FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

• 1308

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We shall call the meeting to order.

Welcome, Ms. Baker.

First of all, I should extend my apologies. It's been a number of times we've attempted to hear the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association. I guess the last day there were technical difficulties as well. In any event, welcome. The order of the day is to review the Oceans Act, which is our statutory obligation.

Ms. Deborah M. Baker (Legal Representative, Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association): Excuse me. The sound is not clear at all. I can hardly make out what you're saying. I'm sorry.

A voice: History is repeating itself.

The Chair: Can you hear me now?

Ms. Deborah Baker: It's very distorted. Maybe if you just speak a little lower...

The Chair: Okay. In any event, Deborah, we're hearing you quite well.

Ms. Deborah Baker: That's better.

The Chair: Welcome. We will turn it over to you to make your presentation, and then it will be on the record. Then we will go to questions. The floor is yours.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Thank you very much.

Well, it seems to be a comedy of errors with our meeting. I went to the office today and I had three closings of properties, and they were all messed up, and I left my file for this presentation at home on the kitchen table. So I'm here without a thing. So I do apologize myself.

The main concern my fishermen have is that the Oceans Act does not mention fishermen. I would like to ask the committee if they are going to do something to change that when they make recommendations to Parliament.

The Chair: That will be up to the committee to decide, Deborah, in terms of what they want to report back relative to the Oceans Act.

• 1310

I think it was February when we received your submission, and you do have a couple of proposed amendments. We will certainly discuss them as a committee.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I think the idea of coastal community is a very nice idea, but I don't know if the committee is aware that it has come out of an academic background at St. Francis Xavier. The people there are behind something called the Coastal Communities Network and are by and large not fishermen—some of them are women in the communities—and they are not communicating with fishermen. By including coastal communities, in Nova Scotia at least, the fishermen see that as bypassing them altogether. I think there may have been some communication problems about what coastal communities might have meant to whoever drafted the legislation.

To clear it up, my clients feel that including fishermen would be the appropriate way to do it, because they certainly did have a part in the Oceans Act.

The other particular point they had was if there were a designated marine protected area they would like to have some input into where that might be and be able to perhaps negotiate some kind of compensation for the loss of the fishing ability in that area if it were to take place.

The only other major point I had to make was that my particular clients have come before this committee on several occasions. I think the first time was in November 1995, when we were looking at the Oceans Act, or Bill C-98, as it then was. They paid for my trip to Ottawa, and I remember there were very long delays because there were so many presentations, so they ended up having to pay for my overnight stay and of course for all of my time. I think they made a substantial contribution at that time from a financial perspective.

I appeared before the committee on the native issue, and then we were asked again this time, which we appreciate, to make our comments on the Oceans Act. When I wrote to Mr. Farrell and asked if he had received our presentation—and this is keeping in mind that you asked us to make it—we didn't get a response in writing acknowledging our submission. I thought that was perhaps the least the committee could do, especially when the fishermen's organization is completely volunteer and they pay quite a few dollars in legal fees to have somebody make these presentations for them. I think it would be very appropriate if you could just fax them a note saying thank you very much; we've received your submission. I don't think you'd have to say anything more than that, but to simply acknowledge that they have made an effort on your behalf and on behalf of the people of Canada. They're really trying to help the committee in its determination of the various issues it has to deal with.

We would very much appreciate next time being acknowledged for our efforts.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Baker.

We will turn to questions. Before I do, all members at committee have a copy of your presentation before them. They can take the liberty of asking you questions on that presentation, although you don't have it with you. It will go in the record, though, as being presented to the committee and we definitely thank you for that. I do apologize for you not receiving a note. We'll see that it's rectified.

We'll turn now to Mr. Gilmour with the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Deborah, can you hear me?

Ms. Deborah Baker: I can hear you actually better than the first person. Thank you.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It's probably the accent.

Perhaps you can tell us from the legal point of view what putting fishermen into the Oceans Act would mean legally. Is it a protection you're looking for from being dislocated or displaced? As a layman, I don't understand what it would mean.

Ms. Deborah Baker: The main issue is that in various sections, and I apologize that I don't have them with me, the minister is given the ability to ask various groups for opinions about different things that he or she's going to do, and those groups include aboriginals and coastal communities and various other groups, but fishermen are not included.

