FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

0835

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Hon. Yvonne Jones (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture)

0840

0845

0850

0855

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

0900

Hon. Yvonne Jones

Mr. Reed Elley

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

0905

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

0910

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Hon. Yvonne Jones

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Yvonne Jones

0920

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

0925

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Yvonne Jones

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

0930

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Hon. Yvonne Jones

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Hon. Yvonne Jones

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

0935

Mr. Jack Harris (Leader of the New Democratic Party, Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly)

0940

0945

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor (Fisheries Critic, Progressive Conservative Party, Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly)

0950

0955

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Jack Harris

1000

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1005

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Jack Harris

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor

1010

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Jack Harris

The Chair

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1015

Mr. Trevor Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Earle McCurdy (President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Earle McCurdy

1025

1030

The Chair

Mr. Earle McCurdy

The Chair

Mr. Bill Broderick (President, Inshore Council of Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union)

1035

1040

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Earle McCurdy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews)

Mr. Bill Broderick

1045

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews)

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Earle McCurdy

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Earle McCurdy

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Earle McCurdy

1055

The Chair

Mr. Bill Broderick

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Bill Broderick

Mr. Bill Matthews

1100

Mr. Bill Broderick

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Earle McCurdy

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Earle McCurdy

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Earle McCurdy

1105

The Chair

Mr. Earle McCurdy

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Earle McCurdy

1110

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich (Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Blackwood (Director, Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Resources, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland)

1120

1125

1130

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

1135

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

1140

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

1145

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

1150

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

1155

Prof. Richard Haedrich

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Prof. Richard Haedrich

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

1200

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

Mr. R. John Efford

Prof. Richard Haedrich

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Prof. Richard Haedrich

1205

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Blackwood

The Chair

1210

Mr. Fred Winsor (Chair, Fisheries Recovery Action Committee)

1215

1220

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary (Spokesperson, Fisheries Crisis Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

Dr. Sandy Sanderman (Fisheries Crisis Alliance)

1225

1230

The Chair

Dr. Sandy Sandeman

The Chair

Dr. Sandy Sanderman

The Chair

Dr. Sandy Sanderman

The Chair

Dr. Sandy Sanderman

1235

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Gus Etchegary

1240

1245

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Fred Winsor

1250

Mr. Dean Bavington (Member, Fisheries Recovery Action Committee)

1255

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer (Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment)

1300

1305

1310

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Robert Mercer

1315

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Grattan (Deputy Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Robert Mercer

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Ms. Leslie Grattan

Mr. R. John Efford

Hon. Robert Mercer

1320

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

Mr. R. John Efford

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Robert Mercer

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Robert Mercer

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Robert Mercer

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Robert Mercer

Ms. Leslie Grattan

1325

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Hon. Robert Mercer

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Robert Mercer

1330

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Fred Winsor

The Chair

Mr. Tom Best (President, Petty Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative)

1335

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

1340

The Chair

Mr. Fred Winsor

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Dean Bavington

1345

The Chair

Mr. Tom Best

The Chair

Mr. Tom Best

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

1350

The Chair

Mr. Gus Etchegary

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 034

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0835)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Good morning. I'd like to get started this morning. Pursuant to standing order 108(2), we're continuing our study on Atlantic fisheries issues.

I have one short comment. We're going to try to stay on time. We have more members than we did yesterday, and we want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to give their comments and ask their questions.

In that regard, I would ask all of our witnesses to try to keep their presentations to approximately 10 to 15 minutes so there's enough time for all members to ask questions. If it turns out--and I highly doubt it--that the members don't have enough questions to use up the time, then of course we can have the witnesses give a closing address.

In accordance with what I started yesterday, thirty seconds on the lighter side, I just wanted to remind you that at 2:40 a.m., May 7, Greenwich Mean Time, General Jodl surrendered the Nazi armies to the Allies on this day. On this day, both Johannes Brahms and Petr Tchaikovski were born.

With that, we're delighted to have with us this morning, to start off, Madame Yvonne Jones, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of this wonderful province; Mr. Mike Samson, deputy minister; and Mike Warren, executive director, policy and planning.

Without further ado, I would invite the minister to let us have it between the eyes if necessary.

Hon. Yvonne Jones (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

First of all, I would like to welcome you to our beautiful province and thank you for the invitation to meet with you this morning to discuss some important matters in the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries. As you will see during our deliberations today, you have come at a very critical time in the history of our fishing industry.

I understand that while you are here and are interested in the broad scope of fisheries issues, today you would like to focus on some key issues facing the industry. Therefore, my comments will be directed at the most important issue facing our fishing industry today: the closure of cod fisheries by the Government of Canada. I will also use the opportunity to comment on seal management, the federal vessel replacement and fleet separation policy, DFO science, the role and importance of women in the fisheries, and the federal Atlantic fisheries policy review.

While I appreciate that the committee is very familiar with the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry, I would like to highlight a few facts to reiterate its importance to our province and indeed to all of Canada.

The fishing industry was the driving force behind the settlement and the culture of our province. It provides the economic base for hundreds of communities and thousands of fish harvesters and plant workers. In 2002, the industry had a production value of over $1 billion.

Over the past 10 years, the industry has been transformed from a groundfish-dominated industry to one dominated by shellfish, with shellfish representing $421 million of the total landed value, which is 82%. This is mainly from the crab and shrimp fisheries. It is important to note, however, that cod remains critically important to many fish harvesters, plant workers, and plant owners.

The fishing industry remains the largest employer in the province. Approximately 27,000 individuals earn their living directly from the fisheries. Many more are indirectly employed by the fisheries. These include workers in the transportation industry, shipbuilding, and supply and service industries.

We process 40 different species and market them to 39 different countries, with the bulk of export to the United States, China, and Japan. In terms of employment and overall dependency, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the most dependent of any province in Canada on its marine fish resources.

The decision by the Government of Canada to close the northern and northern gulf cod fisheries was a catastrophic event in the history of our province. Despite what some have said, these closures will have a long-standing and profound impact on the fishing industry generally, and in particular on those individuals and communities who rely on these fisheries for their livelihood. It will also have a negative impact on fish plant owners, who have made a significant investment in, and commitment to, the communities in which they operate.

When the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do the right things, such as the conversion of crab permits to licences, when they take these types of decisions, we are supportive. However, when they make decisions that are fundamentally wrong, we must ask them to reconsider. This is the case with their decision to close the cod fisheries.

If the decision to close these fisheries is not reversed, our analysis has shown that the impact will include the direct loss of employment and income for approximately 4,400 harvesters and plant workers, an annual loss of $35 million in exports and $43 million in GDP, a loss of $48 million in personal income per year, and a significant impact on female fish harvesters and plant workers. The end result will likely be the out-migration of many workers and their families. This will have disastrous consequences for our rural communities.

We take great exception to the decision to close these fisheries and the way in which the decision was made. It was done against the recommendations of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Minister Thibault's own advisory body, and the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on Cod Fisheries. Both these groups recommended the continuation of limited and restricted cod fisheries as part of a package to help rebuild fish stocks and bring stability to workers and communities.

Since DFO announced--and that was without consultation--last November that cod fisheries may close, we have been actively engaged in the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee process to prepare a framework for the rebuilding of cod fisheries. This action, which included representatives from all parties in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, the Newfoundland and Labrador members of the House of Commons, and the Newfoundland and Labrador senators, was unprecedented in the history of our province.

I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge and thank Mr. John Efford for his hard work as the chairperson of the all-party committee. After four months of difficult and challenging work, the all-party committee prepared a sound framework for the management of our cod fisheries. The recommendations, though difficult, were necessary to help put the cod fishery on the road to recovery and, at the same time, preserve a limited fishery.

Sixteen of the committee's 22 recommendations were rejected outright, and the others were only partially accepted. We have already made a presentation on the committee's report to your committee back in March 2003, and it was at the same time that we presented this report to the Government of Canada. I'll not go into a discussion of the recommendations in detail, but there are a couple that I feel are most significant and I would like to highlight them.

We did call for a limited cod fishery in fishing areas 2J3KL, and in 3Pn4RS. A key feature of these fisheries would be their role in providing information to scientists to help improve the rebuilding and future management of this cod stock. Our recommendations were rejected.

The committee also recommended the preparation of recovery plans for the northern and northern gulf cod stocks. These plans are critical for the future of the cod fishery. We gave the Government of Canada the key elements of a plan and they chose to reject our ideas.

We recommended that DFO increase its level of funding for scientific research. A healthy fish resource and fishery demands a very high level of scientific information. We have seen DFO's budget for science erode over the past few years. They are being squeezed to do more with less. For example, DFO has taken on a greater scientific role as part of its oceans mandate, yet it has not increased its resources to that expanded mandate. We are very concerned that if cod fisheries are closed there will be less interest in maintaining the research necessary to reopen them in future years.

The all-party committee also recommended that governments work in partnership with the industry to evaluate the benefits of cod stock enhancement and special area status as part of stock rebuilding efforts. These recommendations were also rejected.

Finally, the committee identified a number of recommendations to help diversify and develop the fishing and aquaculture industries. These are opportunities related to new species, to quality enhancement products, and market diversification. There are also opportunities in the aquaculture industry. We also identified diversification opportunities outside the fishery that would have reduced the dependency on the fishing industry. Sadly, these recommendations, too, were rejected.

As a concluding comment on the federal decision to close cod fisheries, I would like to quote the last line in our all-party committee report,because I think it's significant. It said: “The members of the all-party committee look forward to working with the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry stakeholders to address the challenges that lie ahead”.

We believed our report to the Government of Canada would be the start of a true partnership on the future of the cod fisheries. We thought we would have the opportunity to further explore our recommendations with the Government of Canada, but we were mistaken. We were never asked to work with the federal government on any of these recommendations. The decisions made by the federal government were done unilaterally, without any consultation with us or the fishing industry. This is not a partnership. It is not the way to rebuild fish stocks or to manage a fishery. It was disrespectful and arrogant in terms of the treatment towards our province. Newfoundland and Labrador, and our fishing industry, deserve better.

The decision to close our cod fisheries has once again highlighted the need for a joint management arrangement over the fishery between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been a long-standing position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we need an adjustment to the current jurisdictional arrangements over the fishery. It should not be possible for the Government of Canada to make the decisions they have done on the cod fishery without consultation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The province must not be excluded from the decision-making process.

¾ (0840)

The timing of the decision to close the cod fishery took place at an interesting time. My department is currently working with DFO and all provincial and territorial fisheries and aquaculture departments to review the success of the interjurisdictional agreement on cooperation, signed in Quebec City in 1999. This agreement was based on principles of cooperation, timely consultation, and information sharing before announcements. Given the approach by the federal government to the management of cod fisheries, much work needs to be done to improve our federal-provincial partnership for a sustainable, viable, and prosperous future. Our door is open, and we are prepared to work as partners.

We want the cod fishery in the northern gulf area to be reopened, consistent with the advice given to the federal minister by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

We want an immediate extension of EI benefits for those whose benefits expire long before a longer-term adjustment program can be implemented. An estimated 53% of fish harvesters exhausted their EI benefits the end of April. As many as 98% will have exhausted their benefits by June.

We want a dramatic expansion of the adjustment program that was announced. We are requesting a long-term adjustment program. At the very minimum, it should include an early retirement program, a voluntary licence buy-out for fish harvesters, and a meaningful long-term strategy for economic diversification and growth.

We want a concrete plan to rebuild the cod stocks, and we want scientific assessment of the northern gulf cod stocks in 3P, 4R and 4S to be conducted in this province by DFO's Newfoundland region.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to apply political pressure to achieve these objectives. We seek the support of the standing committee on this serious matter.

As the minister responsible for the status of women, I would like to use this opportunity to bring to your attention the need to understand and address the impact of fisheries closures and resource reductions on women. While harvesting has traditionally been a male-dominated occupation, there have been significant increases in the number of women in paid harvesting employment over the past decade. Data indicates that 22% of the province's fish harvesters are female. Since many women are newer entrants, they would be less likely to meet eligibility requirements of the traditional compensation and adjustment programs. Women continue to play a more significant role in the processing sector of the industry; on a regional basis, from 39% to 62% of plant workers are women.

The distribution of workers has changed since the groundfish moratoria, and an increased portion of men now work in processing plants. Men tend to hold management and technologically advanced positions in these plants. These positions are more likely to remain after professionalization and downsizing of the plant's workforce, while women are more likely to lose work through reductions in seasonal and part-time employment.

There are few employment alternatives in rural areas, and it is likely that women displaced from fish plants will have the most difficulty in finding other employment. Their ability to access employment and educational opportunities is further limited by family and child care responsibilities, which make them less mobile. For these reasons, government must ensure that the adjustment and assistance programs address the special needs facing women within the fishing industry.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take a moment to discuss another very serious issue facing the province's fishing industry, namely, the over-populated seal resource and the need to take immediate and effective action to reduce the impact seals are having on the recovery of fish stocks. I know it's a concern that is shared by my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador at the table. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing industry, the all-party committee, and the FRCC have all called on the Government of Canada to implement a plan to significantly reduce the overpopulated seal population.

¾ (0845)

Clearly, the seal population is out of balance within the marine ecosystem. I thank Minister Thibault for his decision to increase the total allowable seal catch and his decision to establish seal exclusion zones. However, we do not believe that these measures alone will be sufficient to address the magnitude of the seal problem. There is a wealth of evidence supporting the view that seals are a major contributor to the lack of recovery of fish stocks. This has been recognized by numerous fishery scientists, by industry participants, and by any knowledgeable observer of the fishing industry.

Some anti-sealing groups will never accept that seals are causing an imbalance within the marine ecosystem. We cannot let these groups prevent us from making the right decision. The federal government must prepare a plan to reduce the seal population to a level that will support the rebuilding of cod stocks and a sustainable sealing industry. In addition to seal exclusion zones, it should include initiatives to assist industry to fully utilize the seal resource through product, market, and trade development efforts.

I would also like to take a few moments to discuss two important DFO policies that impact the province's fishing industry: the fleet separation policy and the vessel replacement policy.

On the matter of the fleet separation policy, over the years an independent harvesting sector and a separate processing sector have evolved. Fish harvesters are successfully developing their image as professionals within a sustainable and competitive fishing industry. This development has been supported by the federal fleet separation policy for vessels under 65 feet. Under this policy, fishermen own and control their licences. The policy has served the industry well.

In recent years, there have been efforts to change this policy to allow others to own or control licences. We do not support such changes. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to support the maintenance of an independent fleet of fishing vessels, operated by professional fish harvesters. Any change in the policy must not be undertaken without the support of fish harvesters.

On the matter of the vessel replacement policy, it is important that the policy reflect the changes that have occurred within the industry over the years. Due to the changing resource and the market conditions, fish harvesters are venturing further from their home court and fishing longer seasons, often in difficult weather and oceanographic conditions.

Despite DFOs efforts to identify new vessel replacement rules, these rules have not met the requirements of the industry. The safety of harvesters has been a primary concern of my department for many years.

Vessels originally designed for use in the inshore sector now venture outside the 200-mile limit. This has significantly changed the operating environment, resulting in harvesters fishing in vessels outside their original design parameters.

Harvesters must be able to choose the platform necessary for them to work safely. As well, most fishing enterprise owners have built equity in their company, and a decision on a suitable fishing platform should be a business decision, and not be regulated by government. Federal vessel replacement policy must be flexible to meet the requirements for safety, economic performance, and comfort.

In summary, we propose that three new principles be added to the proposed changes to the federal vessel replacement policy. First, changes in vessel size must allow compliance with occupational health and safety regulations. Allowance must be made for proper fish handling and storage systems on board vessels. And the current fleet separation policy and restriction on Atlantic-wide quotas must remain in effect—even if inshore vessels go beyond 65 feet.

In 1999, DFO commenced the Atlantic fisheries policy review. It is the first time in about 25 years that the Government of Canada has conducted such an extensive review of Canada's Atlantic fisheries policy. Given the changes within the fishing industry, fisheries management, fish stocks, and the globalization of the industry, the review is long overdue.

¾ (0850)

We have been active participants in the review process. We appreciate the efforts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that provincial and territorial governments are kept involved in this particular process. It recognizes our position as important stakeholders in the fishing industry.

Given the limited time available for our discussion today, I would like to focus my comments on one critical aspect of the Atlantic fisheries policy review initiative, and that is the access and allocation policy. As we all know, fish resource access and allocation is the single most controversial issue within fisheries management, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Its discussion within the Atlantic fisheries policy review has been no exception.

To assist in addressing the issue as part of phase one of the review, DFO established the Independent Panel on Access Criteria. My department and the industry stakeholders consulted with the panel on this issue on several occasions. In all our consultations and correspondence we stressed that, following conservation, adjacency to the resource must be the primary criterion for access, and this should be followed by the historical economic dependency criterion.

Among other criteria, the IPAC recommended that access should be based on equity and that this criterion should supercede the adjacency criterion. Equity, in our view, is a very nebulous concept. It does not provide the transparency and certainty the industry or provinces require to manage and develop their fisheries. While the policy framework has not been finalized by DFO, it appears they will include the IPAC recommendation on access criteria as part of the new framework.

I say clearly today that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will never accept decisions by the Government of Canada that will see fish resources adjacent to our province utilized for interests other than those of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will never accept access and allocation criteria that erode our access to and benefit from adjacent fish resources.

I would also like to use the opportunity to give my sincere thanks for your committee's hard work and dedication to resolving the serious problem of foreign overfishing of straddling fish stocks on the nose and tail of the Newfoundland Grand Banks. You have done an admirable job of researching and presenting good recommendations on the ways to resolve the problems. Your work is helping to shine a national light on this most serious problem that is affecting the future of fish stocks and the fishing industry.

I also thank you for supporting our position on the need to implement a custodial management regime for straddling fish stocks. We believe that with the respect and support of the Government of Canada, a custodial management arrangement can be an effective means to achieve fish stock recovery and future management.

We were disappointed that the Government of Canada did not give your recommendations more serious consideration. We welcome your continued support as we press the Government of Canada and the international community to take the necessary measures to rebuild and protect these valuable fish resources. We must continue to make this a national priority, and I'm sure your committee will continue with the work it is doing.

I'd like to thank you once again for taking the time to visit in Newfoundland and Labrador today and to discuss first-hand what the challenges and the opportunities are within our fishing industry. I look forward to working with you and the Government of Canada and the fishing industry stakeholders to ensure that our renewable fish resources remain strong and to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and, indeed, of Canada.

Thank you very much.

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the evidence you've given.

Colleagues, we have some time constraints. We have a very busy day. We have a 45-minute slot, and 20-some minutes of that was taken up with the presentation, which I think was important so that we understand the position of the province.

I would ask you to keep your questions and comments extremely focused. I would ask the witnesses as well to try to be focused, so that we can get to each member in the short time we have available.

Just so that everybody knows, we're going to go to the official opposition critic first, then to the Bloc Québécois critic, then to the vice-chair of our committee, Mr. Matthews. Those will be the first three. We'll start with Mr. Elley. I'm going to be very strict on time, and it's going to be less than five minutes so that we get everybody in.

Go ahead.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming and sharing with us. It's good to be in St. John's, but it's too bad we have to come here in the midst of crises in the fisheries so often.

We hear over and over again this concern about consultation--that there is not enough consultation, not enough talking together among all the stakeholders. You brought it up very significantly in your report. In fact, there is one sentence I would love to have you give a little more input on. It's on page 4 in the top paragraph. It says: “The decisions made by the federal government were done unilaterally without any consultation with us or the fishing industry.”

That's a very strong statement. Then you follow it up with another statement later on where you say, “We need an adjustment to the current jurisdictional arrangements over the fishing”.I come from the west coast of Canada, where we have these same problems in our fishing industry. I hear those same kinds of comments.

Can you talk a bit about the consultation process and what would lead you to say there need to be some serious adjustments in this jurisdictional arrangements? What are you talking about when you say that?

¿ (0900)

Hon. Yvonne Jones: Thank you, Mr. Elley, for your question.

First of all, it's very frustrating for us in Newfoundland and Labrador when we feel that our voice and our recommendations as they relate to fisheries are not being attended to by the national government. The reason I have used the strong language I did this morning is that back in March, as a government and as all parties—all political leaders and all stripes, both federally and provincially, in Newfoundland and Labrador—when we made those recommendations to the federal minister, it was in hope that there would be dialogue and discussion and consultation before a final decision was taken. That process did not occur. It was the presentation of a report, and then it was a decision that was made unilaterally by the minister after some weeks had passed.

We find that very frustrating, because in the province we feel we have our own expertise. We have the expertise of the people who are in the fishing industry and of people who are in the science community. We don't make our recommendations lightly; we make them in consultation with the experts who are available to us in our own province on the fisheries. We feel our recommendations bear discussion and consultation, and that process did not occur.

We have seen that on a number of occasions, and when it happens, often you have decisions that are not acceptable or not favourable to the industry that is affected. That has been the case with regard to the cod fishery today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Reed Elley: The question of jurisdiction intrigues me. Are you saying in effect you would like to see the provinces take over the fisheries?

Hon. Yvonne Jones: What we are saying is that there has to be, as a bare minimum, a partnership in management of these resources. The people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and the government have recognized that for some time. At a bare minimum, there has to be a partnership; there has to be some joint management discussion and decision. I think there is a process by which that can occur, and it can occur successfully.

We are interested in working with the Government of Canada to see these things implemented and to look at some mechanism by which it may happen. We cannot continue on the road of having a resource that is ours in Newfoundland and Labrador decided upon by a national government with little or no consultation, with little or no input, and without our views and our perspective being heard. That has to change.

We would like to see a partnership involving joint management. We would like to see an arrangement that could be of benefit to all of us, both as Canadians and as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in managing this crucial, vital resource that is off our shores. That would be the first stage; it would be the first event we would like to see occur.

The Chair: I would ask you, unless you are bilingual, to put in your ear pieces for Monsieur Roy, who will no doubt question you in Canada's second official language.

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Minister, thank you for your presentation. I especially agree with what you said about the aid plan, which seems to be quite insufficient and quite unjustified, inasmuch as it throws the ball back into the provincial court. The minister is currently offering a very short-term plan whereby people will end up on welfare very quickly. Just like you, I find this totally unacceptable.

My question is about a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries with regard to exclusion zones for seals. You mentioned this briefly. I do not understand why exclusion zones are being created for seals.

