completely unaware of the article, so I gave him a copy of it and he'll get back to us. I asked him whether it is not a backdoor way of Spain getting some access to our fish. He said he didn't know, but it could appear to be that way.

What I would basically like to know is with Bill C-27 coming down and all this other stuff, will Canada in the future allow Cuba or any other nation to fish within our waters? And it's for the benefit of two major companies, Seafreez and Clearwater, which would be contracting that work out. The objective, at least from my understanding and our party's understanding from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is that in time there will be a Canadianization of our fishery. Five years from now, I'd hope we would have that complete. I would like some more clarification from either Mr. Wiseman or Mr. Easter on that, if possible.

The Chairman: I think probably it's not on the Order Paper. I'm aware of the article and the concerns of some voices in Newfoundland on it, but I think it might be best for all people to get back and ask some questions before we take it as being a major problem.

Cuba is trying to develop a fishing industry, as are many of the countries in Latin America. The intent of what they plan to do with those boats, I'm not sure, but there are apparently five draggers being built.

Wayne, I think we should research this a little bit further before we try to put on record some—

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's basically what I was going to say, Mr. Chairman.

We are looking into the matter. The policy of the government is to Canadianize the industry and offer fishing options to Canadians first. That is what has been done. There is not enough profitability in the silver hake for Canadian fisheries companies and individuals to take it on, so it went to Cuba at this point in time. But our policy is to Canadianize the fishery, so we'll look into it and get what the implications are.

The Chairman: Yves, you had a point too?

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: This still concerns Bill C-27.

If it has to be studied on March 22 and 23, does this conflict with the trip that was to take place in the week of the 22nd of March? Will the dates mesh?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, I think the trip, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, is being planned for the 24th. The debate on Bill C-27 would be on the 22nd and 23rd.

The Chairman: We'll adjourn the meeting then. And if we do have this big debate in the House on Monday or Tuesday about the trip, I hope members will be ready to present their concerns and their wishes in terms of the necessity of seeing....

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can we just ask for unanimous consent in the House?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And if you don't get it...?

Mr. Wayne Easter: It takes one, apparently.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. You have to have unanimous consent. I saw Kilgour do that: he asked for unanimous consent for a couple of trips, and it was agreed through the House.

The Chairman: We're adjourned.