• 1315

From a legal perspective, from my point of view it would mean that there would be absolutely no reason or any onus on the minister to refer to fishermen when making these requests for opinions. So I think from a legal perspective the fishermen have been left out of being able to advise the minister in those various matters.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes, it does.

How would it apply from a liability point of view? Say a community fishery was shut down for whatever reason. By putting fishermen in the act, would it make any department liable for that action?

Ms. Deborah Baker: So you're saying if there were a marine protected area and they closed down the fishery, if the fishermen were in the act, would it make the department liable?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That's right.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I think that's a good point. I think it would depend on the wording. If it was incumbent on the department to compensate them, I think, yes, it definitely would make them liable.

If it's just an advisory capacity they're asking for, which is what my fishermen are asking for—they just want to be able to have an input as they do now in many of the various fisheries policies—I don't think it would make the department liable. If anyone, it would make the coastal community liable, whose whole community could be affected by the shutdown of a fishery.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes, I see where you're coming from.

My riding is on Vancouver Island, so we have the coastal communities on the other coast. We appear apparently to have a better representation of say the forestry industry, the logging, mining, and fisheries. There seems to be a better vehicle than perhaps they have in the Maritimes, because I know there is a pretty good network that appears to cover most of the bases.

I see your point is basically advisory. They just want to be part of the solution or part of the ongoing discussions.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Exactly. And if the Minister of Fisheries is going to do something that affects the fishery and he asks everybody else but the fishermen, it doesn't seem to be appropriate or fair because the fishermen are the first in line to have an effect upon them.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Right on.

Thank you, Deborah.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I too must apologize for not bringing along with me a copy of the Oceans Act. Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to the nature of section 47, having drawn our attention to service charges or the use of facilities. You express some concern about the possibility of dual taxation. Could you detail for us the provisions of section 47?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Baker: Yes, I'd be happy to explain that.

The group I represent today, area 19 crab fishermen, have negotiated a co-management agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In that agreement they pay for a lot of various services, and on top of what they pay for those services they also have to pay an extensive management fee to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They also pay a licence fee, which also is supposed to be a management fee, which puts them in a position of paying twice as much as the fisherman who does not have a co-management agreement.

So what concerned us about the act was if allowance is not made for those groups that have made co-management agreements with the fisheries department, who are already paying service fees, fee for service, they will have to pay double, like my clients are now paying. They will have to pay a double fee to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which will discourage them from getting into co-management agreements.

I see that you look puzzled.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: No, I was trying to listen to the interpretation. The sound isn't very good today.

• 1320

Which charges are you referring to? I was under the impression that the pursuant to the Oceans Act, the minister could only impose charges for map making. I didn't think that other fees could be collected. That's why I'd like to know the reasons for your concerns about section 47.

[English]

Ms. Deborah Baker: I apologize, but I don't have the act with me. I thought in section 47 it outlined the ability of the minister to charge a fee for service. Perhaps that's incorrect.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I see. You want to draw our attention to the fact that the act should specify which services are affected and should ensure that clients who have already paid for these services are not charged again. You want us to take steps to ensure that dual taxation is not an issue.

[English]

Ms. Deborah Baker: The specific example I was talking about was that the fishermen in my group pay the Department of Fisheries specifically for managing the resource, for protection, surveillance, scientific data, development of scientific analysis. Fishermen in other groups get the same service from the government, and they pay for that through their licence fee. My clients pay for the licence fee and they pay additional costs.

We were hoping that the Oceans Act would say it's fine for the minister to charge a fee for service—we have no problem with that, especially in today's world—but if arrangements have been made under a co-management agreement, for example, where they've already paid fees, they shouldn't have to pay them twice.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Baker.

Are there any questions over here? Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Hi, Deborah. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions.

You mention payments, and we've heard a lot about divestiture of wharves and of the ports in many small communities. Could you please tell us what kind of impact that's had on your—

Ms. Deborah Baker: I'm sorry, I can't understand you at all. Could you just go back and try again?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Deborah, can you hear that now?

Ms. Deborah Baker: That's quite a bit better. Please speak slowly so I can get it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Right.

Deborah, I'll ask this question first. The premier of the province has just formed an advisory council on oil and gas. Of that 16-member board, there's one member from the fishing industry, Brian Giroux, who really represents the offshore and midshore and not the inshore and groups like yourself. I was wondering if you could just comment on that. Should organizations like yours, for example, be represented on a council of that nature?