What does that mean and how can we create exclusion zones for seals? I would like to have your opinion on that. It seems that the minister is investing $6 million in research to determine the impact of seals on the resources and to try to find a way to create exclusion zones for seals. How can one announce the creation of exclusion zones for seals without knowing what it means and without knowing how these exclusion zones for seals can be implemented, from a practical standpoint?

You seem to agree with the statement by the minister which I find incomprehensible. I would like to have your opinion on that point.

[English]

Hon. Yvonne Jones: Thank you very much for your question and your comments. It's quite evident you understand the critical nature of the situation with regard to cod closures fairly well, and when you make the statement that the only plan here is that we're forcing people onto welfare, I think it's a fairly accurate statement.

The situation as it is today in Newfoundland and Labrador is that we're not only experiencing a closure of a cod fishery, we're experiencing a closure that offers little or no measure for the rebuilding of the cod stock in those areas, and little or no measure for the rebuilding of people's lives and their communities. I think that is a negligent action and I think there has to be accountability brought to this particular situation, and it has to come to bear on the federal government, absolutely.

In terms of your question regarding seal exclusion zones, we were questioning somewhat the amount of money that had been allocated to study the interaction of seals and cod and the impact of seals on cod, because as my colleague Mr. Efford will know, this has been very well documented in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We certainly don't feel there is a need to study it any further. We think it is quite clear what the impacts are. We're quite clear what the interaction is. We're more about how to deal with the problem.

Looking at seal exclusion zones is an option, but as for whether it's an option that will meet the need that is there, I'm somewhat doubtful, as are other people. In terms of how seal exclusion zones will be implemented, I guess that remains to be seen. There is a commitment from the federal minister to have dialogue with the industry on how they would proceed with seal exclusion zones, but in terms of being able to offer up an explanation at this time as to how they would work, how they would be policed in such a way, I have no idea. Those questions I cannot answer.

The only thing I can say to you is that our critical areas of juvenile cod in the province need to be protected from seals; that has to happen. Whether you call it a seal exclusion zone or you call it by some other name, if we are not able to protect the spawning environment of this stock, we are not going to have a significant rebuilding effort over a period of time. So under any name you want to put to it, that has to happen. Whether this will be the program to do that or whether it will have to come under some other auspices, I don't know, but as it is today, we don't have a clear plan for how that will work.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Matthews, our vice-chair. Then we're going to go to Mr. Hearn and Mr. Efford, since they are representing this province. Then we'll hear from our second vice-chair, Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Williams.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister and officials for coming this morning and for the comprehensive presentation.

It's pretty much unanimous in the province that we would all like to see a limited cod fishery, in the gulf region particularly.

Minister, I look at your page 4, “What we want”, and I wonder if you can inform the committee and others present whether or not you have had any discussions in the last little while with Minister Thibault or with any other federal minister, or whether or not there's been any government-to-government discussion in the last few days as it pertains to immediate extension of EI benefits, an early retirement program, and licensed buyout for fish harvesters--the sorts of long-term measures that would allow people some dignity.

¿ (0910)

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I should indicate that we have been consistently making calls to Minister Thibault's office as well as Minister Stewart's office and the office of Minister Byrne on all of these issues. I have had some discussions with individuals in Minister Thibault's office, not with the minister himself, in the last few days. I think he was somewhat preoccupied with some other issues in Atlantic Canada at the time. I won't comment on this; however, I have some comments on it that I would share at another time.

As for saying there has been any dialogue of any nature on any components of this, no, it has not happened. Right now, as it is, we have not seen a willingness on behalf of the Government of Canada to come to the table and discuss the other components in terms of compensation with regard to early retirement or volunteer licence buyback, or other adjustment measures.

We have had some dialogue with them on the EI extensions. They are telling us that they are doing an analysis of it, that it is under review, and it's been a week now since we've had that last response. We haven't had any further dialogue since that time other than to tell us that it's being reviewed.

On the decision to have the fishery reopened, other than the dialogue that occurred in our meetings in Ottawa, they have not been receptive to sitting and discussing this option with us at this time.

As it is right now, they are not willing to come to the table on any of these components.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank the minister and her officials for being here, and let me thank the committee again for coming to Newfoundland.

We have, not only at the table but certainly in the audience, a lot of people who have been very directly involved in a positive way in dealing with our fishery crisis over the last couple of years. I'd like to say to all of them that this is not the group that you have to try to come to beg and convince. We've been there. People around the table, those who have been with the committee for a while in particular, not only are aware of the issues but in some cases have been foremost in pushing these issues, which we will continue to do, and certainly having your input and new ideas and new direction just gives us more impetus to keep dealing with our collective problems.

I'd like to ask the minister, in relation to her presentation, what is it she thinks the feds can do right away to deal with the diminishing resource we have? I would suggest two things.

One, there is no reason we can't deal with the seal situation. To talk about studying seals for another two years is an idiotic suggestion. Some $6 million has been provided for a study as such. But $6 million towards establishing markets and enabling people to develop new products will probably go a lot further towards dealing with the situation. I'd like to get your views on that.

The other issue is foreign overfishing, and certainly this committee again has been front and foremost in that. Again, there is absolutely no excuse why at the international level the minister, and government generally, shouldn't be taking a more proactive role. We have more support than they think we have if we go to get it. If we don't, it's like you yourselves; if you don't carry the message and push it, nobody is going to listen.

The final question--I'll throw them all out, Mr. Chairman, and let the minister deal with them--is this. We saw what happened in New Brunswick over the last few days, and I think it's a sad reflection on where we are in relation to dealing with our fisheries in our country. But immediately after we saw violence, we heard the minister say he might have a second look at it. That's an awful message to send, and it makes me wonder why you would change your mind to look at an issue in New Brunswick when we have everybody--as in the old saying in Newfoundland, everybody and his dog--suggesting to the minister that there is a better way to deal with our crisis, a more proactive way to keep fishermen involved in the process, and keep a partial fishery open.

Everybody I've talked to--and you listed the groups, the FRCC, the minister in cabinet, every politician in this province and everyone else I talk to--suggests this is the way to go. The minister apparently doesn't listen to it. Why would you do one thing in New Brunswick, and yet in Newfoundland, where there's been a lot more proactive work towards recommending procedures, you just say, no, I'm not going to change my mind?

¿ (0915)

The Chair: I presume your question was a rhetorical question, Mr. Hearn?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Yes.

The Chair: Madam Minister, please.

Hon. Yvonne Jones: Thank you, Mr. Hearn, for your question.

In terms of what the federal government can do immediately to deal with this diminishing resource in terms of the fishery in the province, I think I addressed that through my call for partnership, for consultation, for joint management discussion and so on, because unless there is open and consistent dialogue and unless the input from the people in the province is going to be heard, we are going to consistently have the problem we have today.

Bits and pieces are being picked up in terms of when you look at rebuilding stock. We made 22 recommendations to the federal minister as part of the all-party committee, in which you participated. Only six of those recommendations were even responded to in any way. I'm not saying six of them were accepted, but only six of them were responded to.

So until we have some significant discussion around what we feel in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is a process by which we rebuild the stock, build a healthy fishery for the future, then we are going to have this problem. I think that's the key point.

In terms of the seal product and focusing money into seal product and marketing, I outlined that in my presentation and it is the direction we have to go with.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'll add one little thing here, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday we had hearings in Gaspé. Most of the presenters were people directly involved in the fisheries. I was extremely impressed with the quality of their presentations. Everyone without exception said the main detriment to the revitalization of the stock is the seals. So we are not the only ones experiencing that problem.

Hon. Yvonne Jones: But there is no doubt there has to be more emphasis on product development and marketing. We have made some strides in that area, there is absolutely no doubt, but much work still needs to be done. We would certainly ask that if there is going to be any money invested it should be invested there and not in terms of studying the interaction and the impact of seals on cod, because that makes little or no sense to those of us who live on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In terms of the New Brunswick situation, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed that the federal Minister of Fisheries reacted as quickly as he did to the situation in New Brunswick. I don't think it sends a very good message to the fishing community in Atlantic Canada, not at all.

We are dealing with a very critical issue on cod closure in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am extremely disappointed that the federal minister has not heard the pleas of our people and of our fishing industry. I think they have organized a very peaceful process. They are very much law-abiding, hard-working citizens of this country, and I am disappointed that the federal minister has not seen fit to respond to them in a manner that has been appropriate of a federal minister who has closed down this fishery.

But we will continue to request that there be open discussion and dialogue on these important issues, because we think we have a good case. We, as a fishing industry and as the government in this province, really do feel that a wrong decision has been made and therefore it should be reversed.

Other than that--

¿ (0920)

The Chair: I'm sorry, please don't shoot the messenger.

We are five minutes into the next presenter's time, but I would like everybody to have a chance to ask you some questions.

Mr. Efford, please.

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm going to be very quick because I respect the time and I have no need for getting into the questions more. But I want to say, Minister, that your comments this morning were very direct and I support everything you said.

The only comment I would make is about page 3, where it says we recognize the $6 million spent on studying seals, because you have already changed your point on that. Take it out, please, because the minister will hang his hat on that one if he gets this copy. So you have already taken it out, and I respect that.

I want to clarify something on the exclusion zones. Exclusion zones are another means of doing what we can to reduce the number of seals. I'll give you a clear picture of what an exclusion zone is and how it can work. In the case of salmon rivers--take, for instance, the Gander River, which is a very lucrative salmon river in the case of Labrador--it would be to take the seals out of small areas like that and keep them in the Atlantic Ocean. We can all have our comments. So those things can be done.

My final comment is that the federal Government of Canada closed a fishery, which I totally disagree with, of 9,500 tonnes. It has caused all that pain for the people in all of those communities, and the psychological drain. In the 4Pn and 4RS last year the government's own scientific information was that the seals consumed 39,000 metric tonnes of cod. So we are all focused in the right area and we have to keep the pressure on.

The Chair: Do you have any comment, Minister?

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I didn't address Mr. Hearn's question on foreign overfishing, but in my closing comment I'm going to make this statement.

There's no doubt we have to continue to build a national voice collectively with regard to foreign overfishing, and I hope you'll continue with the work you've been doing. I also want to say that today if you live in Burnt Island in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is down in Mr. Matthews' district, I believe--it's a small community that is built completely on the cod fishery and it's in the gulf region--today every single family and every single person in that community has an uncertain future because of the cod closure. It's very difficult if you're a person in Burnt Island today on your wharf and you know that this government, the national government, has not dealt with foreign overfishing, has not taken an aggressive stand to stop foreign overfishing and to bring to bear the regulations that are in place, but yet is willing to take the last remaining inshore fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador out of the boat and leave them on the shore, it's not a good feeling. It sends a very poor message in terms of relations between the national government and provincial governments, and the industry as a whole, in this province.

So I want to leave that comment with you, because I think it's an important one, and it certainly gives us a feeling as to where we are as a priority in the scheme of fisheries management when it comes to the national government.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Minister, thank you and your officials for coming today.

I have a couple of points. I believe that the last paragraph on page 7 basically concludes what I'm trying to say. You, first of all, said there was no consultation. You said it twice in your report. The minister, when he appeared before this committee last Thursday, said he had extensive consultations with stakeholders in the province prior to his decision. So somebody is not telling us the truth here. That's one statement, and I'd like you to comment on that later.

The last time I was here I was in Marystown, and there was the big battle, of course, about the merger between Clearwater and FPI. The minister says he made this decision because of conservation. I don't believe him. This is the same minister who allowed corporate dragging off the coast of Cape Breton, in Port Ban, after a 10-year moratorium on winter fishing for dragging was lifted. And only he made that decision. His own scientists told him not to. So I don't believe him.

But I do believe, and I have a sneaking suspicion, that those incidents between FPI and Clearwater in Marystown, and that big battle that happened--and you know it well--and this decision that was made are linked. I want you to comment on whether I'm off in left field or not.

You had said you will not accept, basically under any circumstances, decisions by the government that will see fish resources adjacent to our province utilized for interests other than citizens of this province. I've been accusing the federal government for a long time of corporatizing the fishery and moving to an ITQ system that basically gets rid of those pesky independent fishermen and their families, and their communities, and moves it to a corporate sector.

Mr. Crosbie the other day--the former federal fisheries minister--said very clearly that the way to solve this problem is through ITQs, which I fundamentally disagree with. I'd like you to comment on that, please. Am I wrong? Is that the direction the government is going in, or am I just out to lunch on this one?

¿ (0925)

Hon. Yvonne Jones: First of all--

The Chair: You should never ask that question, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You guys accuse me of being--

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I will be kind in that answer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm a New Democratic; I get accused of a lot of things. If I may bootleg on this, has Mr. Grimes solicited the assistance of other premiers in the country to move this serious issue forward at a premiers conference or something because of the seriousness of this situation? Has he solicited premiers across the provinces to discuss this at their next forum, to bring it to the federal government?

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I'll try to address all the pieces of your question, but first—

The Chair: Take your time.

¿ (0930)

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I don't have a lot of time, the chairman says.

Concerning the all-party committee recommendations—and I can understand that a federal minister's view of consultation is having a report dropped on his desk and looking at it as consultation with the industry and Newfoundland and Labrador, but that's certainly not our perspective—we made a number of very serious recommendations with extensive consultation with the industry and the science community in Newfoundland and Labrador. We stand by those recommendations.

We were hoping to have dialogue. We were hoping to have extensive communications with them in consultation. It didn't happen. We were informed, probably an hour before the announcement came down, about what was going to happen. To me, that's not good enough in provincial-federal relations. I think that needs to be worked on, and we need to improve the communications—absolutely, with no doubt—if we are to avoid situations such as we have in the province today.

In terms of the speculation about mergers and whether these particular closures of fisheries are connected, I am not going to speculate on what the relationship might be today or say that you're right or wrong, Mr. Stoffer. I guess people will draw their own conclusions as time goes on about what connections are there, reflecting on what happened two years ago and what is happening today. I will just leave that where it is, without further speculation today.

In terms of the adjacency piece, we firmly believe in Newfoundland and Labrador that adjacency must be upheld in fisheries management. We do not support a management plan that would be based on equity. I don't think it is fair and just to expect a province whose whole history and future, to a large degree, is based on the resources of the fishery to support anything other than adjacency; it would be wrong.

I would really have to question how other resources are distributed throughout Canada and in Atlantic Canada, because I certainly don't see anyone offering us any resources in western Canada or in other parts of Atlantic Canada for the benefit of fostering development in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not about greed; it's about protecting resources that are adjacent to provinces and adjacent to communities so that you can foster good economic development for all people in Canada.

I think if we do it based on adjacency in provinces we can build strong economies right throughout the nation. I don't think looking at it on an equitable basis will serve any purpose for anyone in Canada. So we would strongly oppose that recommendation.

The Chair: Minister, Mr. Stoffer also asked, has the premier attempted to enlist the aid or support of any of the other premiers at this point?

Hon. Yvonne Jones: I know there have been individual discussions between him and some of the other premiers in the country with respect to the fisheries piece on a number of fronts. I can't say with certainty today that there has been a discussion at the actual premiers' table; I wouldn't be able to give you that definitively. But I know there have been ongoing discussions with certain premiers, especially with the Premier of Quebec, even as recently as within the last 24 or 36 hours, on important fisheries issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wood, you're the cleanup batter.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): My question has just been answered, but Madam Minister, you were talking about open discussion and dialogue and saying it's just not happening. I find it rather bizarre that the Minister of Fisheries for Canada would be arrogant enough not to take your phone call, because you are, let's face it, a fellow minister of fisheries.

With that not happening, how do you proceed to move along to address this program if you're not getting any help from the federal government? I have an idea what the answer is going to be to my question, but what is your next step? You have to have a program here going down the pipe, so what would be your next step if you can't get a dialogue with the minister—which I find bizarre and arrogant on his part?

Hon. Yvonne Jones: Well, certainly it's our preference that we do have dialogue and that we have joint management. In the absence of that, we feel, as a government in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we have to look at every other alternative that is available to us to have some control over fishery jurisdiction in the province. We are presently examining what options are there for us now in terms of legislation within our own legislature and also with regard to any actions that might be available to us within the court.

I won't comment any further. It would be the prerogative of the premier of the province to give you further detail concerning those particular pieces. But I will say this to you. It is unfortunate—really unfortunate—that we have arrived at a time in Newfoundland and Labrador when we feel we have lost complete control over fisheries management and jurisdiction, to the point where it has serious implications and impact upon our people and on our communities. It has happened with the federal government turning its back on us at a time when we need the consultation most, when we need the partnering most, and when we need the dialogue most.

I'll just leave you with that statement.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for appearing this morning together with your officials. As you stated in your presentation, you're well aware of our commitment to the issue of custodial management. We're continuing to push it and we as a committee did in fact support and urge the minister to implement at least the first two recommendations of the all-party report. Unfortunately, that didn't occur, but that's why we're here: to determine what the evidence is and come up with some strategy and some recommendations for the minister.

Once again, thank you so much for appearing this morning. Have a nice day, I guess.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of adjacency--and Mr. Matthews will know this--we said that exact same thing on adjacency in our 1998 east coast report five years ago. I recommend you pick up that report and go through it, because it's the exact same thing this committee recommended five years ago.

The Chair: We're 20 minutes late already. We'd like to call on Mr. Harris, please, immediately. We want to give Mr. Harris every opportunity.

Welcome. We've seen you before, Mr. Harris. The last time we were here, we saw you with the all-party committee. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please commence.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Jack Harris (Leader of the New Democratic Party, Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador. Bienvenue, Monsieur Roy. You're also in my district of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, so welcome to it as well.

I don't have a prepared presentation. I want, however, to put a little perspective on this that I think needs to be said because of the crisis that has been, I believe, precipitated by the action of Minister Thibault in recent weeks.

I want to thank your committee for the last five years at least. Your committee has done a terrific job in developing an understanding of the east coast fisheries, in particular that of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I'm sure it's not easy. Obviously you had the help of some Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and members of Parliament who are quite knowledgeable. Our colleague—my colleague—Peter Stoffer, though a Nova Scotian, is an adopted Newfoundlander. He's adopted us and is very knowledgeable on fisheries in this province.

I think you are also learning what we already know as you learn about the east cost fisheries, as you put together unanimous reports to the minister—as you've done on two occasions in the past, and most recently on the custodial management issue.

The minister, as I understand it, rejected the recommendation before he even read the report. I think you know what we feel like here in this province when we're dealing with an issue that we see in a very different way from other provinces and certainly from the Government of Canada.

I couldn't help thinking, as I was listening to the minister here this morning give her very full presentation on a review of the fisheries, that we of this province have to keep explaining and telling the Government of Canada and the people of the rest of Canada—and I use that word advisedly—about the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery: how it works, how important it is, what the different aspects of it are that we have to have support for, and what needs to be done to make it grow and give us the prosperity that should come from a resource of this nature.

Let me say it this way. These are our fish. Regardless of the Constitution, regardless of the political regime, regardless of whether there was a colonialism from Great Britain, regardless of whether there was a commission of government, an independent dominion prior to that, Confederation with Canada—regardless of the political regime—these are our fish.

We brought the fish with us to Confederation in 1949, and you have to understand that when we see the Government of Canada give large shrimp resources and shrimp licences to dentists from Nova Scotia, we are outraged at it. When we see the Government of Canada, by fiat of the Minister of Fisheries, give shrimp quota and licences to three or four business people in P.E.I. because it's part of the federal government policy, we are outraged by it. This is a resource that we see as part of the prosperity we deserve as part of Canada on our own resources.

What's happened in the last six months has focused this issue a little bit--focused it because we are at a point with respect to the cod fishery where the hint we were given back in November coalesced into a decision-making process. It wasn't the decision-making process of a people who felt themselves impotent, to the extent that perhaps some people in New Brunswick did a few days ago and resorted to criminal arson and rioting. It was a sense that we had to work together to figure out how to resolve this problem. When Minister Thibault hinted to the Atlantic Liberal caucus last fall that there would be a--I think the word “inevitable” was used--closure of the 2J3KL and northern gulf stocks, that there would be a potential closure, we got together.

What happened was that all of the elected representatives, all of the elected leadership of this province—the three parties represented in the House of Assembly, the members of Parliament in Ottawa, and even our appointed senators—got together in a committee and said, we have to take some sort of collective role in trying to understand what's going on, to come up with a collective response. We did that in a very measured way.

¿ (0940)

Internally, we had to knock a lot of heads. John Efford, your member, would know--and those who run the committee--that this wan't an easy process, because you had three political parties at the provincial level, each of whom was very conscious of the fact that there was an election coming within the next year, each with their own political constituencies to be concerned with. And some of the issues we had to deal with were ones we had disagreed about in the past. Yet we took our responsibilities seriously, because we felt that the issue was of such great importance, after ten years of a moratorium on directed fishing of cod in these areas and an opportunity to get back into the fishery, that there was potentially a closure that would offer no hope for the future.

What we came up with in our recommendations, which I think you have recognized and certainly have been supporting, saw the possibility of three things happening: number one, some hope for the future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; number two, a limited fishery that would keep the door open a crack, perhaps, and a partnership with the fish harvesters and the industry that would see, in the short term and in the long term, a positive opportunity for rebuilding and recovery of those stocks; and number three, some significant required measures to actually recover and rebuild that stock.

Those three elements were the conclusion of our report. You've seen the report, of course, and the minister has referred to it. There were 22 recommendations that were comprehensive in seeing that this was a new approach, a new partnership, a recognition that this was important.

The FRCC, in looking at the stocks--in particular, I'm going to talk about the gulf stock--looked at the science, but it also looked at the information that came from the fishers in the gulf. It concluded that there were three choices open to the minister: a status quo of 7,000 tonnes, an intermediate option that would allow the significant reduction in removals and introduce conservation elements that had been recommended, or the total closure of the directed commercial fishery.

The FRCC said, no, we will recommend the opening of the fishery, and they gave three reasons. They said the alternative of closing the fishery would represent a loss of first-hand information about the stock, a deterioration of the relationship between DFO and the fishermen--interesting--and an excuse for inaction on important fishery independent strategies under the guise of no fishery on the stock most affected.

As the fishermen often tell the FRCC, closing the fishery will merely save the remaining stock for the seals. But the importance of what the FRCC said was that the alternatives being offered were not going to stimulate the recovery and rebuilding of the stock. Stimulating the growth and rebuilding of the stock was an important consideration we had as the all-party committee. We had this as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who used their collective experience, their political knowledge, their understanding of the relationships between us and Ottawa, to try to recognize how important this was.