Ms. Deborah Baker: That's an excellent question, and my clients have discussed that with me. One of the things we thought would be appropriate was that as the environmental assessments were done by species, the people involved in each species should be able to negotiate a compensation package for any environmental hazards that might arise out of the oil and gas industry.

The thing we would have liked to have done was to get the inshore groups together and have them represent their own interests with the NSOPB. Their interests are quite different from the offshore interests, and I definitely think they should have a voice on the board.

One of the other things we thought was very important was that fishermen should get involved before anything were to happen, before there were any spills or anything like that. They should be involved right now, at the developmental stages, so they can have an input in environmental assessment and various other aspects of the oil and gas development.

• 1325

I noticed on the east coast, when I was dealing with another crab fishermen's group, that when they did the environmental assessment for Sable offshore gas they left out the crab species. Now, crab today on the east coast is abundant. I think 98 tonnes were allocated for fishing this particular season. And there's no compensation for crab because they were left out of the environmental assessment.

The fisheries data that was given to the oil industry for that assessment was 1980 data. My sense is that if fishermen were involved, that would never happen again. The data would be up to date. They perhaps would be able to do some of the assessment with their own fishing boats and play a more proactive role in oil and gas.

I must say there are some groups that don't want any oil and gas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but my clients feel it's very important that we learn to live together with the oil and gas, and that if we could become active now, there's a good chance that the fishing industry and the oil industry could coexist peacefully.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Deborah, I have another question for you. When you mention the fact that the Oceans Act is completely devoid of references to fishers, as you know, there are three basic groups of fishers: the inshore, midshore, and offshore. Would you have the term “fishers” separated in those categories for the purpose of the Oceans Act, or would you lump them all into one representative group?

Ms. Deborah Baker: Well, I think it's pretty important just to have... Actually they hate the name “fishers”. Most fishermen want to be called fishermen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: All right. There you go. Right on.

Ms. Deborah Baker: There are even women who have told us that they want to be called fishermen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hear, hear. Right on. There it is, on the record. Got it. Thank you.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I think that fishermen would be adequate for a number of reasons. First of all, there is some mobility of fishermen between the inshore and offshore and midshore. Sometimes they are inshore fishermen for lobster but they're crew members on an offshore trawler. So they could be two kinds of fishermen.

When they get together over specific issues—for example, how big the trawl net should be or something—that is both sides of a specific issue. But when it comes to the policies that are outlined in the Oceans Act over which the minister has jurisdiction, it seems to me that all fishermen would be interested.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a final question, Deborah, for you. We've heard a lot about the divestiture of wharves, especially in the smaller ports and the harbours throughout Atlantic Canada, and also that of lighthouses. I was wondering if you could give us the ground view of what your group is doing in terms of how they're handling the divestiture of wharves from the federal government to communities, or coastal groups for that matter, in regard to that, and lighthouses as well.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I could only understand part of that. May I just ask if I heard what you said?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Ms. Deborah Baker: The question is what do we think of lighthouses and wharves being turned over to communities and taken away from the federal government?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I haven't done any research on that. From a purely theoretical point of view, I myself am a proponent of public-private partnerships and the private sector taking over a lot of the services that perhaps were taken over before by the federal government. I have absolutely no experience or information about how it's working in those particular areas where there has been privatization.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Keddy—and we hope your mike will work.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'll try to stand in front of this mike and see if you can hear me clearly. Can you hear me?

Ms. Deborah Baker: I can't understand a thing. Sorry. Isn't that insulting?

The Chair: This is the only way the Tories and the Alliance can get close to each other—by using the same mike.

Ms. Deborah Baker: You know, it's something I never learned as a lawyer—how empowering it is to tell people you don't understand them.

• 1330

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have the same problem with translation services in the House. They blame it on the south shore accent.

A couple of questions have come up, and there's one that hasn't been asked yet. There's some discussion here about your fishermen's concern over the protected areas in the Oceans Act. You're aware of the fact that in the Oceans Act, the protected zones don't preclude fishing. They simply preclude fishing at certain times of the year and they're very specific to non-destructive gear types.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So long-lining and a number of other gear types are allowed in protected zones throughout the year, not necessarily when that's a spawning ground or when it's a time when whales or some other species may be there. I just wanted to make the point that you guys were well aware of that.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Yes. That was with respect to the issue about whether a protected area might totally close down an area.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A protected area shouldn't totally close down any area.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Okay. I'm not sure that we were clear, and I appreciate the clarification on that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have the act in front of me either, but the way I've read the act and the way I see it is that it doesn't preclude all gear types. It precludes destructive gear types.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Okay. Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Someone can correct me on that if I'm incorrect.