This has never been done before--never. I've only been in the legislature 12 years; some have been here longer, and obviously we know about history. But there has never, ever been an all-party committee of this nature, of federal and provincial members representing this province. We did that on purpose. We did that to send a signal to the Government of Canada that this was something of seminal importance.

I think the minister, in rejecting this, has insulted us. All the elected leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador have been basically told that their opinions don't count. I think the people in the rest of Canada have to know that this is important to us, that we care about it. It's not a very happy result. It sends a message to us that our place in Canada doesn't matter. So there are going to be consequences as a result of this, and they're starting.

¿ (0945)

If the process of sending a political message of solidarity between political parties, between elected and appointed representatives in Parliament and the people in the industry, the fish harvesters, the plant workers who are protesting against this decision today...we want that decision changed. And nothing less than that is going to serve to recognize how important this issue is to the people of this province. We see it not just as a simple decision about a cod quota, up or down, change the quota, the administration of the fishery. We have accepted reluctantly that the fishery is being regulated by Ottawa. We don't like the decisions lots of time, but we've accepted them--up until now.

I think the fact that we put so much effort--political effort and political consensus--into attempting to insist that this decision be made in a particular way, and to have it rejected out of hand, the Minister of Fisheries saying.... We were told about it an hour beforehand. We were not consulted after the FRCC had its report.

We are not boarders in a room in the house of Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador is not a room in Ottawa's house, where we're to be treated like boarders. This is the way people in this province feel as a result of how the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Fisheries, has treated this decision.

I welcome any questions about what this all means. There are implications in relation to the relationship between Newfoundland and Canada. As you know, we are having a royal commission on our relationship with Canada, and in a sense this is focusing some of the issues and problems. We have a situation where this decision has to be changed. It must be changed. If it is not changed, the questioning of our relationship with Canada will continue and we will be going down a road that leads I know not where.

That's the message I wanted to send to this committee, and I thank you for your work. You've been doing a great job as far as I'm concerned. Even you, Mr. Chairman, as a member of Parliament from Toronto, are doing a wonderful job in understanding the issues. But our question is this: do we need to continuously convince every member of Parliament that, look, this is something that for us...? Many Canadians for many, many years didn't understand the issues that were so important to the people of Quebec; eventually they did.

For us, this is an important issue. When I say “the rest of Canada”, I'm saying there is a division. There are issues that are of supreme importance to the people of this province that the people in the rest of Canada will have to come to understand if we are to be treated fairly as a part of this country--and this is one of them. I would ask you to recognize the seminal importance of this issue and do everything in your power to convince the minister and the government in Ottawa that this must be changed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Colleagues, Mr. Harris' presentation was an excellent one and I know we're going to have questions. It has also been requested, in the interests of fairness and equality, that we hear also from the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland. I'd invite him to make his presentation at this time, and then we'll have questions for both parties.

I know this is putting you on the spot a bit, Mr. Taylor, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give us your views as well, and then we'll be able to question you both.

Welcome.

Mr. Trevor Taylor (Fisheries Critic, Progressive Conservative Party, Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly): Thank you. I appreciate your accommodating me. For whatever reason--I don't know why--I didn't receive the notification. It may have come through the office, but it certainly didn't get to me. Anyway, thank you again.

My name is Trevor Taylor. I am the opposition fisheries critic. I was before you at another time, and as many of you would know, I've spent most of my time in the fishing industry, including six years on the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

I'm sorry to take some of Jack's time here, but I have just a few quick comments.

In all of this debate, over the past two weeks now, and the certainly over the past six months, I think a couple of fundamental issues have been lost in all of this. We are talking about a fishery, primarily on the west coast of Newfoundland and southern Labrador, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and a group of people. It's true, certainly, that in the last two weeks these issues have been lost in all of the political banter. I think it is very unfortunate. I think there are a few issues related to these that we all need to be reminded of.

There is a serious disconnect, I think, between senior DFO management and the industry in Atlantic Canada, and I don't think it's just in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an issue in Atlantic Canada, and probably on the west coast of Canada as well.

You know, we have heard constantly for the past just about 10 years now phrases coming out of DFO senior management in Ottawa and different ministers from time to time about partnering and the need for co-management and those types of things. Here we have a classic example of partnering and some semblance of a co-management regime in the form of the FRCC that has been fired out the window over the past number of months as far as I'm concerned. I believe there is an agenda on the go to remove the FRCC from the picture entirely, or at least to water it down to the point where it is irrelevant.

It appears to me that the only time that partnering and co-management is really wanted by senior DFO management and the minister is when they are trying to find a way of taking millions of dollars out of the pockets of the industry to help pay for different initiatives such as dockside monitoring, observer fees, and just recently--the latest one--black boxes aboard fishing boats.

On this latest issue of the cod closure, a couple of issues have been lost as well, I think. The minister stands up in defence of his actions and points to DFO science and their assessment process and the fact that it has been peer reviewed by scientists internationally and here in Canada.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of concerns from the industry. The FRCC was announced in 1992 and formed and activated in 1993. Its mandate and scope in terms of reference of the FRCC at that time was to take the available scientific information, peer review it as it was, take whatever other scientific information could be garnered--whether research documents, information from science provided by industry, which is sometimes the case, and traditional knowledge from the fishing industry--and formulate a set of recommendations they believed would represent the best approach to going forward in the next year or years.

On the issue of science and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there are a lot of questions about it from the perspective of industry in the gulf. The Alfred Needler has never caught very many fish, and there are serious concerns about the strategy employed by DFO science in that area.

The issue always must, I think, come back to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. Are we or are we not, as the Department of Fisheries and Ocean and as an industry, going to look to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council? Is it a tool that is going to be used or not? That is the question.

Because if it's not, why are we spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send this group of people around the country and around Atlantic Canada and Quebec and Nunavut to gather information and to provide recommendations, just to find them being ignored at the end of the day?

¿ (0950)

I have one final point--because I know I'm sharing time here with somebody else, and I appreciate that. Why is there a difference in how the minister...? It was different ministers, not only Minister Thibeault, but I believe it was Minister Anderson at the time. How is it that recommendations from the FRCC are looked upon differently in different areas of Atlantic Canada?

Just as a very quick example, for the 4X fishery in southwest Nova Scotia--which by the way is very close to, if not right in, Minister Thibault's district--the last year I sat on the FRCC, we made a recommendation for a reduction in the quota from 7,900 tonnes, as I recall, to 4,000 tonnes. The minister of the day--as I recall, it was Minister Anderson, but I may be wrong--didn't accept that recommendation, and he set the quota at 6,000 tonnes for three years, one of the few times in our history we had a multi-year management plan introduced.

The fishery was not supposed to continue at 6,000 tonnes unless there was growth experienced in that stock. There has not been growth experienced in that stock. The stock is stable--supposedly. There's been declining geographical distribution in that area, and again this year we find a 6,000-tonne quota has been set in that area.

Well, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where there are all kinds of problems with natural mortality and seal predation, we find the FRCC suggested a different approach, didn't recommend a closure. They actually recommended against the closure, because they didn't think it was the appropriate course to go forward with. And at the end of the day, we find ourselves with a minister making a decision to close the fishery.

Those are my brief comments, and I'll leave it there. Thank you.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. If perchance there was an oversight on the committee's part in inviting you, I certainly apologize for that oversight. If there wasn't, I don't know what happened.

We're again running behind time. I'd like to call on the following in the following order: Monsieur Roy, Mr. Stoffer, and Mr. Efford. I ask you to please keep the questioning to one or two brief questions, and brief answers, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Let me put one brief question which might deserve a long answer. Since yesterday, there has been a great deal of talk about seals here, as was the case in Gaspé. Much is made of the fact that the seals are currently destroying the cod fish.

From your point of view, is it not rather the poor management by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that, over the years, has led us to the situation we are now facing here in Newfoundland as well as in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence? This is my question. Is it not simply due to poor management, management which suffered from constant political interference by successive ministers, in fact a short-term, not a long-term, management of the resource, whereby we are now facing this situation?

[English]

The Chair: As we say in the legal business, that's a leading question.

We'll ask Mr. Harris, and then Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

First of all, the seals play a very important part in the ecosystem of the gulf and the North Atlantic. There is no doubt the seals are a predator of cod. I would not blame the reduction of the cod stock on seals; it's a case of long-term mismanagement by the Government of Canada. But I will say, and I agree with many others, including the fishery workers in the Gaspé, the recovery of the cod stock is being prevented by the overwhelming number of seals compared to the number of codfish. So it is a significant problem.

The idea of long-term management plans is a very interesting one. We haven't had them in the past. I'm afraid Minister Thibault's long-term management of the cod stock is to have no fishery. That's the only long-term management he can conceive of.

What we had recommended--I think the FRCC recognizes this now, and we've been talking about co-management for a number of years--is a new partnership, so the fish harvesters and the plant workers have a stake today, tomorrow, next year, and the year after, not in 25 or 30 years' time, or the next generation or something like that. If there is a small cod fishery now, everybody who is on the water should have a stake in it running properly. In fact, the fish harvesters have already said they would move to a different gear type that is less destructive.

I can guarantee you if there's a stake in the fishery of next year, if somebody else is out there poaching that stock, I'm going to report it. If every measure that's being done is designed to provide a limited fishery and allow that fishery to increase, I know as a fisherman or fish harvester, if I conserve that stock, next year my quota can be bigger and I will have a stake in the short term and the long term.

So we have to start working together, using science to help rebuild, not to make decisions that have been detrimental to the future of the fishery, using science, whether it be a cod grow-out, whether it be a better understanding of certain things, and also making sure the harvesting is done in a proper way. We will rebuild that stock over the years with a significant commitment, plus the 22 recommendations we have.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Thank you.

I basically agree with what Jack had to say. There is no doubt, I don't think, in the minds of anybody that the demise of the fishery in Atlantic Canada has in large part been a result of fishing activity, and of course, if you're going to blame it on fishing activity, a large share of the blame goes on the people who are responsible for managing that fishing activity.

After the 1977 extension of jurisdiction in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we can't very well blame a whole lot of it on foreigners, although they did do detrimental damage to all of our cod stocks and groundfish stocks prior to 1977.

In the years since then, especially since the Government of Canada decided to end the bounty on grey seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the eastern shore of Nova Scotia--or anywhere, for that matter, but that was the area that was primarily affected once it was removed--and since the closure of the whitecoat hunt, a large part of the blame and the lack of recruitment to our cod stocks has to lie with seals.

The major constraint to rebuilding of cod stocks, according to just about everybody today, including science, is acknowledged as being seals and seal predation. The high incidence of natural mortality we see in every cod stock north of Halifax is attributed by just about everybody to seal predation. This is the thing.

Why are we today finding a closure of a cod fishery--a very small, limited cod fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence--when everybody acknowledges that seal predation is in large part to blame for the lack of rebuilding? I have to say I can only draw one conclusion--well, there are a couple of conclusions.

One is that there is a great fear of animal rights groups out there, I suppose. If there's not a great fear for animal rights groups out there, there has to be another agenda. And I think that other agenda, whether there is a fear of animal rights groups or not, is there, and it's related to the loaded question you asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the province here earlier.

Peter asked the question about the FPI-Clearwater thing. I'm not going to make any accusations toward FPI and Clearwater, but management at the senior level in DFO do want to remove small-boat fishery from the Atlantic Canadian fishery. There is no doubt about that. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind.

We saw this in the crab licence issue last year, when the fishermen and their union tried to get their crab permits turned to licences. The thing they had to give in on in order to get those licences was ITQs. They had to agree to putting into place a regime over the next couple of years that would see combining of licences or the ability to combine licences. You can call it combining licences, you can call it what you like, but it's still ITQs.

There is an agenda there to remove the small-boat fishery, I believe, and the easiest way to do it is to create a generational gap in the fishery. Once we've created that break.... They thought they could do it in 10 years, I believe, but it's obviously going to take them 15 or a little better.

When you tell people this closure today is an indefinite closure, then you can move on. Somebody might ask if this fishery will ever be reopened. Of course it'll be reopened. I know John says this and I say it sometimes--we all say it--that it won't be reopened in our lifetime. Yes, I believe it'll be reopened in my lifetime. But I don't believe many of the people I know who are catching fish today in 25- and 35-foot boats will be catching fish in 25- and 35-foot boats. A scattered one of them might be, but they'll be catching them in 75-, 85-, 100-foot boats, or something like that.

À (1005)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer. It was a good segue to you. I'm going to have to insist on one-minute answers.

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

First of all, I want to congratulate the two of you and my federal counterparts in the House of Commons for the political risks you all took in forming the all-party committee. I don't think it's easy as elected officials to make a recommendation to completely shut down a recreational fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador knowing full well what that means to the heart and soul of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. All of you deserve tremendous credit for taking that risk, especially before a provincial election. It can't be said enough, the honour I bestow upon you for what you have done collectively, as a group.

I have two questions.

Mr. Harris, I don't think Minister Thibault is going to reverse his decision. Call it saving face, whatever, I don't think he's going to do it.

One of the concerns I have is this. We talk about fishermen and plant workers, but we forget to talk about the barber, the gas station attendant, the little grocery store in these small communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I'd like you to very briefly say what we should do to assist those other parts of industry that are attached to the fishing community.

My question is to Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Crosbie, a former Conservative fisheries minister, stated that the way to go is through ITQs. I would like to know if your provincial Conservative Party--and Mr. Williams or you yourself--supports the premise of an ITQ system for the groundfish fishery.

The Chair: Mr. Harris can go first; that will give Mr. Taylor a chance to think. Go ahead.

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you.

First of all, our committee didn't concentrate on the compensation issue, for a good reason. We didn't concentrate on it because we believed the important thing was to concentrate on the issue of keeping the fishery open, which we still believe in.

I think the decision has to change, but even if the decision is reversed and the 3,500 tonnes returned to the gulf, there is a need to compensate those who are losing out because of the reductions in the catch. That affects the communities. The minister mentioned Burnt Island as potentially closing down totally because it totally depends on cod. Many other communities are going to be seriously affected. There has to be a significant program to redress the economic needs in those communities with long-term adjustment and recovery and economic activity. Yes, there has to be that.

I, for one, have not decided that the minister will not change his mind. I think the minister has to change his mind. If the minister won't change his mind, then the cabinet should change the decision. It's a ministerial decision, we're told. It's not a decision of the Government of Canada; it's one minister. If you were a minister and had enough people saying you made the wrong decision, either you might have to change your decision, or maybe the minister might change. I don't know, but we're not giving up on that yet.

The Chair: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Thank you. And I didn't need time to think.

I have to say I respect Mr. Crosbie's views, but he's wrong. You don't need to go any further than southwest Nova Scotia to find the answer to that. I just finished reading Enclosing the Commons, and anybody who read it....

There are lots of people who perpetuate the value of ITQs. I believe there is a need, from time to time, to find a way of reducing the number of licences and enterprises in the fishery. It's been a standing policy of the provincial party that they oppose ITQs, while we do support IQs. There are lots of people in the industry who support IQs. There is a fundamental difference; it's the transferability of it.

There is a way, I believe, with the help of the federal government, to put in place a pool of money where licences, as people decide to move out of the industry for whatever reason, can be bought back so that the number of people dipping into the pool becomes less. I think there is value in entering into some kind of partnership agreement between the federal government and the industry where the industry is responsible, in part, for the buying out of licences, but I think that the federal government....

We tried to do this, or we talked about it, in the west coast shrimp fleet back when the moratorium on cod started. We talked about trying to convince the people of the Fishing Industry Renewal Board, as they were called then, to put x number of millions of dollars into a pool, and we would try to convince the fishermen in the area to pay one cent, two cents, three cents, or whatever, into a fund that could buy out licences. Whatever was bought out, we shared back amongst....

Anyway, you need to go no further than southwest Nova Scotia to find out it doesn't work.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you.

We have Mr. Efford next.

Mr. R. John Efford: Very quickly in the interests of time, let me say to both Jack and Trevor, we came a long way in the all-party committee to where we got stopped. There was no consultation, we all agreed; there was no discussion afterwards. The fishery is closed. Individuals, organizations, groups seem to be going different routes now. I wish we had all stuck together to the complete end, because I disagree with the minister's decision; it was a wrong decision. Nevertheless, we have to do other things.

I don't agree with Peter. I think this decision can be changed. They changed in New Brunswick. As George Feltham said last night, unfortunately it's putting people in Newfoundland and Labrador in a difficult position.

What are the plans? What plans, Jack, do you have, and what, Trevor, does your group plan? Where do you go from here?

Mr. Jack Harris: I don't know where we go from here. I think the issue is that the fish harvesters, the plant workers, are determined to see this decision overturned. I think the government seems to be determined to have it overturned. We are certainly prepared to support efforts to do that.

I don't know exactly what the plans are as far as the fish harvesters go. Maybe you can ask them. They are going to be up next.

But I think we need to support the efforts to change this. As I said in my presentation, this is not going to go away. It's not a decision about quota that is going to be gone tomorrow. It is a seminal decision. There is already talk of the Constitution and talk about fisheries jurisdiction. The province is talking about legislation, about trying to change things.

I don't know whether it will work or not, but we are going down a road, I think, and it has to be recognized that this is a very serious thing. There has been talk of civil disobedience—which, by the way, is a very different thing from criminal arson. I think there is a very significant difference between burning boats and federal government offices and those things that went on in New Brunswick, and the suggestion that people might disobey a law that doesn't involve criminal activity.

So there are very different things going on, but the fact of the matter is that this is not going to go away. The people of Canada and the Government of Canada have to realize this is something that goes a lot deeper than a mere decision by the minister on a quota.

The Chair: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Trevor Taylor: Well, John, as to what we are going to do, it's time for all of us—and I just had a conversation shortly before I came in here with somebody who is involved in the fishing side of it—to back off from where we have come to in the last two weeks.

As I said when I started out, it's unfortunate that in two weeks we have gone from talking about 3,500 tonnes of fish in a fishery, or the lack thereof, to today. The last couple of days, I have to be quite honest, I'm not sure what we are talking about. We are talking about everything but 3,500 tonnes and people going on the water. We are talking about constitutional issues. I have no problem talking about constitutional issues, but the problem is that this situation is not going to change in the next two weeks to get people back on the water.

Anyway, it is time, I think, for all of this political rhetoric on a lot of fronts to stop. It's time for us to go back to some semblance of what we had prior to March 17 and to try to bring everybody back together for the common good of the industry.

I recognize that the western side of the district I represent is going to be devastated without a fishery. There is no way the southwest coast can make it without a cod fishery. There is no way the south Labrador coast can make it without a cod fishery. Everybody can talk about whatever economic development initiatives they like. While some of them may bear fruit down the road, not many of the people I know in those boats are going to be around to pick it.

It's time for us to collectively put the sabres back into the sheaths and try to figure out how we can move forward on this. We are not going to move forward with this jousting that we are doing lately.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Colleagues, in the interests of time I won't call on everybody. But if in the interests of time anybody wants to pass their time, that's fine. It won't indicate a lack of interest; it will indicate that we have many other witnesses.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll even forgo the questions, because I think all of us are talking to the converted here. We have been through it all before and we all know where each other stands.

However, Trevor mentioned one thing. He mentioned black boxes. I'd just like him to explain very briefly what he means, because I have a bit of information I want to pass along to him on it.

À (1015)

Mr. Trevor Taylor: There is a directive from DFO now that all fishing boats in, to my knowledge, Newfoundland and Labrador—I don't know if it's beyond that, but here in our industry—have to carry tracking devices, or black boxes, on their vessels this year by May 15. I think there may be some discussion on the possibility of delaying that.

As I understand it, it's a $1,500 or $5,000 purchase—$1,500 if you want the cheap one that's not very reliable, or $5,000 if you want the reliable one. Even when you buy the reliable one, if something happens to go wrong you have to return to port immediately.

I have to say I could see value in something like this if DFO wants to buy it. Our industry is paying $50 million, I think it is, for licence fees. I don't know why every time they need something else done in the industry they have to come back and say, “You're paying $50 million for licence fees, but that's beside the point; we need you to pay for dockside monitoring”; or “You're paying $50 million for licence fees, but we need you to pay x number of dollars for observer coverage”; or “You're paying $50 million for licence fees, but we need you to pay $5,000 now for a tracking device to go aboard your boat.”

I fished crab in 3K; that's the northeast coast of Newfoundland. I have to say, when we were supposed to fish in three different areas and take portions of our quota in three different areas—in 3K north, and 3K south, and area 4—I'm not going to try to convince you that everything everybody was supposed to take came out of 3K north in the amount it was supposed to by the pound, and 3K south by the pound, or area 4 by the pound. There was a significant amount of inaccuracy in the log books at the time. I know that when a fellow got on good crab ground in 3K north, if the spotter plane didn't overfly him and it was foggy day, then nine times out of ten it got marked in for 3K south, because who wants to move their pots for one trip?

There was value in it then, but those lines have been done away with. You have 3K in total now. I can go anywhere in 3K tomorrow and take my quota—well, it's not my quota now, but I mean theoretically—of crab anywhere. Why do I need a tracking device? That is the question.

The Chair: Did you want to make a quick comment?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Yes. To answer the question about why I raised the issue, Mr. Chair, fishermen have to know that by May 15 you have to have this device. I've heard it costs $1,600 to $6,000. At committee the other day I raised the question with the minister. I asked him why, as you are setting up to start the fishery, you have to spend that kind of money on such short notice. Neither the minister, the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, nor any of the officials in the room knew anything about it. We were all there when this happened.

So I pass this along. It must strictly be a local initiative. We are having it investigated, but it was amazing that nobody had heard anything at all about it.

The Chair: You're quite right, the minister did agree to immediately check into it and get back to us.

Mr. Matthews, do you have any comments or questions? Mr. Wood? Mr. Elley? Okay.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentations. We very much appreciate them.

We now call on Mr. Earle McCurdy, the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union; and Mr. Bill Broderick, president of the inshore council of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.

Welcome, gentlemen. I'm trying to keep the show on the road, so to speak, but we'll give you as much time as is required. Are you both going to speak? Was that the plan, or is one going to speak on behalf of both?

Mr. Earle McCurdy (President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union): The plan was both. Actually, we separately booked. I don't know how we ended up together, because we're on two completely different topics. We'll make the best of it, I guess.

À (1020)

The Chair: There are only so many hours in the day, and there's nothing we can do about that. If you're both going to make a presentation, then you're both going to make a presentation; that's fine. Could I please ask you to keep it to ten minutes maximum. If there is anything you miss, I'm sure you can graft it on to the questions.

Mr. McCurdy, will you go first?

All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: I have a couple of very preliminary comments. I mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, that while I understand the notice was short, it would be really desirable to have an opportunity for the committee to be on the west coast of the province, where there are many people whose communities are finished in the wake of the announcement that was made in this same room 10 or 12 days ago. There are communities with several hundred years of history that are about to have the padlock put on them. I think an opportunity for them, if it's possible at all to make appropriate arrangements, would be most appreciated.

A number of subject areas have been touched on here this morning that I won't delve into. I'll try not to be redundant to the presentations I heard and also to some previous ones we've had. For instance, on the issue of foreign fishing, I don't think I need to explain anything to this committee. You've done an excellent job on it in the past with your reports, and there's nothing I've said to this committee previously that I don't continue to believe firmly on that subject. I believe you've addressed it as well as your committee can, so I won't belabour that issue, other than to reaffirm that it remains a hot potato.

The issue of seals again has been well covered by others. It's clearly a serious problem. I think the previous two, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Harris, spoke to that, and obviously on the committee you have people—notably Mr. Efford, and others—who've been quite vocal on that subject and are familiar with the issues.

I'll move on from that, not because it's not an important issue but because I want to zero in particularly on the recent cod announcements, the consequences of them, and also what they say about how our fisheries are managed in this country—and also, perhaps, to try to help you understand the uproar around here about all of this.

Our organization represents both inshore fish harvesters and inshore, midshore, offshore, and also fish plant workers. The group that fish the Gulf of St. Lawrence stock—the northern gulf, known as 3Pn4RS—put together a harvesting plan. We put together one in conjunction with our members after a round of meetings—thirty or forty or whatever number of public meetings—last December, because we could see trouble looming here in where the signs were pointing on that stock and in some of the barriers we had to getting a good understanding of the state of that stock.

The plan that was eventually developed included limiting the fishery to hook and line only; it included a closed season to protect the spawning time of the cod; it included restrictions on other fisheries so as to avoid unwanted bycatch of either the large spawners or the juveniles, and a variety of other measures. It was fairly extensive.

We believe there are ways, other than telling people you're not allowed to fish, to engage in good conservation practices. I wish that feeling was more widely held in our society.

We had that plan. There was a consensus in this province, and there was already discussion about the all-party committee, which I won't belabour, but there was clear consensus there—federal, provincial, and across party lines, and in the harvesting sector and the processing sector. The FRCC made a report that proposed in the northern gulf a limited fishery. Among other things in that report, the FRCC said, “The council notes that science states clearly that a complete cessation of a fishery will not stimulate stock growth and rebuilding”. It also goes on to mention, in point 2, the precipitous decline in the Scotia Shelf cod stock, which has been under moratorium since 1993.

While it might make people feel good and maybe a little precious to say we'll err on the side of conservation and tell fishermen to go home out of it, you're finished, we don't want you anymore, that by and of itself doesn't make cod stocks grow—or any other kind of stock. There's a lot more to it than this.

They also describe a complete closure of that stock as an unrealistic option that would in no way guarantee stock rebuilding. That's a fairly extensive consensus that's very hard to reach on most subjects. One person said, I don't buy that and I'm not going to do it, and if that means communities have the padlock on them, that's your problem. That's really what he said up on that stage there 13 days ago. He said, sorry, I don't agree. it's all over.

I understand Mr. Thibault. There was a fix in in the department for quite some time on that stock. The powers that be in the department had made their minds up that they wanted that fishery stopped. There is an elitism about all this that really troubles me.

À (1025)

And I have say, as parliamentarians, you really missed the boat on one thing. The Species at Risk Act is a very, very serious piece of legislation in terms of the consequences for fishing communities in this country. I know we will live to rue the day that it was ever brought into law.

It says in there that it's an offence to kill, harm, threaten, capture, or harass--I believe it says--threatened, endangered, or extirpated species. The previous draft, out about six years ago, had the word “wilfully” in there, and I think it speaks volumes for the direction in which our society is headed that the word “wilfully” has been taken out. It used to be that if you went out and did it on purpose, then you were in trouble; and now it says even if it is not on purpose, even if it's accidental, there is a defence of due diligence, but the onus is completely reversed. Instead of it being placed on the Crown to prove intent, it's placed on the individual to prove he did everything he possibly could to avoid the incidental capture.

Just to give a good example of all the rhetoric, what follows is from the Atlantic fisheries policy review document of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: “Fisheries and Oceans Canada believes that enabling resource users and others to play a greater role in decision-making and thus to take greater responsibility for resource management decisions and their outcomes will further our conservation ethic and enable stakeholders to take greater control of their economic and social well-being.”

That's a crock. There is no intention of doing that. We had a consensus of everybody involved on that issue. They said, no, that's not good enough. I, the minister, in my sole discretion, have decided that we are going to do otherwise. But they shouldn't circulate that bunkum if they are not prepared to live by it. It's utterly meaningless.

On that Species at Risk Act and the COSEWIC designations, really what they are doing is taking existing DFO research and reanalyzing it. This is not new scientific basic research. And then they are applying COSEWIC criteria, which, as I understand them, were developed for terrestrial animals, and they are applying them to marine fish. There's a big difference between a bear that can have two cubs a year and a fish that can lay 5 million or 10 million eggs. The biology is entirely different, and to apply the circumstances of one to the other, in my opinion, is wacky, and there is a certain elitism to it, because there has been no involvement of fishermen whatsoever.

Now, these are not just people who take fish out of the ecosytem; they are people who for generations have read and understood nature and learned how to read nature and currents and tides and weather and all those things to understand the resource they are harvesting. And the COSEWIC process, although the website claims otherwise, had no involvement of fishermen whatsoever in developing these designations.

Stocks were also grouped in a way that was previously unheard of. The 3Ps cod has a very, very favourable stock status report from DFO. Recruitment and abundance levels are double what they were in the 1990s, according to stock status reports. But it's in a threatened category, which means we won't be allowed to fish it if the Minister says, okay, I agree that this very promising fishery, a very important fishery, should be closed in the face of a very positive stock status report. Yet, the stock I just mentioned, 4BSW on the Scotian Shelf, which is described as virtually in a free fall--it has been closed for 10 years with no sign of recovery--is in a less threatened category. Quite frankly, this is something that's very hard to swallow.

I have circulated a couple of tables showing catch rates now in 2002 being far better than they were in 1990. The tables take some time to go through. Perhaps I'll leave them, and somebody might want to ask a question about this. In 1990, on the northern gulf cod stock, following a conference of fish harvesters, our union took the then unheard of step of recommending a moratorium. I don't know of any fishermen's organization anywhere that has ever done it, before or since. We were told by the department, by the scientists, don't be so foolish; there's lots of fish. Three years later it was closed, but there was a lot more damage done.

Now there is currently a disconnect again, except the opinions have reversed. The fishermen are not saying they want anything close to the 70,000-, 80,000-, and 100,000-tonne TACs that were in place 12 years ago. They are saying we want enough to keep our little communities alive, to have some hope for the future.

À (1030)

With the reference points that have been put in place, if Mr. Thibault says that he doesn't care what anybody else says, he's sticking to his guns, and if the Prime Minister says that it's up to the Minister, then those little communities like La Poile--and there are several in Mr. Matthews's district, that's for sure--won't survive. It's all over for them. They have no basis for survival. And talking about saving the fish for the next generation, there will be no next generation in La Poile or in Grand Bruit, or in any number of communities I could list. They're finished. Trevor Taylor said it well: there will be a break in the generations, and the whole way of life, I guess you would call it, will be down the drain.

The Chair: Could I ask you to wrap up this part of it.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: Yes, you can.

In the system of estimating the biomass of the two stocks, including northern cod, which is also important, the scientific advice went literally overnight from saying in 1988 that you can harvest 290,000 tonnes to saying, oops, we made a mistake; it should really only be 125,000. Should that type of analysis be the basis for saying our communities are finished?

People are vexed beyond reason, as I am, which you can probably tell. I try not to get like that, but sometimes you just can't help it. The idea that this is not a big deal because it only affects a few people is an absolute insult to those little communities and the people who fought tooth and nail for generations to build them and keep them alive.

As for the idea that we'll give you make-work projects, is that what 10 generations of fighting for a family and an enterprise is worth? It's nothing but an insult, and I'm almost beyond expressing myself because it's just so vexing to have to put up with the kind of treatment we've seen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCurdy. We certainly understand your passion and how you're controlling it.

Mr. Broderick.

Mr. Bill Broderick (President, Inshore Council of Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Bill Broderick and I'm a fisherman. I live in one of those little endangered communities. There are 200 souls living on one of the islands in Bonavista Bay who decided to stay there some years ago and to try to eke out an existence.

I am president of the inshore council of the union, which is basically the parliament of the inshore. There are 33 fish harvesters elected geographically and by gear type in the province to come together to make policy for the union. I am also chairman of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board and I'm a member of the FRCC.

I want to speak briefly about the owner-operator policy. I want to talk about professionalization and to make some comments about COSEWIC.

I'll start with professionalization, which is no stranger to Mr. Efford, who was at the helm of the provincial fisheries department when the act was passed.

What is professionalization of the fishery? In this province, it is a program developed by and for fish harvesters after years of consultation. Its aim was to protect the rights of fish harvesters and to protect their jobs. It was about recognizing the occupation of fishing as a profession. My father and grandfather were just fishermen, but now we're professional fish harvesters. It's important that people recognize this; it's important that people recognize it themselves and keep their heads high. It's about developing criteria so that fish harvesters can upgrade and advance. It's designed to bring order to the fishery.

It was not about rationalizing the fishery; it has never been about reducing the number of bona fide fish harvesters. It has always been about protecting them and, in turn, protecting and enhancing the owner-operator principle of fisheries management. This principle is critical to keeping the fishery from being even further corporatized.

We need to remember that this is a public resource. This is why professionalization and certification within the harvesting sector of the Canadian fishery has not been embraced by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It has been given lip service. But because of the emphasis in this province and the support of the provincial government, legislation was passed. It's also been done in the province of Quebec since about 1998. I think it was done here about 1997.

Other regions of the country are struggling to get this legislation passed or accepted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I heard that the latest roadblock to it is that we now can't turn over the registration system because of budget cuts. We can't afford to do it. That has to be the most feeble excuse anyone has ever heard.

The legislation was a key to protecting the owner-operator policy, which I know other presentations have mentioned. I think Mr. McCurdy made a presentation to this parliamentary committee before on the owner-operator principle, but it was our little effort here and in the other provinces of Canada to try to do our bit to protect it by bringing in this.

Professionalization is one of several principles of fisheries management that have slowed down the privatization agenda advocated by the Fisheries Council of Canada.Other key principles key to ensuring that this agenda is halted and coastal communities are given an opportunity to benefit from public fisheries resources are adjacency and historic dependence, which you heard about earlier; owner-operator fleet separation; and more equitable sharing of resources.

In 1978, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Roméo LeBlanc, said that efforts must be made to separate the fishing fleet from the processing companies in Atlantic Canada. There was clear evidence that creating a truly independent fleet would raise fish prices and fishermen's incomes, increasing the bargaining power of fishermen and creating a healthier balance of forces in the industry. The movement of vessels from fishermen ownership to company ownership would not be in keeping with those objectives of an independently owned fleet.

Today, those efforts to create an independent fleet of fishing vessels have been undermined by the very department that Mr. LeBlanc once captained.

À (1035)

On the issue of COSEWIC, I can't pass up this opportunity. As I was driving in here this morning, I listened to Mr. Jeff Hutchings--Dr. Jeff Hutchings, I think it was. Fishermen will never get to be doctors, but we hear a lot of doctors talking about the fishery these days. I'm not a doctor of mathematics, but I can use a pen and sometimes even a calculator.

He said one of the reasons why they put northern cod on the endangered species was that the biomass had declined 99% over three generations. He talked about three generations as being thirty years, average age of cod being about 10 years.

The last stock status report issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans--I'm not totally sure of the number, I don't have a copy of it with me--but somewhere in the range of 60,000 to 80,000 metric tonnes was seen as the biomass in 2J3KL. If I'd used my little calculator, which I didn't have with me, it would have told me that some time 30 years ago we had a biomass of six million to seven million tonnes of northern cod? I've never heard that figure.

There were some wild suggestions of what our stock was from DFO science in the past, back when they certainly overestimated what it was, when both foreigners and our own fleets were fishing; but nobody ever suggested it was anywhere near that number. From one million to two million tonnes I have heard suggested--and a lot of people will argue that it was never there--but the six million to seven million? I never heard that one.

He also said that the take last year of 4,200 tonnes was actually 20% of what's remaining in the stock, which also suggests that he must be now saying--contrary to what Fisheries and Oceans science is saying--that there's basically 20,000 tonnes in that stock. My calculations say, if I look at it from the inshore, probably about 10% of the stock was taken, and if I look at it from the overall 2J3KL stock, it would have been about five.

These are the kinds of numbers being thrown around. That's the kind of misinformation that groups like COSEWIC are using. That's what's out in the public. I just wanted to raise that this morning.

Thank you.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you very much for your concise presentation. It gives us some time for questions.

I'd like to just let you know that we'll start with Mr. Hearn, followed by Mr. Efford, and then Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Matthews, could I ask you to take the chair for a few minutes?

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and again we'll be very brief.

A couple of quick comments earlier mentioned the west coast, and certainly, as you know, this meeting has been planned for some time. We thought we'd get the committee to come down, talk about generalities, touch up on some of the things we had to do--sort of housekeeping stuff. Over the last couple of weeks, of course, the agenda has changed tremendously. And you're right, it would have been nice for us to be in the heart of the area in the province where the greatest effect is. We'll certainly see what we can do there, but in the meantime we are well aware of what's happening.

On the other issue, let me ask a question of each one of you. I'll throw out two questions and then you can answer.

It's a bit ironic. In 1997, the minister of the day, Minister Mifflin, reopened the northern gulf fishery, but he refused to open the 4Vn because of the concern about the stocks. The present minister closes the northern gulf, and not only reopens the 4Vn but reopens it to dragger fishing, something that hasn't happened for years. I'd certainly like your spin on that.

To Bill, you mentioned the FRCC and that you're a member. I'd like your spin on what role you think the FRCC plays in this, because again, the other day at our estimates, the last question to the minister--which I think had been set up--was from his own parliamentary secretary.

The question was--and my colleagues will verify this; I'm trying to get the blues or the minutes before the day is out so I can give them to you directly--in light of the difference between the scientific advice the minister had from his people versus the FRCC advice that said to keep the fishery open, basically, and the southern gulf in particular, is there any need for such an advisory body? Now, cutting to the chase, that was basically the question. And the minister's answer, actually, was, well, in light of the fact that the chairman is soon going to be retiring, it might be a good time to have a look at the whole process.

So I'd like your spin on that.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: On the 4Vn, it is interesting to note a letter dated December 10, 2002, from the minister, Mr. Thibault, to Mr. Woodman, the chair of the FRCC, giving what I regard as marching orders to the FRCC. Normally that letter would be a pretty sanitized piece of business, just saying we request your advice on the following stocks, listing them, thank you very much, goodbye.

In this case he had quite a lengthy letter, almost two pages, instructing the FRCC to reflect on the current condition of stocks compared to their historical status, saying we must consider substantial changes in how we manage them, and so on and so forth. It was interesting to note that for the stock referenced earlier--the 4X5Y stock in Southwest Nova, for example--there was no such admonition to the FRCC in respect to that. It had already gone through the system, as I understand it, before this letter went out.

I'm at an absolute loss to understand the different treatment in that regard, just as I'm at a total loss, I'm flabbergasted, at how COSEWIC could conclude that the 3Ps stock is in a much higher level of concern than stocks for which the advice is they are just getting worse and worse in the absence of fishing.

I don't understand it, for the life of me.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews): Mr. Broderick, do you want to respond?

Mr. Bill Broderick: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

I guess from the FRCC point of view, the information on the gulf stocks, and in particular the northern gulf stock, there was a clear disconnect between what was seen in the inshore in the northern gulf and what was seen by the science basically in the offshore. That's been in existence for the last number of years, certainly since I've been on the council. This was part of the reason for it. But the main reason for suggesting that the fishery be left open--because it's been recognized ever since 1992-93 when everything shut down--was so we don't lose a valuable source of information. In 1992-93, we lost any contact with the fishery through the people on the water.

It was in that vein that the FRCC said not to close it totally. And that goes even for 2J3KL, where we said to leave the door open so we can at least get the scientific information from the fishermen, who are the real scientists on the water.

In terms of its role and usefulness, it is being questioned. A review took place last year, and where that'll go I don't know. When the leaked document came out last fall, a team of us were in Harbour Breton looking at the 3Ps stock at the time. So 3Ps was important, and it was important that we carry on our work and make our recommendations, which we've done, and that fishery is now open.

There are a lot of other stocks in Atlantic Canada. I guess we decided we had to continue our work and couldn't just throw up our hands and say that it was over because the minister didn't appear to want to listen to us on this particular stock. We didn't know at that point whether he would or wouldn't.

It appears as if the minister of the department was trying to get out in front of COSEWIC. That's how it appears. It looked as if it was going to come, and DFO had to get out in front of it. The view inside was, if the minister wants to respond to COSEWIC or whatever, that's.... We have to do our job. We think we did that.

À (1045)

Mr. Loyola Hearn: May I make a point here just for clarification? Mr. McCurdy mentioned in his opening how we missed the boat by approving the Species at Risk Act. Just for clarification, our party did not support that piece of legislation, for some of the very reasons you mentioned.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews): Mr. Efford, please.

Mr. R. John Efford: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earle, I understand and respect everything that's happening with you because, like you, we all recognize the seriousness of the closure of this fishery. I've disagreed with it publicly and in the House of Commons. I even got two questions--I suppose it was the first time ever that an opposition member like me got three questions in the House of Commons--last week to the minister, not giving any information on what the question was going to be. So we've tried to make our point.But as you and Bill have said, frustration is building with the people in the community, and frustration is certainly building with us.

Do you have any suggestions? And we can't quit. We can't give up. God forbid, we can't. Do you have any suggestions as to what we could do collectively? We can't allow this to continue, and the decision, for the sake of the future, for the sake of the communities, for the sake of everything we could possibly care about, can't remain as is. What suggestions do you have that we can all work together on?

Mr. Earle McCurdy: I heard the previous testimony about how, well, you know, the rhetoric is getting too high, people should settle down, and we should all stick together. It's hard not to be cynical and say, well, we've already done that.

There was quite an effort in this province. If anyone thinks it's easy--as a former minister, you would be familiar with this; you have a few layers less skin than you once had because of issues related to gear technology--to go out to meetings in which we put forward a proposal, not passing judgment on different types of fishing gear, just to simply say we think there's a real threat in the northern gulf, we're going to lose this fishery, and we believe our best chance of saving something of it is to come forward with a hook and line only option.... We had to go into communities where they were all gill netters. This was the last thing they wanted to hear. In fact, there are some who are still fighting tooth and nail against it.

So, for our part, we're going to do whatever we can think of from day to day to keep up the pressure. It doesn't appear that the minister has any intention of bending an inch. It doesn't appear as if the Prime Minister has any intention of getting involved. It doesn't appear as if the regional minister from Newfoundland has any intention of declaring himself on the issue. Therefore, it's very, very vexing. I'm very concerned about how the discontent is going to manifest itself over the next few weeks, very concerned.

We did all the usual stuff you do. We went with briefs to the FRCC--and, clearly, we have to question how much time and effort and energy and money and everything else we'll put into preparing presentations for the FRCC next year, when, at the whim of the minister, it's fired in the garbage. We've done the “meet with the cabinet representatives” thing. I was in with the premier. Others last week met with the minister and several cabinet ministers in Ottawa. It appears as though it's all falling on deaf ears.

Therefore, I think the kinds of protests we've seen in the past couple of weeks will continue in different forms. I just don't know what forms they'll take or what the outcome will be. It's very frustrating. Particularly, I find it offensive when people wrap themselves in the flag of conservation and dismiss people who fish as if they're too stunned to understand it. I find it obnoxious in the extreme to be reading this stuff.

I'm afraid that's not much of an answer to your question, because I'm at a loss myself as to what to do. All I know is that we're not going to just give up and let those communities and their history go down the drain.

À (1050)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bill Matthews): Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to put on the record that I would love to see the minister change his mind. I just don't think he will. That's the question I was going to ask Mr. McCurdy.

First, I wanted to say that the last time we were here we also were in the harbour at DFO offices. I asked the DFO officials how many coast guard vessels were patrolling the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador as we were speaking. He proudly said, “One. It's in the harbour”.

I couldn't help but read in the Globe and Mail this morning that, for any fishermen who defy this ban, DFO will enforce the law using their patrol vessels, aircraft surveillance, and every usual method they have. I wonder where they're going to get all these patrol vessels to go after them, when they can't even do it under a normal fishing season. That's just a statement.

Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Broderick, we heard the Minister of Fisheries here in Newfoundland say no consultation twice, without consultation with them or with the fishing industry. Mr. Thibault said last Thursday at our committee hearings that he had broad consultation with all stakeholders prior to the decision. I would like to ask you if indeed he did consult your organization, which represents over 20,000 fishermen and plant workers throughout this province, I believe. Were there extensive consultations with you before this decision?

Question two, I don't believe he did it for conservation measures. There has to be another reason. Why did the minister make the decision, when all the advice and everything coming at him was completely contrary to this decision?

Mr. Earle McCurdy: On the issue of consultation, if a consultation consists of an opportunity to sit down and present your views and then run along, and then those views go nowhere, then I suppose we had consultation. Did we have any meaningful input? I don't think so.

We presented to the FRCC, and I think our presentation there was very significant towards the outcome of its decision, but then that was chucked into the incinerator. I had an opportunity to meet with the minister a couple of weeks before his decision. I came away from that meeting with a feeling of dread. My feeling was very clear that his mind was made up before the meeting and nothing I was going to say was going to change it. I don't really call that consultation.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: With that, we noticed that after the burning of the wharves and the buildings in Shippagan and the boat, the minister almost right away said, well, we have to further negotiate, or words to that effect. Here in Newfoundland you didn't have that type of activity, what I call criminal activity, in burning buildings, and yet there was no discussion of further negotiations.