Certainly the double fees seem to be an ongoing problem that maybe we as a committee could address. Obviously you're paying the same as all other fishermen for your dockside monitoring and a number of other services that you get from the government that are not covered under your licence fee.

My issue on the double fees is that usually you pay for science when it's a new species. After that new species has been established or you have a proven track record that the species is out there, that it's accessible, and that it's exploitable, then the government takes over the science. But that's not happening.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Not in crab. Every year we have a trawl survey on the crab. We hire a fishing vessel and we have a very extensive survey. I'm not sure about other species, but I know that in crab in particular we have a yearly survey. We don't mind that. The fishermen are very interested in that because the predictions have been very useful to them. What I think they mind is the fact that especially when it comes to surveillance and enforcement and management, they're paying an extra management fee and paying the huge licence fees that they have to pay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

I have one more question, if I could. It's partially a comment. I'm quite frankly surprised that it hasn't been addressed already. You would think that fishermen, especially from your area in Cheticamp, would like a voice or a seat on the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I'm surprised that they're not there already.

Ms. Deborah Baker: They have requested it. I know my fishermen have requested to go on. I know Brian Giroux sits on the board, but it's very difficult for him to represent all of the Nova Scotia interests in all of the oil and gas areas. It's almost impossible for him to understand or to represent all of the various issues without being in conflict with his own particular group.

I know the area 19 snow crab fishermen were getting together with some other people and they have asked to sit on the board, but they haven't so far been allowed to. I haven't seen any documentation as to why they've been refused. I think it's very important that not just one person represent the interests of 3,000 fishermen.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't disagree with that. I think that's something that can easily be addressed. That's something that I'd like to talk to you a little further on.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll get in contact with you about that, because that's open for negotiation for sure.

Ms. Deborah Baker: That would be fine.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I wrote a note here and I didn't bring my glasses up to this mike, so now I'm going to have to try to read this.

• 1335

We might be able to make this work. We're getting closer, Bill.

The other issue I guess you had was the specific wording in the Oceans Act and the fact that crab had been left out of that. I wonder if we could recommend a simple wording change and it could read something like “to include species change and adaptation”. We've seen a dramatic change in species and species territory over the last twenty years in Atlantic Canada, especially in... I want to say northeastern Atlantic Canada, but I guess that's exactly where we are.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Certainly if we said that, it then allows for climate change; that allows for ice differentiation—you know, we've got less ice than we ever had before; it allows for water warming; it allows for the Gulf Stream to change. A very simple wording change could probably include some of your main concerns.

Ms. Deborah Baker: I think that's an excellent point, and it would be very helpful.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Because species do change. Look at the wild salmon situation here now. It's a very good point.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Ms. Deborah Baker: We may find new species.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I expect we'll definitely have new species. The offshore shrimp in St. Margarets Bay is a prime example.

Ms. Deborah Baker: That's right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Deborah, can you tell me if in the Oceans Act aboriginals are consulted as part of the act? You say fishermen aren't, but are aboriginals part of that?

Ms. Deborah Baker: Yes, they are.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So an aboriginal fisherman would be consulted because of the wording, but a fisherman would not.

Ms. Deborah Baker: That's right. That's the way the act reads right now.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Has there been any difference before and after Marshall in the way the consultation has been treated?

Ms. Deborah Baker: As far as the issues respecting the act go?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes. Before and after the Marshall decision, has there been any—

Ms. Deborah Baker: I would say no, especially with respect to my clients, because when we negotiated our co-management agreement we included the four native bands in the agreement, so they're part of us. I represent four native bands as well as the other 111 fishermen. In our particular group we haven't had any real problems after Marshall. I don't know if we will or not, but we haven't so far.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Are the aboriginals and the non-aboriginals treated the same, or is there a difference?

Ms. Deborah Baker: They're treated the same under our co-management agreement. In the act, of course the aboriginals would be consulted, whereas fishermen may not be. One of our points is that aboriginals might, but it wasn't just aboriginals; it was that coastal communities might be consulted but fishermen might not.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Now, with respect to aboriginals in our own particular group, the people I represent, we've had no altercations or any problems at all since Marshall. As I said, they're signatories to the treaty exactly the same as we are; they're members of our group.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. Good stuff. Thank you, Deborah.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further questions by any members?