So I'd like your comment on that.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: We've always advocated for a peaceful but dramatic demonstration of a point of view. You try to find ways to make your point of view, whether it's a flotilla down in the harbour protesting the allocation of shrimp quotas, or whatever it might be, to have some way to dramatize it in a manner that doesn't jeopardize people's safety and so on.

In particular, what appalled me up there was when I saw that fish plant. What I saw was 150 jobs going up in smoke for people with no other means of a livelihood. I imagine what would have happened here. It's bad enough when you have fires that are accidents.

I can tell you how that has been interpreted by our members. I saw four different fishermen interviewed on television last night, and each one of them said, it seems pretty clear to us that we've got to step up our tactics if that's what it takes to get the minister to open up. That was the reaction they instinctively had.

I was flabbergasted when I heard his comments the next day. I said, is that what we're going to...? it's not easy being in those situations where you have people's livelihoods on the line, their community on the line. They're mad, they're upset, and they're ready for almost anything. You try to express that and bring it forward in a way that's appropriate, that's dramatic, but you stay within the law. Seeing that kind of a comment, I just didn't know how to react. I made calls to the senior DFO people and I said that the minister should think of what he's opening the door to, what he's inviting. I just couldn't believe it.

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Broderick.

Mr. Bill Broderick: Yes, I'd like to respond to Peter's question as to why he did it.

I think the answer to that one is obvious. I think Mr. Taylor touched on it when he was here earlier. The agenda here is to get rid of the small boats, to get rid of the small communities. The overall agenda since 1992 was to downsize, to get rid of people, to get them out of the industry. That didn't happen in the numbers with the efforts that were made.

Some people voluntarily went to early retirement and the buy-out, but with regard to other efforts to get people out, there is very limited other employment in the province we live in. People my age, which is about the average for most people in the industry, don't see opportunities elsewhere, so they stick it out on the rocks that they live on, that they're clinging to.

I'd like to relate it to John's question, what can we do? I don't know what will happen over the next weeks or months. I know it's very volatile out there. In the long term, there's a legacy that followed our first premier, Joey Smallwood, and that's the dreaded word “resettlement”. He carried that to his grave.

And there's a vision of towing houses. Actually, I towed mine, the one I live in. You've seen the picture of towing houses across the water. Well, that has stuck with a lot of people. That's not the vision that you'll see after this one. The vision will be of those houses going up in smoke. That's where those houses will go, like the boats, because who will need them? Where will the tourists come from to visit those homes in La Poile, St. Brendan's, or wherever. There'll be no people living there, just the crows and the gulls.

So that's the legacy. That's the fall-out. That's the end result of this if this continues, if we can't do something to turn this thing around. That's why it's so important. That's why people are so wild over this. I don't think we're able to contain them much longer in terms of what they're going to do.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, any questions?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have a question for Mr. Broderick. He was a member of the FRCC, or still is.

When I saw the FRCC recommendation, and you recommended a fishery of 3,500 metric tonnes, I expressed my own view at the time, not publicly, and I said the figure was a little...and think the word I used was “devious”, because it was smack in the middle of 7,000 and nothing. People have said--and I'm sure we've all heard it said by certain individuals--that it's just as well not to have any fisheries with a 3,500 metric tonne fishery. I guess people who really didn't want to have a fishery anyway are saying that. I'd like you to comment on that.

I supported a limited commercial fishery, and still do. I think the minister's decision is wrong, as others have said this morning. But perhaps you could explain how you arrived at the 3,500 metric tonne figure for me? What type of a fishery would it be? I'd like you to comment on that.

Mr. Bill Broderick: How we arrived at the 3,500 tonne fishery was actually based on the science that was provided for us and the proposal that had been worked on by an FRCC team for about two years now. It coincided basically with a proposal coming forward from the fishermen on the west coast of Newfoundland as to a closed season, closed areas, the hook and line fisheries.

With that in mind, the science was telling us that a 3,500 tonne fishery was in keeping with a rebuilding strategy. As a resource conservation council, even if there were differing views as to the state of the stock, in the end we had to have a scientific basis for making the decision, and it was there.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Could you tell me if, in your deliberations and in your recommendation on the 3,500 metric tonnes, there was consideration given to the individual logbook data of fishermen? Did you consider that? Because it's been said that the two loopholes in the scientific assessment was the Alfred Needler survey, and the problems with that. This year in the 2002 model this individual logbook data from harvesters was not considered.

So I'd like to hear your comments on that and what you think that may have done to the recommendation and to the decision, because everything I've read and heard is that since 1997 the catch rates have been increasing. Someone told me this morning that those involved in a sentinel fishery for the last 24 to 48 hours have never seen better catch rates.

Á (1100)

Mr. Bill Broderick: You see, Mr. Matthews, that's the information that we've balanced off. That's how we got to the 3,500 tonne figure. It was the balance, because there's a clear divide, as I said earlier, on what science is saying about the gulf stock, where they're doing their surveys basically in the offshore. They're not surveying in the inshore area.

So the only information coming from the inshore area is basically the information from the sentinel fishery and the information from the logbooks, which wasn't used in the calculation for DFO science. We had that information. We did consultations in three areas in the gulf. We were given that information by fishermen, so we recognized it.

The record proved that that fish were there. We knew after those limited 12-hour openings where a man could go out with 2,000 hooks. Well, he was allowed to set them twice and he brought in 12,000 pounds of fish. He exceeded his 10,000 pounds of fish kept and he had to give the fish away to his neighbour.

Those catch rates are unheard of. You know the history of the fishery on the south coast, and so does Mr. Efford. In the days of the fishery, when a fisherman reported one-half to three-quarters of a pound per hook, it was big fishing. Now we're talking about two to three pounds per hook. It's just incredible landings.

That's the information we used to balance what science was saying from the offshore. Science is married to the models, and if it doesn't fit the model it doesn't go in there. We have to get away from these models before.... The role of the FRCC is to listen to what science has to say and also to listen to what fishermen have to say and to try to strike a balance, and that's what we did in the gulf.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you very much for your comment, because I thought it was necessary that my colleagues heard that response. I fairly much knew what you were going to say, but I thought for the record here, for colleagues who were not tied into this issue as well as some of us were, it was very important that they heard your explanation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Broderick.

Mr. Stoffer, you have a point of order?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I have a point of order.

Mr. McCurdy, you referred to a letter by the minister to FRCC. Would it be possible for our clerk to get a copy for our committee?

Mr. Earle McCurdy: Yes, sure. I have only one copy, so I'd like to make arrangements to have it copied here.

The Chair: Mr. Elley, then Mr. Roy.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

I want to say this by way of a comment on the last point that Bill raised. We see this very same thing happening with the salmon fishery on the west coast. And for two consecutive years, as you know, DFO has been incredibly out on their estimation of the Fraser River run for sockeye.

Our fishermen are sitting by while fish are just going right by them. It's a travesty. So we have the same problem on both coasts. The only thing that DFO does is bring equality to the nation in that kind of situation.

I'd like, however, to raise the issue of the species at risk.

You raised that issue, Mr. McCurdy, and I'm very glad you did because you may be aware that the Canadian Alliance was the only party in the House to actually oppose this legislation. One of the reasons we opposed it was for the very same thing that you were saying. We could see this being used against our primary industries like agriculturalists and fishers, and at some point it could be used against them in this very way that you're suggesting.

I'm wondering whether you are saying that at some point DFO would use species at risk legislation to actually shut down the cod fishery permanently.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: What the act says is that it's an offence to kill, harm, capture, or harass a threatened or endangered species. My understanding is that there's been this new invention, the Laurentian north population. I've never heard of it before. I've been involved in the fishery for 26 years and I've never heard of the Laurentian north cod population.

Mr. Reed Elley: It's like the Great Bear Rain Forest on the west coast. We've heard of that too.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: What it is is a group of stocks categorized together. There's another group called the Newfoundland and Labrador population. Those are new to me in all the time I've been at it.

Once that designation is made, my understanding of the act is that cabinet has the final decision, and it's COSEWIC that recommends it to cabinet. If cabinet adopts the recommendations that come out of COSEWIC.... I might add, my understanding is that the person who submitted and prepared the report on those cod stocks served on the subcommittee that received that report and made a recommendation on it, and also served on the overall COSEWIC committee that received the report of the recommendation of the subcommittee to make these listings—which sounds a bit to me like having a crown prosecutor sitting on the jury.

In any event, my understanding is that, for example, that 3Ps stock that's been described in pretty healthy terms in the stock status report would be closed instantly if cabinet accepted the COSEWIC recommendation.

I'm aware of some of that stuff on the west coast, probably not as much as you are. My understanding is that there was a huge missed opportunity. There were overestimates and there were problems back in the eighties, and what seems to be the approach now is to be ultra-conservative about everything. The easiest thing in the world to do is not to think through all the possibilities but to simply say, “You over there, you stop fishing, and we'll fix it.”

We were told that with Atlantic salmon in 1992. We're now in the twelfth year of a five-year moratorium on Atlantic salmon. We were told at the time, if we get the commercial fishermen out of the water, there will be salmon running up the Trans-Canada Highway. Well, I'm still waiting to see them.

That seems to be what's involved now. I have to ask, after the history we had in our groundfish stocks in the late eighties and early nineties—for example, having advice change overnight, saying that they erred, to the tune of more than doubling the estimate of the stock—is there no humility left? Can't people say, gee, perhaps that's it? What would have to happen for someone to say, I don't think this system of variable population analysis works all that well? I'm just wondering how much of a shambles there would have had to be for someone to make the conclusion that we were doing our best—I'm not questioning that—but this just doesn't seem to get us there. I'm at a loss to understand this.

I've circulated a table; it might be hard to follow. It's the annual VPA—that's the computer run on the model. Each year they say, here's how much fish there is this year. Then they estimate, going back over the previous years. In 2001 they told us, for example, that back in 1995 there were 35,000 tonnes of gulf cod. A year later, when they ran the run again, they said, no, we've reconsidered that, and it's a little better; it's 38,000. A year later they said, oops, back in 1995 there were only 19,000 tonnes.

There was no more or less fish back in 1995, when it was measured in any one of those three years. To me, this shows just how unreliable.... The only thing I can say about the figures is that all three of them must have been wrong. I think we have an undue reliance on computer outputs that are based on highly subjective inputs. Unfortunately, it's the people in those little communities like the one Bill comes from who are going to pay the piper.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you.

Not to be flippant about it, perhaps we should consider designating the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an endangered species.

Mr. Earle McCurdy: I think that would be a step in the right direction. In fact, Mr. Chair, I have the forms and I'm in the process of filling them out.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: This is more or less what I was about to say, and let me add the people on the Lower North Shore and in Gaspé.

Ms. McCurdy, you answered my question regarding the Species at Risk Act when you answered Mr. Elley's question. Thus, I would simply like to make a comment.

At one time, I sat on the Environment Committee, and, of course, I am sitting on the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I must say that there is jurisdictional problem with regard to the creation of protected areas. Fisheries and Oceans is creating some, as is the Department of the Environment, as well as Heritage Canada. There is no coordination whatsoever, and this will degenerate into chaos, as for instance in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, where Heritage Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada want to create protected areas. Sooner or later, there will be nowhere left to fish.

I made this comment at the time and I am repeating it now. This is absolutely insane and misguided. That was just a comment, not a question. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's it. Are there any concluding remarks briefly, or are we all right, gentlemen?

Mr. Earle McCurdy: I just hope you'll add your voices on this issue, as to its impact. Also, I think the real message is this: how about a little respect for the people who are out there on the water observing with their own eyes—and really, with the eyes of their father, their grandfather, their great-grandfather? They didn't just pick this up; this is something that was passed on through generations. They have the ability--and I think it's been proven with the efforts they made in the eighties and early nineties--to say, would you please reconsider your scientific advice; you're grossly overestimating the stock, and from our experience it's going down the drain. Let's have a little bit of respect for that point of view, that the people have the intelligence and the integrity to say we have to try to participate in a way that does safeguard our future.

Thank you very much.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCurdy.

One of the witnesses in Gaspé yesterday made this point: we're the eyes and ears on the water; why don't you use us? That's a good question.

Thank you very much. We will now have, moving right along, Professor Richard Haedrich and Mr. Glenn Blackwood.

Á (1110)

Á (1112)

The Chair: I'd like to get going. We have, from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Richard Haedrich, a professor in the Department of Biology. From the Marine Institute of Memorial University, we have Glenn Blackwood, director of the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Resources.

For no particular reason other than the way it's listed, I'll ask Professor Haedrich to begin. Try to keep your presentation to approximately 10 minutes. We're already 25 minutes behind. That, of course, is not your fault. We want to save some opportunity for questioning. The same holds for Mr. Blackwood.

I just want to let committee members know.... Once we find the information, I'll make the point.

Professor, go right ahead.

Prof. Richard Haedrich (Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland): I have nothing really prepared, but it will be quite relevant to the discussion we've heard so far. I have just come from spending a week at the COSEWIC meetings in Whitehorse. I'm still on Whitehorse time, so it's scarcely even time for me to get up there.

A couple of things were said before that I think I ought to place in some context. COSEWIC is an organization whose duty it is to inform the Canadian public of the “at risk” status of species that occur in Canada. It just happened that the cod had been designated in the past and was due for a re-examination, a process we began at least two years ago, thus coming to the present designations.

What that was done in--and I can explain this some more if you want to hear about it--was more or less on the level of an ecosystem approach to looking at the cod. This is why some of the names that are used there, like the north Laurentian name, seem novel, but there are good scientific reasons for combining those stocks. We are not talking about individual stocks and we are not talking about management. That is something that comes after these COSEWIC designations.

I should also say that I am basically a community ecologist, so I'm not well versed in the law, but I have had some look and talk about what is in the Species At Risk Act. While Earle is perfectly right that there are sections in there that forbid all kinds of things and seem very draconian with respect to species that are at risk, there also are sections in there that refer to species that are under management, and it is my understanding that even for a species that has been designated at risk, harvest can continue provided it is within the framework of a management plan.

Furthermore—and this is something that comes after any designation by COSEWIC—something else kicks in. That has to do with the whole formulation of a recovery plan. I think this is a very valuable thing at this point to have, and it is where all sorts of options—some of which have not been considered at all by the government, as far as I can tell—kick in.

For example, there are more ways to manage fisheries than just the setting of quotas. There are ways of doing things with protected areas, by seasonal openings and closings. Ideas I have heard that make a lot of sense to me ecologically include the owner-operator idea and also the idea of exclusion zones, depending on how they are done.

What I want to say is that I'm quite prepared to talk about COSEWIC, and it's on the top of my mind, of course, right now. I think it is something that can be used to our advantage.

That's all I have to say.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you, Professor.

What I was looking for a few moments ago, colleagues, is a news release issued by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada—short form COSEWIC—from Whitehorse, dated May 2. I'll just briefly point out that it says: “The Newfoundland and Labrador population...of the Atlantic Cod was designated as endangered”--endangered meaning a species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. As Mr. McCurdy mentioned, “The Laurentian North population of the Atlantic cod, which extends from the northern Gulf of the St-Lawrence to Newfoundland's south coast, was assessed as threatened.” By “threatened” they mean a species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. The person to contact for inquiries about cod on this press release is Dr. Richard Haedrich—just for purposes of formulating questions.

Thank you for your opening remarks, Professor.

Could we then go to Mr. Blackwood. Welcome.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood (Director, Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Resources, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My topic of discussion is totally separate, so I hope I don't get struck with a COSEWIC lightning rod.

Three weeks ago when Jeremy LeBlanc contacted me and invited me to these proceedings, I wasn't aware that in the next three weeks we'd have a situation like Shippagan and what's happening in this province. Anyway, I agreed to appear, so I will. I think my comments are relevant but not specific to the current issue.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee members for the invitation. Before I start, I'd like to explain my background so that you understand that this is more than an academic discussion for me.

Events of the past 25 years have led us to a current crisis. I think this should have happened on July 3, 1992, but we never got around to it. For the past 11 years, we've been living in a fog. I'd also like to state that my presentation reflects my personal opinions on these controversial issues and that my criticisms are not of individuals but of the processes that we currently live with.

My family has been involved in the harvesting of northern cod since the early 1800s. I have my great-grandfather's ship's logs from 1887, when he had a very poor year; he almost lost the boat. In 1898 he had a bumper year. People say stocks have declined in the past, but not like this.

Also, I did a marine biology program in 1977 at Memorial, studying under Dr. Haedrich, and it was at the same time that Canada declared a 200-mile limit and we entered a very euphoric phase of where northern cod was going. I'll touch back on that later. Later I did a master's, looking at the allocation processes of the Government of Canada and focusing on northern cod. I'll disappoint you with that report in a few minutes as well.

Also during that process I worked as director of resource analysis for the Newfoundland government and I attended forums like the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee, the Federal-Provincial Atlantic Fisheries Committee, and Northern Cod Science Program. I also attended the NAFO Scientific Council and the NAFO Fisheries Commission and spent nearly five years as a provincial delegate to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council of Canada. I'm also currently a member of the provincial Minister's Advisory Committee on Foreign Overfishing.

I list these involvements, by the way, not as accomplishments, because given the current state of the groundfish fishery it's very difficult for anyone involved to be proud of the way the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Atlantic Canada, has evolved. Indeed, the events of the past week in Shippagan and what's happening, and potentially could happen, in this province highlight how volatile the situation has become. I list this background experience so the committee will understand that my criticism of the decisions, the processes, and the current state of fisheries management in Canada are well founded and based on my direct involvement with that process over more than 20 years.

In the limited time I'd like to briefly cover four different areas. I'm going to jump over some stuff fairly quickly. On northern cod I'd like to cover the reasons for the collapse. I'd like to look at allocation policy, foreign overfishing, and something I call conservation, preservation, or exploitation.

To begin with, northern cod was this province's reason to be. This is our lobster from Southwest Nova and it's our crab on the Acadian Peninsula. It's also a very cultural thing. It goes deeper than dollars. It's not about how much money people get paid for it; it's a part of what we've become over hundreds of years.

The over-exploitation that took place after the Second World War, with 810,000 metric tonnes of cod being harvested in 1968, led to Canada taking decisive action in 1977 and declaring a 200-mile limit. At that time, however, the spawning biomass in northern cod was only 10% of the level seen in the 1950s. We started the rebuilding process.

But at that same time we entered what I call a euphoria phase. From 1977 to 1981 this was characterized by very optimistic resource projections. I think the scientists were projecting at the time 350,000 to 400,000 metric tonnes of cod. There were all kinds of meetings on how to allocate it, on who was going to get this big bonanza that was coming. There were workshops on how to share it up. And there were also big resource problems in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Á (1120)

Minister Roméo LeBlanc, at that point in time, with the redfish crisis in the gulf, decided that--I hope he's no relation, Jeremy; I think he was a very good minister--in the interests of the inshore fisheries in the gulf, the offshore fleet should leave the gulf and go off the coast of Labrador. The government actually subsidized the move of the vessels to the north, as if there was nobody already there.

After that, inshore fishery never really recovered. We never got the 400,000 tonnes. We saw an inshore fishery consistently fail to catch its quota. We saw communities like Petty Harbour and places like that that never really benefited from the increase in jurisdiction.

DFO science was used to explain the failure of the inshore fishery. With the Kirby task force, there were 100,000 tonnes of northern cod put into the offshore sector to bring about an enterprise allocation program. The inshore vessels then started going to places like the Virgin Rocks, just to survive. The adopted Japanese cod traps and all kinds of technology to catch 70,000 to 80,000 tonnes of fish a year.

In 1989 that all changed--in January, actually--when the scientific advice took a flip. It reanalyzed it and said that based on catches on spawning concentrations the TAC should be 125,000, down from 266,000 the previous year. We all recall the statement, we can't shut down Atlantic Canada. DFO that year set the TAC at 235,000 tonnes, and with foreign catches on top of our own, we actually killed 253,000 metric tonnes of cod, most of it very small.

The Canadian Saltfish Corporation, by the way, went bankrupt, splitting what we call “leggies”--fish 15 or 16 inches. We brought in mackerel filleting machines, Baader machines from Europe, to process fish in the inshore plants, and the counts of fish in the plants went from 20 fish in 100 pounds to 70.

Then we had a three-year plan. I think it was Bernard Valcourt who came up with that one. Anyway, it collapsed, and make no mistake about it, what collapsed was the stock. It wasn't seals and cold water; I think seals are preventing a recovery, but I think our overfishing brought the stock down.

The disappointing part is 1992 to now, what I call a lack of recovery phase. We have a moratorium on our harvesters, which is a tough sell, by the way. Spawning biomass is at low levels. Water temperatures are cold. DFO says seals consume now one billion cod annually. Year classes are missing. We have limited access to inshore fisherman. Foreign fleets are still fishing, and in the absence of cod we've seen an increase in crab and shrimp.

I think we overexploited the stock, and in terms of a recovery plan what we've missed for the past decade has been an all-inclusive plan, something that covers all sources of mortality. During the past 15 years many decisions were made, but none of them favoured the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and very few of them favoured the fish.

In 1982, Dr. Art May, who was then Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, wrote a letter to the Kirby task force. I take you back to 1982 when Kirby said, “We have many problems in Atlantic Canada, but, gentlemen, lack of fish is not one of them”. Anyway, Dr. May said he was unsure that such a bifurcated system of inshore and offshore could work and that the government must decide whether or not there shall be a population on the north part of the east coast of Canada. I think that decision was made. Anyway, that's the northern cod fiasco.

The allocation policy: I believe that after conservation of the resource, the most single controversial issue facing ministers is allocation. Here I believe the record is worse than that of conservation, because in conservation we can argue that we don't know. But allocation decisions are decisions that are made where the government has control. During the eighties, allocation decisions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were ad hoc and they disregarded their own policies.

For example, these decisions resulted in upwards of 35,000 tonnes of northern cod being allocated to Nova Scotia annually, despite their lack of history or adjacency to the resource. In 1978, the top 15 landing sites for northern cod were all in Newfoundland and up and down the northeast coast. Ten years later in 1988, of the top 15 landing sites there was not one site north of Cape Freels. Mysteriously, three of the top 15 landing sites were on the south coast of Nova Scotia.

Á (1125)

Anyway, this occurred, by the way, at a time when the people on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador had to resort to make-work projects, and communities like I grew up in had the highest unemployment rate in Canada. So this was surplus to our needs.

Surely we learned something from the mismanagement and destruction of northern cod. I see the allocation of shrimp resources off the Avalon Peninsula given to Prince Edward Island, where they have no adjacency, no history, no dependency, and no boats and no fishermen either. People question the wisdom of the department, which sees vessels tied to wharf while towns like Trepassey and Bonavista dwindle and die while the resources in the sea immediately adjacent to them are given away.

The Independent Panel on Access Criteria downplays the principles of adjacency and history as if they were something dreamed up in Newfoundland. These ideas actually are principles of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. They are used worldwide to allocate resources. They are not something dreamed up in Newfoundland, as I said. These were the principles that Canada declared a 200-mile limit on in 1977. At that time Canada acted to conserve the resources for the people in coastal communities adjacent to and historically dependent on these resources. Instead, the allocation of resources are now dominated by lobby groups and political factors. I think that must change, Mr. Chairman.

The IPAC report also sent a mixed message, because in the case of Nunavut--and correctly so--they say the principle of adjacency must be adhered to. It shouldn't be used anywhere else.

My view, from 20 years at this, is that the only Canadian resource of Atlantic Canada is in the waters off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The resources off Nova Scotia, Quebec and other Atlantic provinces historically have not been, and I believe will never be, allocated to this province.

I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador's share--although I don't have the numbers right now, I would venture a bet, and I've done this calculation like Bill Broderick's calculation, meaning roughly--of the groundfish harvest around its coast is now at the lowest level percentage-wise in the entire history of this province. It's a combination of foreign overfishing and resource giveaways.

I'd like two minutes on foreign overfishing and two minutes to sum up.

Á (1130)

The Chair: How about a minute and a half each?

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: Overfishing by foreign nations: I believe this is the biggest threat to the recovery of groundfish stocks in the southern Grand Banks. The time I spent at NAFO's Scientific Council and Fisheries Commission convinces me that the organization is not acting in the interests of fish. I apologize if I sound cynical about NAFO, but I spent a lot of time getting very frustrated watching that process.

The Chair: I think our entire committee is cynical about NAFO.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I figured I would get some smiles.

Yet the Government of Canada refuses to acknowledge the scope and scale of the problem. While it is impossible to get the numbers, I have been told that foreign factory freezer trawlers fished a total of 25,000 days on the continental shelf of Canada in the last year.

Mr. Chairman, this makes conservation a difficult sell in this province. For example, we tie up the yellowtail fleet and millions of pounds of fish in the water because the bycatch of American plaice, which is under moratorium, was greater than 5%. Yet Spain and Portugal, who have no history in that particular fishery, report catching 5,000 tonnes of American plaice as a bycatch.

We have only arrested two vessels to date, the Kristina Logos and the Estai. I had some pictures I was hoping to share with you, but you don't have PowerPoint set up. I can e-mail them to Jeremy. If what was in the hulls of the Kristina Logos and the Estai is an indication of what's going on, I think we have a major problem that's much bigger than any of us realizes.

While the tonnage cut by NAFO fleets is cause for concern, the fact that they target juvenile fish is even more worrisome. With that going on, I don't think there's any surprise that conservation is tough to sell and people are cynical.

Lastly, on the topic of conservation, I believe that the current efforts to promote conservation of the fishery resources are doomed to fail unless the users of the resource have input into how they're implemented and a meaningful say in how this is done. Currently there is very little sense of stewardship in this industry. Fishermen are perceived as being Robin Hood, and DFO as the sheriff of Nottingham.

I've tried to bring about changes in my current role, working with people to change the way fisheries are conducted and on bycatch issues, and things like that. But if concepts like responsible fishing, resource conservation, and sustainable development are to be a part of the fishery, we need changes in the current system. By the way, conservation can only be practised by the people who use the resource.

In summary, the Government of Canada has mismanaged northern cod and the stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which have collapsed. I find the current debate over the use of the limited amount of remaining fish very disappointing. Do the fishermen of the community believe the stocks can sustain a full-scale fishery? No. But do they trust the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to conserve and rebuild the stocks for them? Absolutely not.

I believe we need an inquiry into the collapse of the groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada, which resulted in the largest single layoff in Canadian history. It's been subject to numerous studies in the 1980s, but not one inquiry since 1992. The inquiry should not be to lay blame, but we need to identify the reasons for the failure to ensure it never happens again.

For example, we now have a euphoric phase occurring in the northern shrimp industry. We're exactly where we were in 1977 with northern cod, and we're ratcheting up quotas and expectations. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistakes. There is an uncertainty phase in snow crab, with a lot of people worried about where the crab fishery, which we now depend upon, is going.

I'd like to see an inquiry, because I don't believe we've benefited one bit from what happened in the northern cod experience.

My final statement is that I believe this issue is deeper than dollars. It's not about an amount of money or a process; I think it's embedded in the cultural identity of every person in this province. That's why I see so many people in the room, and so many people following what you're doing.

A new approach is needed where fishermen, communities, and provinces have a meaningful say in the conservation and utilization of the marine resources they depend upon. They may not do any better than those who have been responsible for management in the past, but given the current state of our groundfish resources, I think it's fairly safe to say they can't do any worse.

Thank you.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blackwood.

Colleagues, with your permission--or maybe even without your permission--I'm going to start off the questioning very briefly. Then I'd like to go to Mr. Stoffer and to Mr. Wood, if he has any questions.

Professor, our information is that you were one of three authors of a paper in the early 1990s. I think the title of it was “Is Scientific Inquiry Incompatible With Government Information Control?”

Prof. Richard Haedrich: That's correct.

The Chair: I believe you worked for DFO for some 12 years?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: No, I've never worked for them.

The Chair: Oh, you've never worked for them, but had one of the authors done?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: Yes, that's true, as a post-doctoral fellow.

The Chair: We're told that other scientists have alleged that the DFO routinely suppresses the work of scientists and that DFO scientists are frequently gagged, and that the general principle that DFO abuses science is not new.

Could I ask you to tell us your view on those comments. And what was the conclusion of your paper?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: As its title stated, the paper began to look at the question of whether you can get unbiased and clear information within a government ministry where the basic rules are that you are working for it, that you are subject to support the minister. It doesn't seem like a very complicated matter to arrive at the conclusion that, no, you really can't. That was the point of the paper, which looked at some case studies. I would say that was the situation in the past.

My feeling is that it did have some impact on what went on in DFO, starting originally with people like me being castigated, and so on. But I believe there has been a bit of change in some of the attitudes there, and so on.

However, I would like to answer that a little bit more by bringing us right to the present, which is more relevant to the fact. Being part of this COSEWIC process, where we engage in internal debate on decisions and recommendations such as the ones we've just made, I do in fact work with DFO scientists. We work in an atmosphere where we address the questions as independent scientists, and we talk about them that way. That's the way our recommendations are made—from within that process. So I think the scientific advice we are getting from an independent organization such as COSEWIC does not suffer from the kind of ills we pointed out 10 years ago.

Á (1140)

The Chair: If I understand it correctly, you pointed out 10 years ago that scientific inquiry was incompatible with government information control. I believe that was right.

In your own words, “bringing it right to the present”, what is your view now about scientific inquiry and its independence within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: I actually think that scientific inquiry within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is fairly well unrestrained. Of course, people work on particular problems and so on, and make their findings known.

The system, though, still is one where those findings go up through a series of people, who gather the information together, summarize it in some way and, I suppose, eventually present it to the minister. So a decision is made at a different level from which it is generated. Though people in politics are going to know a lot more about this than I do, I guess I would again say that the way those decisions are reached is that all kinds of other things come to bear on them and the question. The ultimate decision is made there.

But I do not think that scientists are told what to find out or are suppressed in any way. I really do not.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Blackwood, I wanted to say your presentation was one of the best I've ever heard, but I could sense an underlying tone of severe frustration in your voice.

Mr. Chair, I just want to show the committee what we can do with seal products. This is a beautiful book of the history of Newfoundland by D.W. Prowse and it's bound in seal leather. That's just one example of what we can do with seal products to market them around the world.

Sir, you mentioned the Kirby report, which I personally believe is a major fault behind what happened in our fisheries in this country. I believe it started or moved along the process of corporatization of a common-property resource. I think the government has been acting on the recommendations of that report for far too long. I think it's time we trash it and do something else.

You talked about new management systems. I've always firmly believed in coastal, community-based, cooperative management programs. We have a wonderful example of that. You don't have to study it. You don't have to spend any money. Just go to Fogo Island in beautiful Newfoundland and Labrador, and just watch what those people did. In the downturn of the fishery in 1992 that community got together with the province, the federal government, and the people of that area and devised a plan, and it's working. Sambro, Nova Scotia, does the exact same thing. To me, that is the way to go.

The Auditor General herself said--and you mentioned this here--we're making the same mistakes with shrimp as we did with northern cod. She said herself a couple of years ago that we're managing the shellfish industry in the same manner as the northern cod. I'd like your comments on that.

Also, on marine protected areas, I had breakfast this morning with a gentleman who is from the industry and formerly of DFO, and he made a suggestion that maybe we should close off all fishing in areas like the Hamilton Banks, for example. I asked him about the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, if we should close those off for a certain period of time to give the fish a chance to recover.

I'd like your comments on those, please.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I think the new approach, whether it's a co-management approach...I don't think it can be a consultation approach. I spent 20 years being consulted with. I guess the all-party committee put forward what they believed, from all their discussions, to be an appropriate approach. It wasn't listened to. The frustration is in not being listened to. It's not that you're right or wrong.

I think right now what I'm seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador...and I've worked with a group in Eastport, with George Feltham's group. It was actually in the Governor General's house with Roméo LeBlanc, when George received his medal for responsible fishing. We're not seeing enough of that. What we're seeing is people extremely frustrated because they're being told you have to conserve the resource. And while it's out of sight and out of mind, we currently have x number of draggers. I don't know how many.

We had a tele-snow meter in the Evening Telegram. Every time the snow fell the number went higher. If you remember that from a couple of years ago, we got up to six metres of snow. Why don't we have a “days fished by foreign vessels” meter on the edge of the Evening Telegram so that somebody will know every morning that, okay, we're up to 24,000 days. You can't even get that information, and because it's 200 miles off....

Whether it's an MPA, which George Feltham's group put in place in Bonavista Bay, whether it's a co-management approach, or whether it's some other form of management, I think unless the people directly involved in it--Parks Canada learned this a few years ago on the northeast coast--have a say in how it's implemented, I don't think it's going to work. I don't think you can sell conservation.

I was involved in the FRCC. We wrote lots of words about conservation. Some of it worked; some of it didn't. Unless the people involved have a say, and I mean a meaningful say, I don't think it is going to work.

So is the solution an MPA? I don't know. But if the people of Labrador think it is, and if the people who historically fished the Hamilton Banks think it is, I'm prepared to work with them to make sure it happens.

Á (1145)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Haedrich, I notice you just came from the Yukon. We met with people from an association who were very upset with DFO. In fact, they now have a hat that says “No DFO dictators from Ottawa”. I just wondered if you saw those out there.

Do you, sir, recognize the possibility of MPAs in the future, either with limited fishery or no fishery at all, like the Hamilton Banks, for example?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: I think the idea of marine protected areas on the continental shelf, and rather large ones, is an excellent way to deal with this sort of situation. They've been used widely in other parts of the world. They're used in smaller areas, such as with George Feltham and that group--a group, I should say, that I've had students involved with. I'm very much for these, and as a matter of fact, there are people in the university working now exactly on where they might be put in our waters.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Blackwood, do you think there's any difference between not being listened to and not being agreed with?

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: That's what's open to debate. I guess it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and say, well, DFO blew it so it's time for somebody else to take a turn. I think the problem is, by the way, not restricted to just Canada. Worldwide, every country in the world is having problems managing its fishery resources.

I really believe the systems for management are what need to change, not 10% more science or a small MPA. I think the approach right now, which is very much a top-down approach, has to change. That doesn't mean fishermen in Newfoundland are going to manage bluefin tuna that migrate from the Gulf of Mexico to the Azores. What it means is that the lobster fishery in Bonavista Bay or the crab fishery in Conception Bay should...I think these people are capable of making management decisions that won't affect the security of Canada. If they make mistakes, if they blow it, I think they'll take responsibility for that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I know Mr. Elley and I have had that discussion a number of times.

Mr. Blackwood, have you thought about how this could be set up to work in a meaningful manner and be a success? Have you thought about how you could set that up so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could manage their own destiny?

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I don't think it's something in Newfoundland and Labrador. I see things happening in British Columbia, where people are taking more of an active role in fisheries management, and in other areas of Atlantic Canada. I think George Feltham's group from Eastport is sort of a model for that, because they have taken a lot of responsibility and a lot of flak in the communities.

I think what it does, if you can get that system working where people have more of a say, you'd avoid the Shippagan situation, which is extremely unfortunate. I also believe, once it matures, it will free up DFO to tackle issues like foreign overfishing, like international issues that.... I can't criticize them too badly, because I can't believe how you could think you could manage the hundreds of small stocks we have in Atlantic Canada, with the limited scientific advice on some of them, how you could make decisions that are always going to be right on the opening date, the mesh size, and everything else. I don't see how it can work, otherwise. It hasn't worked. It's been 25 years we've had control of our continental shelf, and stocks are at the lowest level we've observed.

I believe what was happening here, and what the fishermen were asking for in the gulf, was a chance to try their approach, and they were told, no, there's another plan. I don't know what that plan is. I think these approaches can work, but I don't have the answer, sir. If I had the answer, I'd probably be sitting on FAO's fisheries committee and implementing it around the world.

I think what we have to agree to is that the current system doesn't work.

Á (1150)

Mr. Bob Wood: You might be gagged, so you couldn't speak.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I've never been gagged.

Mr. Bob Wood: I appreciate that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Do you have any more? Okay, thank you.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, thank you, and I do appreciate both of you gentlemen sharing with us this morning.

Mr. Blackwood, some of us had a discussion about perhaps making some kind of proposal to the minister and to the department about taking a look at a very limited fishery for cod that would somehow put the control of this fishery back into the hands of the fishers themselves, because they're the eyes and the ears on the water. They know what's going on. They've been in it for years. We could say to them, look, within these parameters, you guys take this fishery and you manage it for x number of years, and let's see what happens.

Is there any credence to that, in your thinking? Would it be possible, do you think?

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I think that's the way I would like to see it evolve. You obviously wouldn't just say, okay, you guys take it and go with it. There has to be a certain building of capacity within the communities. I've seen groups in Petty Harbour take control of their own destiny, and through the fishermen's union, I've seen a lot more people, like George Feltham, coming forward who are prepared to accept that responsibility.

Enforcement becomes a big issue, as you can't move to a vigilante-type system. I think there's a role for the Government of Canada; I'm not saying pass it over entirely. But what I'm saying is there's an imbalance in the current system. Maybe it's co-management. Bonnie McKay, who spends her summers on Fogo Island, has written a lot about co-management.

I really believe a new approach is needed. I think that if the fishermen of 3Ps and Placentia Bay, for example.... We did some gill net retrieval stuff down there a couple of years ago, on the gear technology side. We had public meetings with the fishermen, and Mr. Efford met with them endlessly. None of them was supporting the way the fishery was taking place in the bay. They feel trapped in a system, thinking that, if everybody is allowed to do this, then I have to do it as well. I know that they come out with conservation harvesting plans, and they do have some input. But I don't see why in a country the size of Canada we couldn't experiment with at least one area, or maybe one or two stocks, giving more autonomy to the people making their livelihood from the resource.

Mr. Reed Elley: At this point, are you aware of any serious plan being put forward by the industry in Newfoundland to do this?

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: I'm not.

The Chair: As reminder, we are 25 minutes behind schedule, which really only means that we will have less time for lunch.

We now have Mr. Efford, Mr. Roy, and Mr. Hearn.

Mr. R. John Efford: Mr. Chairman, I respect your concern about the time, but while we're 25 minutes behind, there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who won't be eating for the next while if they don't get on the water to earn a living and catch some fish. I tell you, the pain being suffered out there is unforgiveable and shouldn't be happening.

I want to comment first to Glenn, because I've known him for quite awhile now in the fisheries.

Glenn, I have a great deal of respect for your abilities, and my respect has gone up another notch this morning, if that's possible. As has been noted around the table this morning, I think where we, the Government of Canada, have failed again is in the lack of consultation with people like you when decisions like this are made. The wrong decisions are made because people like you are not being used and are not being listened to. I think that's a tragedy in itself, and I hope as a committee we pass that along to the powers that be in Ottawa. That's where we are today. That's why we're here today.

Being a former minister of fisheries, and living in a fishing community, and seeing what's happening around us and knowing the answers—but not all of them—and a lot of things that should be done, it makes it even harder for me, particularly knowing people like you and the skills and the knowledge you carry.

Dr. Haedrich, I've got to be honest. You're a biologist. I'm not going to point a finger at someone, but my respect for science and scientists, and my respect for the things I've heard from biologists generally in this province, has gone down to an all-time low. This is because of a combination of lack of consultation and the management by DFO themselves, including the ministers in the past, the executives, and the powers that be.

In Clarenville a while ago, I said to Dr. George Lilly and Dr. George Rose that I respected their intellectual knowledge as scientists or biologists, whatever the case may be. But I lose respect when we don't use the intellectual knowledge of science with common sense. That's one of the reasons, but not the only reason, we are here today.

I'm leading to a question in this.

In the COSEWIC legislation, which I believe is now in the Senate, though maybe it's out of the Senate.... Earle McCurdy is not wrong in what he's saying. Species at risk or endangered species--we never thought we could bungle it so badly with the cod that we'd be where we are now. But do you recognize what the fallout could be from the language in that legislation to a fisherman who goes out and puts a net in the water to catch a lumpfish or some other species and a cod gets in that net? What could happen to that fisherman?

My next question is, in your deliberations and all the discussions you people had in developing this, what layperson from the fishing industry in Newfoundland was on that committee?

Á (1155)

Prof. Richard Haedrich: Which committee are you referring to? Are you referring to COSEWIC?

Mr. R. John Efford: Yes.

Prof. Richard Haedrich: Maybe what I ought to say first is that the legislation is something that scientists, or at least people like me, have had nothing at all to do with.

Just to go back to this point, I do understand that there are provisions in there where people who are fishing within the framework of a management plan are allowed some sort of harvest. But you might know better than I about that.

Mr. R. John Efford: If it's placed on the endangered species list, that could stop all fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that not correct?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: I don't think that's correct. No, I think that's wrong. I think there is a provision in the act allowing for continued harvesting of a species that has been declared at risk as long as there is a management plan.

Mr. R. John Efford: Yes, if they are declared to be at risk, but what about if they are endangered?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: No, any species that is endangered or threatened, or of special concern, is considered a species at risk. In fact, there are a bunch of categories. To my understanding, endangered species can be harvested within the framework of a management plan.

The Chair: I'm not suggesting that your understanding is wrong, but by chance if it were wrong, would that be of concern to you?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: Yes, it would be of great concern to me.

Mr. R. John Efford: Were you not on the committee developing the Species at Risk Act?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: In fact, I am the co-chair of the Marine Fishes Specialist Sub-committee, so I have been engaged for a long time in the report that led to the cod....

You asked whether information from fishermen was included in that report. Yes, it was. It was from several years back, but it came up in the debate that we had.

Â (1200)

Mr. R. John Efford: In all of those discussions you've had, from the biological or the scientific point of view have you put together a list of recommendations to rebuild the stock? That's where we're frustrated. We put together a list to rebuild the stock.

And where does the seal population fit into what you see as a major threat? Is it a major threat to rebuilding our stocks?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: This is all on the web, and I should say that we make no recommendations. We just give the picture as we see it.

But for all of the populations around Newfoundland, one of the reasons, among others, that we use for designation is that the threat to persistence includes predation by seals.

Mr. R. John Efford: Is that as far as you go?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: That is the way we see it, and that is what we say.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hearn, do you have any questions?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have a couple of points.

One, let me say to Mr. Haedrich that I'm not as uptight about some of the comments as some of the others may be, because there may be a positive side to at least raising the concern that our cod could be endangered. But regarding terminology, I'm not sure whether we are talking about Newfoundland's Atlantic cod. We do differentiate between the northeast coast and the gulf, and so on, but when we say Newfoundland Atlantic cod in talking about endangered species, I presume we're talking about the northern cod only.

Surely others are looking at this as well, so it might draw some worldwide attention. Mr. Blackwood mentioned that he was involved with NAFO. I'm a firm believer that we probably have more support in NAFO than we're led to believe, because I've talked to a number of the countries and ministers. They also have concerns about their stocks, and they surely share ours.

I'd like your spin on how raising the flag about endangered species might be used positively rather than negatively. Don't you think we can build enough support within NAFO to discuss a management regime with some kind of peace within NAFO to protect our resource from foreign overfishing—if not support for custodial management up front, which we've been pushing for?

Maybe both of you would like to comment on my final question, which is regarding Canada owning or having jurisdiction over the seabed outside our 200-mile limit, including what's on and under it. If that is the case—and I know we have no control over the fishing over the seabed—why do we let trawlers or draggers drag those heavy doors across our supposed seabed, destroying that environment? Don't we have a case there?

Prof. Richard Haedrich: For many reasons, I think this designation by COSEWIC is a positive thing. One of the reasons is that it is certainly going to be viewed very widely in the world, and I think it's going to be viewed as something of extreme interest, that a marine fish is judged by a group of people to be a species at risk, unless things are changed. That is the important message in here. Likewise, you've heard words of great wisdom here from Glenn. One of the points he made again is that things have to change. This is a flag saying that things must indeed change. I think it's very likely to have an impact on NAFO and can be used by Canada to insist on the fact that changes be made there.

I should go on and address your last point in response to Mr. Efford. I would say that one of the things the committee of biologists who reviewed this felt were a threat to existence was predation by both fish and seals; but so are fishing-induced changes to the ecosystem. This very much has to do with heavy-duty dragging, and so on. It is a problem that would be addressed by large marine protected areas, which would remove any of that sort of thing.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Mr. Blackwood.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that my involvement in NAFO was in the early 1990s up until I left the provincial government in 1997 to work with the university. Maybe NAFO has reformed itself, but I don't believe so, from what I've seen and heard. I can't say that I'm an expert on NAFO in the past five or seven years. But the bottom line is that I don't think you can sell conservation unless there's an holistic approach.