Deborah, are there any last points you want to add?

Ms. Deborah Baker: No. Thank you very much. I've appreciated this talk.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Deborah. Thank you once again.

Ms. Deborah Baker: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Members, we need to make a decision. We have a letter from the Atlantic Salmon Federation asking to appear before the committee. The issues they'd like to appear before the committee on are the federal investment in Atlantic salmon conservation protection and management, community watershed management, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation aquaculture policy and the need for cooperative initiatives. There's a request from Stephen Chase, who's the vice-president of government affairs for the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for that meeting. We do have next week available if the committee wants to hear from them. Is that fine?

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

• 1340

On balance, the Atlantic Salmon Federation is very antagonistic to a number of parties in the Atlantic, particularly in Labrador. If we give these guys the opportunity, I would like equal opportunity for groups that would counter what the Atlantic Salmon Federation has to say.

The Chair: Can you come forward with a witness?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Yes, I have a witness right now; it's the Labrador Métis Nation president.

The Chair: Can you talk to Bill—

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'll contact him, absolutely.

The Chair: We'll line that meeting up for next Tuesday, and that should be our last meeting before we break for summer.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Before you break, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind—

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer first and then Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be concerned about the ASF when it was that organization that gave the former minister a conservation award for salmon a while ago. So that was interesting.

The Chair: It was an award very well deserved, I will admit.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to say is there's a conference going on, if I'm not mistaken, this week in New Brunswick about the Atlantic Salmon Federation and their concerns. And what's making the papers is that aquaculture says one thing and ASF says another thing. They're duking it out in the papers. I would think it would be advisable to invite Mr. Rideout back to the table to discuss the concerns, or what they're saying, about the wild salmon as well, to get some sort of balance for the committee.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That's right. All I'm looking for is balance.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's for balance.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: If it's going to be approached, Mr. Chairman, by the Atlantic Salmon Federation utilizing the wild salmon, the policies in aquaculture and watershed and so on, we need to bring the balance so that at the end of the day two and two equals four.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Maybe we can get them talking together as well.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think enough has been said on this, quite honestly, but I'd like to make a point here. These folks have—

The Chair: Don't say any more.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm going to say a little more, Mr. Chairman, just a bit more.

I think the point is that they've requested to come before the committee. If we want some balance, I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge what they're about to say. Their proposed agenda is federal investment in Atlantic salmon conservation, protection, and management—surely that's within our mandate; community watershed management, which may be more provincial jurisdiction; and Atlantic Salmon Federation aquaculture policy and the need for cooperative initiatives. These are all issues we need to hear about.

The Chair: I believe we have agreed to hear them next Tuesday and to see if we can bring in a second group at the same time that would ensure there is balance.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That wasn't the point I was making.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews and then we'll come back to Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): I have a little side note on proposed agenda item three on aquaculture policy and the need for cooperative initiatives. I'm wondering if some members of the committee could take note of cooperative initiatives and see if we could have some at the committee level as well.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: You'd better talk to Mr. Gilmour and his party.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: On the question of the committee meeting for Thursday for future business, I thought we dealt with future business last week. I talked to one other member of the committee coming in, and he had the same concerns.

The Chair: What we need to do is table before the committee the budgets for the costs of that travel. It will be a short meeting. We've now reported to the House on the recommended travel. We still haven't got agreement in the House on the travel to the east coast, but for Japan, Chile, and Ontario we need to table a budget so that it can go to liaison committee and see if we can get approval there for the budgetary expenses to do the travel the committee recommended. That's why.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: So we have to recommend the budget.

The Chair: Yes. We'll ask the clerk to come forward to the next meeting with a recommended allocation of funds to accommodate the travel to those locations, just doing Chile and Ontario for the moment. Okay? That's what it's for, and then it will go to budget liaison committee.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Yvan, do you have any point on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I must tell you that I won't be able to attend Thursday morning's scheduled meeting. Was the sole purpose of the meeting the adoption of...

• 1345

[English]

The Chair: It's to adopt the expenditure of money. It would state the locations and adopt the expenditure of the money so that we have formal committee agreement to go to the budget liaison committee, because they have to approve it for budget allocation. Okay?

With that, the meeting is adjourned until Thursday.