But we have a nose and tail of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap problem that has haunted us for 30 years. The southern Grand Banks offer our greatest potential for rebuilding, because what I did learn from Dr. Haedrich in marine biology was that the southern Grand Banks, with the warm water that comes in, can produce a spawning fish within three to four years. It's almost like George's Bank, as opposed to Hamilton Bank up the coast of Labrador, where it takes seven to ten years to get a spawning fish. We have an opportunity on the southern Grand Banks to rebuild rapidly.

But what we now have going on is recruitment overfishing. You will hear that in the passion of Mr. Etchegary, when he gets to the microphone later on this afternoon. He's studied foreign overfishing in great detail. I really believe that unless something dramatically changes, there's no future for the southern Grand Banks. Reforming NAFO by closing the objection procedure, or tweaking this or tweaking that, I don't think is going to work.

A voice: Right on.

Mr. Glenn Blackwood: Canada controls the seabed out to, I believe, 350 nautical miles. If there's an impact on the seabed, Canada may be able to use that as a legal loophole, by proving it, challenging it, and changing the way that international law works. I attended a lawyers' session at the Marine Institute, sponsored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to look at alternatives. The lawyers were talking about 10- to 15-year timeframes. As was pointed out, most people in this province are thinking in terms of weeks and months.

Something needs to be done. I don't think NAFO has worked, but if it can be reformed to be a conservation organization, I believe we should probably do that. Otherwise, the only option is custodial management, with Canada acting to conserve this resource for all players—which is not to say we'd take the resource and keep it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen. It's very much appreciated.

As a matter of interest, 10 to 15 years in international terms, to my knowledge at least, is like weeks or months to the ordinary person. It's just amazing how slowly international law crawls along, unless someone takes dramatic, unilateral action to force the issue.

Thank you very much.

I'll call on the next group. From the Fisheries Recovery Action Committee, we have Fred Winsor, Dean Bavington, and Tom Best. And from the Fisheries Crisis Alliance, we have Gus Etchegary and Sandy Sandeman.

We shall start with the Fisheries Recovery Action Committee.

Â (1210)

Mr. Fred Winsor (Chair, Fisheries Recovery Action Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Fisheries Recovery Action Committee takes issue with the decision of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Robert Thibault, to close cod fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along Newfoundland's northeast coast. Our committee views the decision as employing a blunt instrument to address sets of complex situations.

In our view, it indicates a refusal to recognize significant deficiencies in the current management program among senior administrators. The most glaring of these is the absence of any clearly articulated long-term goals or a stated vision, combined with the necessary policy objectives to realize it.

What is the vision for the future of the cod fishery--Newfoundland's and Canada's oldest sustainable industry? We think it is important to learn from and build on both the positive and negative experiences of the past.

The components that made the Newfoundland cod fishery sustainable and highly productive for over 450 years are clear. They included low intrusive fishing technologies, which in most cases limited access to the relatively shallow water inshore fishing grounds—depths of water less than 40 fathoms or 73 metres—and an annual early summer offshore to inshore capelin-cod migration. These two elements created a highly productive albeit seasonal inshore fishery in many Newfoundland and Labrador communities. It also meant that large tracts of productive fishing grounds remained unfished. These served as de facto marine protected areas and provided the capacity to sustain fisheries resources.

The dominant fish species caught was cod. It reflected its position as being at the top of the ocean food chain in the northwest Atlantic. The major food source for cod and many other species in this region of the northwest Atlantic was and still is capelin.

Negative elements associated with the Newfoundland inshore cod fishery have focused on poverty and low productivity. These were mainly centred on low prices, poor quality, inadequate marketing, and most importantly, poor exchange rates on international currencies. The lowering of the Canadian dollar in the early 1980s addressed many of these concerns.

Prior to making Canadian fish exports more competitive, fisheries development initiatives centred on increasing productivity through the introduction of massive and unprecedented technological changes in all sectors of the fishing industry. One of the more positive results of these changes in the fish harvesting sector was that it made fishing a safer occupation.

However, on the negative side, these same modernizations that occurred in all fisheries and with all fishing nations over the past five decades have brought untold environmental destruction to the Grand Banks and all other fishing grounds in the north Atlantic. It was this human phenomenon that decimated the Newfoundland inshore cod fishery as well as most other small-scale fisheries.

Despite the efforts of many nations to manage these powerful combinations of fishing technologies, the result has been catastrophic. Everywhere fish stocks have collapsed. In many places the response has been to blame fishers—too many fishermen chasing too few fish, or it is not the fishing technology but those using it who are at fault.

In retrospect, it now seems clear that these newer aggregations of fishing technologies, which combined auto-trawls, seine or monophyletic gill nets with powerful hydraulic winches and sophisticated fish-finding equipment capable of turning murky oceans into aquariums, are simply too powerful to manage. Over time they can easily outstrip the capacity of any fish resource to renew itself. It is an experience that has been repeated again and again since the early 1960s.

It is not the objective of this presentation to offer solutions for all the cod fisheries that have been closed. Instead, our focus is on offering a recovery strategy for cod and other stocks in a major part of the NAFO subarea 3L. This area extends from Cape St. Mary's, Newfoundland, on the southern part of the Avalon Peninsula, to Cape Freels on the northern extremity of the Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. Sustainable inshore cod fishing has been conducted in this region for several centuries.

The vast majority of the cod fishery here was based on the capelin-cod migratory cycle. Cod, spent from spawning during winter months on the western side of the Grand Banks, chase huge schools of capelin to the inshore harbours and coves along the east coast of the island of Newfoundland, usually in June and July. After feeding on capelin, cod remain inshore and feed on other species until the late fall, when they migrate out to the Grand Banks to spawn. Once on the spawning grounds, cod will not feed until the late spring, when the process will begin all over again.

Â (1215)

To facilitate enhancing the aforementioned process, we recommend establishing a 3L eco-zone. The zone would extend west from the 50 degree longitude line. It would include the cod spawning grounds on the western side of the Grand Banks. With the exception of the crab fishery, all other fishing activity would be restricted to the area inside the 12-mile territorial sea. Fishing for cod would be limited to hand lines--a single line with several baited hooks. This zone would essentially replicate many of the conditions prevalent during the four and a half centuries when a vibrant, sustainable inshore cod fishery operated successfully. It is a recovery strategy based on historical precedent. Given the experiences of the past several decades and particularly the past ten years, we deem the time appropriate to consider this option.

To enhance cod recovery, we also recommend that cod grow-out programs be initiated. Cod grow-out is a well established practice that has been operating in the Newfoundland fishery for over ten years. This program would involve using cod traps and cod grow-out pens. In NAFO's subarea 3L, there are approximately 2,000 cod trap berths, many of which could be used for this purpose. Cod traps, set in trap berths or other designated appropriate locations, could capture wild cod live. These fish would then be transferred to grow-out pens and fed capelin or other bait fish for up to three months.

Based on previous experience with this method, it is recognized that by the end of that period, individual cod will double in size. At the end of the fishing season, the grown-out cod would be released back into the ocean. Since they are wild fish, they will return to their native stocks. We see the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hiring cod trap crews and their gear to trap cod, feed them, and release them at the end of the fishing season.

There are two commercial capelin fisheries that operate in Newfoundland. One has functioned for approximately 25 years. It targets only female capelin for roe, i.e. eggs, and discards male capelin, sometimes with ratios as high as 20 to 1. The other capelin fishery is a bait fishery. It has operated for over 300 years and uses all the fish it catches.

Capelin serve as one of the anchors for the food chain in this section of the northwest Atlantic. Little, if anything, is known of the long-term implications of removing large volumes of this fish from this marine ecosystem. Given the failure of cod and other species to recover over the past 10 years, the precautionary principle should be applied. The roe fishery, which targets female capelin, should be ended. The more benign bait capelin fishery should be permitted to continue.

The present ban on cod fishing, as outlined by Minister Thibault, will not mean that cod will no longer be caught. Many cod will continue to be landed as part of by-catch in other fisheries. Often vessels fishing for or directing for other species will place gear on known cod grounds. In this process cod is landed and considered bycatch. Similarly, vessels returning from the fishing grounds after catching other species, but who have a percentage cod bycatch tolerance, will stop and set gear on known cod fishing areas. It remains one of the glaring loopholes in the current management regime and it is extremely difficult to regulate. Closed areas that protect the migratory cycle stand as the best management tool to address this abuse.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you.

Gentlemen.

Mr. Gus Etchegary (Spokesperson, Fisheries Crisis Alliance): Mr. Chairman, Sandy and I have been working at this for quite some time. It looks like due to time constraints we're going to have to contract it to some degree.

The Chair: Regretfully, but I know that you'll be equally passionate.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: First of all, I'd like to introduce Sandy to some of the people who may not know him. Sandy came to this part of the world in about 1953. He eventually became the assistant director of St. Andrews station in New Brunswick. Later on, he came into Newfoundland and worked with one of our great scientists, Dr. Templeman, and eventually took over as chief scientist here in the region following Dr. Templeman's passing.

We have been looking very carefully at where science has been and where it came from since we joined Confederation. Sandy, with his background, has gone very carefully into this and done considerable research, and I think it would be of immense interest to the committee to learn what has happened, because to me, even though I'm rather familiar with some of it, the result of his work has been mind-boggling.

Without science, Mr. Chairman, there can be no fisheries management. We can talk until we're blue in the face about how we should manage this and manage the other thing, but without sound science, we wouldn't be here this morning talking about the subject we're talking about--3,500 tonnes of fish causing the problem it is causing, considering that in 1956, I think it was something in the order of about one million tonnes of fish that were being landed from areas contiguous to our shores. So science is extremely important.

I'm going to try to save as much time as possible here and let Sandy get on with the business of making the presentation. I'm hoping at the end, Mr. Chairman, we might have a few minutes to talk about foreign overfishing and custodial management.

The Chair: I'm sure you'll be able to work those subject matters into your answers.

Mr. Sandeman.

Dr. Sandy Sanderman (Fisheries Crisis Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appeared before this committee about six years ago, I think it was, and at that time I was putting forward a strong complaint about the way science was being treated in terms of cutbacks. We were reaching a really, I think, catastrophic stage at that time. I certainly have the feeling that what I had to say may have helped the generation of a few more person-years or CFEs, as they call them now--continuous full-time employees. I use that phrase, and I have to get the jargon right so everyone will understand me.

Now, I had prepared a PowerPoint presentation, but I see there are no facilities for it and this does restrict me a bit in the way I can proceed. However, I shall try to do the best I can.

I'd like to start off briefly looking at the maps again to familiarize everyone with the way things are. I see you have a map--certainly there was one handed out at the door--so I think everyone here has this one. It shows the NAFO areas, and that is one of the things I use in my paper.

I did circulate my paper. I'm not going to refer specifically to it just now. I'll be referring to points in it, but I won't be referring you to pages. Please, when the time comes, question me as much as you like about that.

The point I wanted to make about the area we're talking about is that it is a tremendously large area and it is basically the shelf. That is where the fish are. We're not concerned with the offshore areas beyond roughly the 100-metre limit, or 100-fathom limit, you might say. There are species there, of course. They're the pelagic species like tuna and shark and all the rest of it, as well as some deepwater species. But we're concerned with the animals on the shelf. It's the shelf areas I draw your attention to.

I'll be referring to the NAFO areas. There is area 0B right at the top, and then subarea 2 is the area off Labrador. Subarea 3 is the around Newfoundland as far as Port-aux-Basques. I'm sure you're all familiar with that, but just in case, I want to remind you. Subarea 4, of course, is the Canadian sea of the of Gulf of St. Lawrence as well as coastal Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy.

For the purposes of my examination of the research, I've tended to look at Newfoundland versus the rest of Atlantic Canada, because Newfoundland has by far the greatest part of the area that they are responsible for doing the science in. In fact, Newfoundland does the science in area 0B, subarea 2, and subarea 3; whereas the other regions--a combination of the Maritimes region, which of course is the flagship of the Atlantic, and the gulf region and Quebec or Laurentian region, as I sometimes refer to it--are two new regions and have entered the picture only in the last 20 years. Their entry has upset the distribution of scientific resources to some degree.

On the first part of this I take a snapshot view of 1949, at Confederation; 1964, when there happened to be a publication of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada that showed the number of people working and the dollars being spent on fisheries at that time; and 2002, when the there was an address by the ADM of science of the Department of Fisheries here in Newfoundland that provided the same type of data.

In 1949, Newfoundland had the Newfoundland fisheries laboratory, as it was called, and it was staffed by a team of six professionals, including its director, who I'm sure you all know of, Dr. Wilfred Templeman. Canada also received a vessel at that time, the Newfoundland research vessel Investigator II. I mentioned that the other part of the Atlantic fisheries research was the Atlantic fisheries research station at St. Andrew's.

Â (1225)

By 1964 the Newfoundland lab received 47% of the dollars and 26% of the professional staff. Those are two figures that I'll refer to again. When we come to the year 2002, for those who have the paper there is a picture like this in it that does show the resources that were being utilized in DFO science. You can see that suddenly instead of just two research facilities we now have a Quebec region and a gulf region, as well as the Maritimes and Newfoundland in the Atlantic area.

The other thing that's worth noticing in the 1964--I didn't mention this at the time when we were talking about it--research was under the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. That organization used about 10 people in Ottawa to run and handle the financing and the general day-to-day passing out of stuff that flows from Ottawa to the regions. I notice that in 2002 the national capital region had a staff of 140 people and a budget of $18 million. This is quite a change in that 30 years.

In 2002, again taking the view of looking at Newfoundland, which is where I'm interested, of course, as against the rest of the Maritimes in terms of resourcing of science, in the paper you'll find there is a table that shows that the mainland, gulf, and Quebec regions in 2002 had 640 people working for them, which is 77% as against Newfoundland's 23%. In the dollars it's pretty nearly the same, 73% against 27% for dollars. Newfoundland always seems to be a little higher in dollars when you look at these comparisons because we have a need for bigger ships and more of them, because we have a much bigger area to cover.

When we start to look at that area to cover--and I'm thinking now of trying to translate this into workloads to get an idea of the relative workloads of Newfoundland as against the rest of Atlantic Canada--Newfoundland's shelf area that we have to survey and cover is 71% of the total as opposed to the 29% that is looked after by the rest of the mainland part of the organization, which of course is subarea 4. So it's subareas 2 and 3 and possibly 0 against subarea 4.

That is quite significant. We look after 2.5 times the area to survey, if you include that very northern area as well. If we don't include that--because it's not every year we visit there, it might be fairer not to include it--it comes much nearer twice the area that we cover. So this figure is maybe one we should think about--the fact that we cover twice the area that the rest of the Atlantic Canada research organizations do.

On another workload indicator, which is rather similar because it's based on area as well, but it's a bit more realistic because it's the number of sets involved in doing these surveys, the multiplier comes up to Newfoundland looked after 2.4 times. That's 2.4 times more sets, and for every set that is done in surveys, there's all the work-up that has to be done. The data has to be analyzed. The otoliths have to be read. All the other ancillary work goes on.

Â (1230)

The Chair: We don't have your PowerPoint presentation.

Dr. Sandy Sandeman: You don't have the PowerPoint? You have my papers.

The Chair: Right. But if you'd be so kind afterwards, we'd like you to leave us with that so that we can make photocopies of it while we're reviewing the transcripts and everything, because it's a little difficult without it in front of us--and that's not your fault--to follow exactly what's going on.

Dr. Sandy Sanderman: I'd be delighted to do that.

The Chair: And could you be a little mindful of the time as well, because I know all members have questions.

Dr. Sandy Sanderman: In view of that, I'll leave one or two of the things out that I was going to say, because they are in the paper.

I discussed relative importance, the workload. Maybe I should read this one out. This is the consideration of areas and sets. This is one of the PowerPoint things. I think it is in the paper as well.

To achieve the minimum number of survey sets required in the area for which it is responsible, the Newfoundland region receives 27% of the total dollars spent by DFO on fisheries-related research in Atlantic Canada to cover its share--71%--of the total trawl hauls required. As I mentioned, there are other things involved in that.

I'll change the subject to something a little bit different, and I'm now thinking about a review that was done in the year 2000, which I think was asked for by presumably people like you. DFO did a review on assessment methodology and how much money and resources were spent on assessments. In your hand-out there are a couple of tables that give all the data on it, and I want to refer to one very briefly. This is again looking at percentages, because percentages show these differences. This is in just looking at stock assessment work.

Subarea 4, the rest of the area, has 63.6%, and Newfoundland, 36.6%. That's in numbers of people working. In total dollars, it's 43% for Newfoundland against 56% for mainland Canada.

The Chair: Which table are you referring to?

Dr. Sandy Sanderman: These are tables 4 and 5 in the publication. You can see the figures there. This is a figure I don't have in that publication, but I'd be very happy to pass it to you. It demonstrates the way the person-years, or the FTEs, have sunk during a 10-year period from 1981 to 1989. You can see the sinking that went on there.

That period was the period when the gulf region and the Quebec region were formed. I'm sure that Newfoundland suffered in the resources it received by the forming of these two regions. I'm not knocking the regions. In fact, I do knock the gulf region a bit because I think the gulf region--and it appears in my wording-- was a purely political decision that had no relevance to anything else. The Laurentian, or the Quebec, region is a far more sensible and more important decision, albeit that the resources of fish taken by Quebec are only a very small per cent, less than 10%, of the total taken by Atlantic Canada both in value and in poundage or tonnes.

The other one that is in it that I don't think is in your paper talks about the dollars being spent in stock assessment. You can see, if you look at the lower line there-- it's very hard to describe it, but this isn't in your presentation--the lower line there is in the dollars of the day, whereas the upper line, the red one, is everything expressed in 2000. You can see that there is a very dramatic drop by almost double during that period between 1981 and 2000, a 20-year period in this case.

That more or less covers it, apart from maybe giving my one conclusion that I have. There are many more things mentioned in the text, but I can't go into them. My conclusion is that it's very difficult to escape the conclusion that apart from a brief period shortly after Confederation the political process has discriminated against Newfoundland with respect to building the necessary fisheries research capability required to support its primary industry--the commercial fisheries. I think the report builds on that and will demonstrate some of my comments in a little more detail.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses.

I want to again apologize about something we can do nothing about, and that is the ticking of the clock. We realize this is a very important issue. There are many people who want to address us. There are only so many minutes in an hour and so many hours in a day. We're carrying right through until we finish.

I'd like to go to Mr. Matthews, Mr. Elley, and Mr. Roy. Mr. Matthews, would you like to start?

I'd ask Mr. Stoffer to take the chair for a moment, please.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we're really not going to hear a lot from Gus.

Gus, I know you want to zero in on a custodial management issue particularly, so I'll just ask you ask you about that.

In light of your experience, I think, with both ICNAF and NAFO and its obvious failings, how do you see Canada going about the establishment of a custodial management regime? Can you succinctly tell us your thoughts on that? I know your experience and your involvement. Could I let you wade into the custodial management debate by asking you the questions?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm wrong, but listening to some of your people in recent weeks, I get the impression that people are weakening on the custodial management aspect of this. I know there are lots of things occupying people's minds and that the events of the last few days are pretty important.

From my own 50 years in every aspect of this business, and having passed 20 years as an ICNAF commissioner or an adviser, I can tell you that from my point of view there's absolutely no way whatsoever that 20 nations--and there are roughly 20 nations now NAFO--anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 miles away....

By the way, it's not governments. There are powerful owners who operate these ships. It's not the President of Spain. When Mr. Thibault goes over in a couple of weeks to talk to these people in respect to these governments, it's a waste of time, in my view, unless you have the owners.

Look at what's at stake for them. They have a $20 million to $25 million ship, an owner. He has 50 to 60 men. He has to pay off that tremendous capital investment and he has to pay a living wage to 50 or 60 people, and I can assure you that the furthest thing from the minds of those people is conservation. It's the last thing that ever occurs to them. Anybody who believes that even one little syllable is absolutely out to lunch completely.

For God's sake, stick to custodial management, regardless of how long it takes, and it shouldn't take all that long if there's a dedicated Prime Minister in this country and a government dedicated to achieving custodial management, because without it you'll never achieve any control over the resource.

Eighteen to twenty foreign nations--as I say, 3,000 to 5,000 miles away--fishing on our continental shelf, with the demands they have on them, these people cannot and will not ever consider any changes in NAFO.

Somebody mentioned the word “tweaking”. I remember distinctly in 1987 sitting at the table in the transitional meeting from ICNAF to NAFO, where we had a glorious opportunity to have the notorious objection procedure, which is absolutely the great weakness in NAFO, removed. The person who was leading the Canadian delegation refused to even put the subject on the table despite the fact that the two commissioners sitting on each side of him were trying to bludgeon him into recognizing the need of doing it.

I tell you now that there's no possible way that you're going to achieve management of the resource and rebuilding of the resource without putting in place the process and the structure to do it.

You have to remember that the marine law that allows you to achieve this kind of thing is not something that's legislated by the Law of the Sea overnight and by signing a piece of paper. The evolution of marine law that protects a resource is something that comes about as a result of necessity. It was the same necessity that brought three miles, to begin with.

I remember distinctly when there was a three-mile limit. I and another chap counted 180 mast headlights three miles away from Port-aux-Basques in 1947. That three miles went to 12 miles from the coastline. Then it went from 12 miles from the base lines of the bays, for example. And why did it? It did it because foreign vessels were going up into Trinity Bay and going up into Bonavista Bay, because they were wider than 12 miles, and fishing. So the natural evolution that took place there was headland to headland as a base, and then 12 miles from that.

Â (1240)

Then, although not very many people know this, there was a 25-mile line that protected the capelin between Cape Freels and Cape St. Mary's. Maybe there is nobody in this room who ever saw the map, but there was a 25-mile line put in place to protect the caplin fishery from the Norwegians and the Russians, who were bludgeoning them to death.

Then Iceland came up with 50 miles, and that didn't serve the purpose. Eventually 200 miles came. Because of the fact that nature didn't work for us in this respect, projecting over that 200-mile line, Mr. Chairman, are the most prolific fishing grounds in the world.

Somebody this morning mentioned the growth. The paper we gave you—I don't know if it has reached you people—mentions that Dr. Templeman published a book in 1965 that showed that the rate of growth of cod on the Grand Banks is this. At five years of age, the Labrador cod weighs 1.3 pounds; the one on the Grand Banks weighs 2.2 pounds. By the time that codfish reaches the age of eight, the Labrador cod weighs three and a half pounds, and the one on the Grand Banks weighs nine pounds and is producing spawn that is far tougher and more resilient and is contributing to the resource.

The fact of the matter is—again I come back, because unfortunately there isn't much time here—that unless we speak to this and get our government to commit to putting forward an argument for custodial management.... This has been said many, many times: Spain and Portugal have historic rights here. They've been here for 500 years. The Basques were here, probably, before them. We recognize that these people fish here. The fact of the matter is, gentlemen, that unless the resource is recovered, it's gone for everybody.

I feel, quite honestly, that if I were Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa today, the first thing I would do is appoint about eight or ten people—the right people; not people appointed for political reasons, but the appropriate people: scientists, oceanographers, responsible fishermen, and so on—and bring them to the table to put together what is required to rebuild the fisheries. There are people who can come up—and we've outlined this in the paper to you—with an approach that could be taken by the appropriate group of people and the areas they can work in to start rebuilding the fishery.

This is the kind of plan that should be presented to the European countries through the Law of the Sea process to show that when the resource is rebuilt—and it can be rebuilt; there is no doubt about that—these people can participate in the fisheries on the basis of their historic performance. By the way, there is a formula in place that was put in place in 1975 by ICNAF recognizing the historical performance of these countries.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Mr. Etchegary, you mentioned time, and time is moving along. Maybe someone else will give you an opportunity.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Mr. Winsor some questions about his proposal. In some ways it's similar fundamentally to the proposal I just floated before the previous panel about having a selective fishery and putting it into some kind of management by fishers themselves. Have you had any widespread consultation with the interested stakeholders in Newfoundland about this proposal? Have you approached DFO about it? Just how far along are you with this proposal?

Mr. Fred Winsor: Currently, we're only in the initial stages of it. The proposal really came as a response to the all-party committee recommendations and the FRCC recommendations. We looked at those recommendations and asked, what's the next logical step in that process, because both the FRCC and the all-party committee were recommending having these closed areas—these “cod boxes”, they were calling them.

I have a PhD in northwest Atlantic fisheries history, but prior to that I was a fisheries observer for four years, and it struck me that if you just had these boxes, it would be very easy to violate their effectiveness, because the response to having a box like that, if you are a fisherman, is to put your nets right around the outside of the box. As soon as the fish are growing up and starting to grow out, you'd catch them right away. You would actually intercept the migratory cycle.

What we're really interested in protecting, as part of having a large closed area like that—it's such a large area—is the migratory cycle of fish, so that they are allowed to spawn naturally and can grow back. It's essentially what we had for 450 years. It's to go back to that kind of.... We can't turn the clock back, but at least we can try to learn from those experiences.

The other part, of course, and one thing we see as key, is the idea of having the cod grow out, using cod traps and grow-out pens—a form of aquaculture—to get the stocks to recover,and to speed up that process, because we know that if you have larger cod out on the Grand Banks, as Mr. Etchegary just said, then they will produce much larger eggs. Far fewer of those eggs die—they're stronger—and we can have a real recovery program happening.

Dean, do you want to say anything about cod grow-out?

Â (1250)

Mr. Dean Bavington (Member, Fisheries Recovery Action Committee): Yes, just that the all-party fisheries committee, the FRCC, and many fisheries scientists have advocated aquaculture as a restoration approach for the northern cod. Usually two proposals are put forward: a hatchery-based model, which has been tried on the west coast with salmon and hasn't been very successful; or a wild cod capture, grow-out, and release model.

There's at least 10 years of experience in Newfoundland in incorporating cod trap fishermen into aquaculture. If it were changed slightly, where the fish were actually grown out and doubled in size over a three-month period, their fecundity, or the number and viability of the eggs they produce, could increase substantially and could be a component to enhance local bay stocks.

There's a genetic distinction between local bay stocks and offshore stocks. There's some mixing between the two stocks. The eco-zones, or the no-take areas, would help to protect and rebuild the offshore stocks.

For the inshore bay stocks, we're proposing this idea of catch, grow-out, and release to actually involve fishermen actively in a restoration effort; to keep fishermen on the water, using live traps as opposed to gill nets or even hook and line fisheries that end up killing the fish—a live trap method that can then be incorporated into a restorative cod enhancement effort.

To make one other point on the cod aquaculture, I think over the next few years you're going to see this becoming an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially now that cod have been declared an endangered species in some areas and at risk in others. We see in B.C. the controversies that have taken place around Atlantic salmon being grown in the Pacific. Similar issues, I'm predicting, will emerge here in Newfoundland. There's a cod hatchery that will be putting out millions of cod fry next spring, to be grown out over a two-year period. These cod can only be grown out in waters that have ice-free conditions, and these are only on the south coast of Newfoundland, which also happens to coincide with the last remaining viable cod fishery in the province that's open.

There are potential interactions here, and I haven't heard anyone talk about a rise. That will be raised even more now that cod have been declared an endangered species.

The main point to put out here is that there are methods of cod aquaculture that have been integrated into the wild capture fishery and that I think we should be promoting, because they provide an active role for fishermen, as opposed to the hatchery model, which basically employs scientists and managers on these farms and has no role for traditional cod fishers. There have already been significant amounts of provincial and government funding put into the hatchery, and very little money and support put into the wild cod grow-out sector.

Â (1255)

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues and witnesses, we really have a problem. I'm going to solve it unilaterally. Anybody who doesn't like it can blame me.

We're going to adjourn this portion because we have the Minister of the Environment here and he of course has a very tight timeframe. He has to be back at the House of Assembly. What we're going to do is this. We're going to give the minister 15 minutes to make a presentation--no more than 15 minutes--and then have 20 minutes of question and answer with the minister.

Then we'll ask these gentlemen to come back up and we'll give our committee 10 minutes to finish up with them, and then we'll have 10 minutes to powder our noses in the washroom and we start at 2 p.m with the next group.

There's nothing else I can do. So could I ask the minister please to come up.

Gentlemen, I hope you'll understand, but please do stick around. You have 10 minutes to eat. You can eat while we're questioning as well. That's not a problem. But I do want to get the minister in here. The faster we vacate the chairs, the faster the minister can give his presentation.

Welcome, Minister.

I know that you've given us a written presentation. We'd all greatly appreciate it if you could summarize that, because I know just from looking at it that it will take more than 15 minutes to read it.

We'd like to ask you some questions. If you could make an effort to keep your remarks to 15 minutes we'd greatly appreciate it. We know you have to go too. We do want to ask some questions.

Hon. Robert Mercer (Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment): Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. It's a great pleasure to be here this morning. And welcome to all of our federal colleagues to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's good to see you all back.Those of you who are from outside the province, welcome, enjoy your stay, and have a little bit of fun while you're here. I'm sure some of the characters--

An hon. member: I already did that.

Hon. Robert Mercer: I figured you might have.

My comments today will be from an environmental perspective, and I wanted to basically say that to you and to emphasize to the committee the importance of our coastal and our marine environment to this province. As the presentation indicates, some 26% of our gross domestic product comes from our coastal and our marine resources. Over 20% of our employment is generated from our marine environment.

Major contributions to our economy come from the offshore petroleum production and from our fishery. But the significance of our coasts and our oceans is much deeper than dollars. It is where we live. It is what we look at. It's what affects our climate, our weather, our geography, what we do, and who we are. The ocean, the marine environment, it and we are one. Moreso than any other Atlantic province, Newfoundland and Labrador is a marine-based environment, and our society is heavily influenced in everything we do by the ocean and by the waters.

This same marine environment is at risk from oil pollution, both from illegal discharges and from accidents. These risks have been the focus of concerns and recommendations in correspondence between my department and the federal Minister of Fisheries, Minister Thibault, as well as with my own counterpart, Minister Anderson. The files in my department are growing very fast with correspondence, usually of a one-way nature.

Our coasts are highly vulnerable to oil pollution. Ongoing losses of seabirds to oil in the waters off our coast have been documented since 1984. It is estimated that each year off our south coast alone, we lose some 100,000-plus seabirds to oil in the sea. That's 100,000-plus seabirds. That's roughly comparable to the loss of seabirds as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill some years ago.

Our province is on the historical and still heavily used Great Circle Route for vessels travelling from Europe to Canada and to the eastern seaboard. This brings vessels of all kinds and from many nations within our coastal waters. For example, surveillance aircraft out of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia last year alone sighted more than 10,000 non-fishing commercial vessels in the Atlantic region alone. This was just during the hours when we were doing surveillance.

The 1990 report by the federally appointed Public Review Panel on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills Response Capabilities stated: “The risks of spills is highest in eastern Canada, particularly in Newfoundland. Placentia Bay is considered by many to be the most likely place in Canada for a major spill.”

Mr. Chair, this risk has increased over the intervening years with the expanding operations of the North Atlantic refinery at Come By Chance and the establishment of the Newfoundland transshipment terminal at Whiffen Head--both facilities located in Placentia Bay--a one-way distance of some 60 miles for a vessel through a bay dotted with some 365 islands. In 2002, these two facilities alone received almost 500 tankers, meaning 1,000 transits in and out of Placentia Bay by tankers alone, with additional traffic by ferries, cargo vessels, and fishing boats.

· (1300)

Mr. Chair, deterrence is a major factor in prevention. We can have all the laws we wish; if we don't have the enforcement, if we don't have the deterrence, they are not worth the paper they are written on. We have been pushing federal agencies responsible for regulation and protection of our marine environment for increased surveillance, increased enforcement of national and international law, and for increased fines.

We realize that there has been increased aerial surveillance over the last few years, as well as efforts to combine resources and information from other federal departments such as the Department of National Defence and recently a pilot project with the Canada Space Agency to use satellite imagery in the detection of oil on the sea surface. It is our hope that these efforts will continue and even expand beyond the present 400 to 450 hours of surveillance. After all, sir, vessels are in transit 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year round, not just the 400 to 450 hours.

The International Marine Organization policy will now see automatic identification systems mandatory for all vessels by 2008. Automatic identification systems are ship-based systems that allow vessel position, identification, cargo, and direction information to be available in real time. We suggest that Canada should work aggressively with the IMO to accelerate the implementation of long-range automatic identification systems—a system far more effective in allowing Canada to know where vessels are within its exclusive economic zone, more so than the present system, which only has a range capability of some 40 to 60 nautical miles.

In January of this year, the federal government announced an investment in marine security, including surveillance. Yet in one of the very first demonstrations of its effectiveness in pollution prevention, at the last minute Canada blinked. Charges of illegally discharging oily waste and polluting the ocean against the vessel the Tecam Sea were dropped at the last minute, without explanation. To this day, as Minister of Environment for Newfoundland, I have absolutely no knowledge of why the charges were dropped. This incident underlines the absolute need for all effective federal agencies to identify and agree to the roles, responsibilities, evidence, and chain of evidence needed in order to move on to prosecution.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that an enabling mechanism, which may be a means to achieve this, has already been put in place by the departments of the environment, transport, and fisheries and oceans, and that a memorandum of understanding for cooperation to reduce illegal oil pollution in Atlantic Canada's waters around Newfoundland with specific annexes outlining enforcement procedures was signed in December 2002. We find this to be very encouraging.

However, in the recent incident with the Tecam Sea it was the federal Department of Justice that decided to drop the charges. With this in mind, should perhaps not the Departments of Justice and possibly Foreign Affairs and International Trade be also included on that committee? After all, they may have different, even conflicting sensitivities, needs, and constraints. We must be certain that we all have the necessary tools, whether technology such as remote sensing devices or process or legal, to improve our capabilities to protect our marine environment and its resources.

Prevention of illegal discharges can be greatly enhanced through greater deterrence—by that I mean increased surveillance, increased enforcement, increased fines—and a willingness to stay the course and to see prosecutions carried through. If we lay a charge, we should have the courage of our convictions to bring it before the courts and allow the courts to decide.

· (1305)

In spite of various prevention measures in place, there is still risk of an oil spill. We are not comfortable with the state of preparedness to respond to a major oil spill off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our understanding that the Canadian Coast Guard will soon initiate a risk analysis for oil spills off our south coast. While in principle we strongly support such analysis, we have several outstanding concerns and questions about this work.

First, we have asked in our letters to Minister Thibault that there should be a steering committee for this work that would include representation from this province. We have had no response to that particular request.

The terms of reference do not include consideration of what is necessary in order to address the risks identified. If there are to be improvements in preparedness, this must be done.

We have been informed, for example, by Minister Thibault that only 15% of the coast guard's national emergency response program resources are located to the Newfoundland region. To us, this seems unacceptably low, considering the level of risk. We need to know. We must know if we have sufficient quantities of the right equipment available and in the right locations. To me, that is not an unreasonable request. It is our marine environment. It is our shorelines that will be despoiled.

There is no intent to include a review of the present oil spill response regime in the risk analysis. In other words, the risk analysis will not take a look and review how we are going to respond to an oil spill response.

The present regime in Canada has been in place for more than 10 years and may no longer represent what is most appropriate. After all, response technology and equipment, the sources and the location of major volumes of oil on the east coast, and public expectations have all changed over the past 10 years. I would suggest that a review of that in preparation for doing the risk analysis is not only timely but necessary.

With the major amounts of crude oil being produced and transported over the Grand Banks, why is the major amount of equipment and the regional office for Eastern Canada Response Corporation located in a neighbouring province, Nova Scotia, and not in Newfoundland and Labrador? Indeed, it is my understanding that there is no mechanism for us to regularly review the requirements of the response organizations, and we ask that this be reconsidered.

Mr. Chairman, we believe the above are essential to the risk analysis, and without these being addressed, the risk analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Chair, just very quickly, recently we sent a delegation to Galicia, Spain--my predecessor took a delegation to Spain--to review and to look at the loss of the tanker, Prestige. Mr. Chair, there is a report that I would like to leave with you to show some of the findings that we brought back from Spain at that time.

However, there were two key lessons that we learned and I would just like to mention them.

We need sound and practical protocols to be in place between the provincial and national governments to allow for immediate and effective responses and management in anticipation of such a disaster. In our view they are currently not in place, and an oil spill in Placentia Bay or off our south coast would result in a similar confusion as was experienced in Spain.

There is also an absolute need to designate safe havens or ports of refuge to be used when there is an accident about to happen. We are told that in Spain when the Prestige ran into trouble, the captain asked permission to enter into a port. He was denied. The salvor asked to come into quiet waters to discharge the oil. He was denied. Eventually the ship was taken, as you know, offshore. It sank in deep waters, broke in two, and of course the oil came ashore and spilled all over the place. We would suggest that if they were to have designated a safe haven--which I understand they now have done--much of that environmental damage would not have been done.

· (1310)

We need to designate such safe havens here in the province of Newfoundland. We need to have such discussions between our federal colleagues to do that.

I will say here today, in summary, we feel and we believe that the federal government must be more active in meeting its responsibilities for protection of the marine environment, specifically as it regards oil pollution both from illegal discharges and from accidents. And this government, this province, is prepared today, tomorrow, next week, last week, to sit down at any time to further that discussion and to put those plans in place.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Hearn, followed by Mr. Roy.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say that I'm sure all of us from Newfoundland and Labrador couldn't agree more fully with the minister and the concerns he raises.

I have just one brief question, because he's basically laid it all out for us. In relation to the local coordination, is there enough coordination between you, your department, and the coast guard? What kind of assistance or help are you getting? Are you getting the cooperation you think is necessary to put some of those protective measures in place?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Being in the department only for the last couple of months, I can only read what I find in my files. The answer I find in my files is that, no, there is not sufficient liaison at this time in the event of a major disaster offshore to allow for a dedicated team, federally led, provincially involved, to swing into action and to do the things that need to be done on the ground, on the sea.

My deputy minister.... Leslie, perhaps you could speak to that a little bit more fully, if you would. Leslie has been more involved with the actual preparation of the plan.

But to answer your question, Loyola, if a disaster were to happen tomorrow, I would probably get a call the day after.

· (1315)

The Chair: Did you want to add something?

Ms. Leslie Grattan (Deputy Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment): Just very quickly, I think that the last point is the key point. On the working level, between coast guard and all other government agencies, I would say, in the province--we're small here, we know each other personally--there is good communication. But it needs to be automatic at all levels in the response.

The Chair: M. Roy, followed by Mr. Efford.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Let me put one brief, practical question. It follows upon Mr. Hearn's question, which dealt with collaboration. Do we have the equipment we need here, in Newfoundland, or in the vicinity, to deal with a disaster? Is the Coast Guard adequately equipped to deal with this kind of disaster on very short notice? It is crucial to have this capacity, especially when dealing with a disaster like the one which happened in Spain, near the coastline.

[English]

Hon. Robert Mercer: Yes. I addressed that somewhat in the presentation. We need to have a review of our emergency preparedness. The plan, which is now in place, is some ten years old. It needs to be updated.

If I were to say to you right now, today, yes, everything is in place to do the job that is required, I would not be saying that with any degree of confidence. That is one of the reasons we have said we need to see a review of that emergency preparedness plan to make sure that when the risk analysis is done it is properly evaluated in that process.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: But do we have the physical tools we need? By this I mean ships and the necessary equipment to recover the oil, to clean it up, etc.

[English]

Hon. Robert Mercer: And that, sir, is what I am referring to as well.

The Chair: Mr. Efford, then Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. R. John Efford: Very quickly, I've been on this file in Ottawa, meeting with the different agencies—Transport Canada, the Environment people, and the Minister of Fisheries' staff—on this issue. I understand the frustration. But in answer to Loyola's question, Minister, unless I misunderstood, you gave a different answer than your deputy gave. I thought you said there was absolutely no consultation, but the deputy said there were ongoing discussions. Maybe I misunderstood.

Ms. Leslie Grattan: We're talking about a difference in levels. The working level is rather different from the senior bureaucratic levels and political levels.

Mr. R. John Efford: So you're talking of political levels. You're a senior bureaucrat in the provincial government, and you would be dealing with senior bureaucrats in the coast guard, i.e., here in St. John's or wherever. I guess it's a difference of opinion, of politics versus bureaucratic levels.

Minister, is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Well, we live in a political environment, and sometimes levels of communication between two levels of government aren't always as good as they should be.

I still remain to the point. There are communications between the public servants at the provincial level and at the federal level. My information is, while there are good communications, that does not always work, or it doesn't always mean a good working relationship, being involved up to your elbows and actually preparing the plans, being fully aware of what is being proposed and planned.

So, yes, there are good working relationships. What I'm saying, Mr. Efford, is that it's difficult to change talk patterns. I'm suggesting to you, sir, that getting around at the table, thinking through the ideas, thinking through the plans, putting in place the appropriate responses, and making sure that all angles or aspects of a problem are addressed are not done to the extent that they should be.

If tomorrow there were an oil spill off our coastline, yes indeed, I'm sure the federal government would do whatever it is they have to do. As long as it hits our shoreline, therein lies the end of the federal responsibility and it now becomes a provincial responsibility.

· (1320)

Mr. R. John Efford: I appreciate that. Like you, I've been around the coast of Newfoundland and lived there, and still live there, and I get a great deal of enjoyment out of finding birds. I know that tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of birds have been destroyed.

I would also say to you that I'm in Ottawa as one of the MPs and I wouldn't mind, at some point in time, if you have problems getting a meeting or getting cooperation, or being involved in a meeting...because I've been out there eight months and I haven't had a call from the environment department yet.

The Chair: Any comment?

Hon. Robert Mercer: No, I'd like to simply say that I've only been in the environment department for two months. I guess you have an argument with me and my predecessor.

Mr. R. John Efford: Well, it's the staff, or anybody, but I'm always going to help out.

Hon. Robert Mercer: I understand.

The Chair: Can we go to Mr. Stoffer, then Mr. Wood, and Mr. Matthews, if they have any questions.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, the responsibility for the oil and gas industry off your coast in terms of environmental stewardship falls upon the federal government, is that correct?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've spoken to many groups who do not believe that Environment Canada is doing a sufficient job to ensure that this industry is maintaining a high degree of environmental stewardship when it comes to fish stocks and the habitat that those fish stocks are in. Do you believe this? We're hearing that the industry itself is more or less self-monitored. We rarely have any Environment Canada people out there, and of all the concerns that address fish stocks, that could be one of the concerns restricting the prospect of cod stocks rebounding or rebuilding in the future.

Hon. Robert Mercer: I'll ask Leslie to deal with that, but one of the major concerns that I have arises from the Tecam Sea incident. Since a spill of some nature was detected from the satellites, the aircraft were scrambled, they went to sea, they found the spill, they followed it up for 100 kilometres, and they found the Tecam Sea, to a layman it would seem to say that you have a fairly good case that one caused the other. And I said this on the airways. Then to have that case dropped without any knowledge whatsoever...we had no knowledge. We've made the request for the reasons the charges were dropped.

At this point in time, I can say to you I have no knowledge whatsoever of why it was dropped, other than newspaper reports to say that it was not the technology, it was not the fact that the satellites didn't do the job properly.

So there is the fact that we have had such a major spill and we're continuing to have these major spills offshore, and they're killing the seabirds, as we've said--some 100,000 per year, which is a huge number. What impact is that having on the marine environment and the ocean floor?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate that, sir, but my comment is not directly to the specific incident or a vessel, but to the industry itself--the oil rigs, the transportation, and the flow of the oil, etc. Does the government feel there are enough environmental safeguards in place, and monitoring, etc., to ensure the protection of fish and fish habitat?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Again, in generic ways I can answer that as well. The Placentia Bay area, which has to be one of the highest areas for the movement of tankers in this province or even in Atlantic Canada--and where it's protected by federal bureaucrats, federal reports--is at the highest risk for a disaster. Do we have sufficient protection in that bay? From the information I have at my disposal, the answer is no, we don't. We don't have enough of a deterrence. We have 15% in Newfoundland, and by contrast, I have been told that 25% of the capability for the coast guard is located in the Great Lakes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And monitoring of the industry, madame?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Okay, speak to that.

Ms. Leslie Grattan: Regulation, including environmental regulation of the offshore, is really handled through the joint federal-provincial Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, and they have in place memoranda of understanding with the federal Department of the Environment to look after these very concerns that you've raised.

The offshore oil industry is required to carry out a whole bunch of environmental effects monitoring to make sure their operations are within the predicted and publicly accepted levels of effect.

They're also looking at cumulative environmental effects, and there is something called the environmental studies research fund, which was established by what is now Natural Resources Canada. It's oil industry money, but it's a joint group of federal government, affected public, and provincial government people who determine how that research money should be used. One of the aspects they are investigating, possibly through more than one project, is, for example, the effects of seismic operations on fisheries.

I guess I'm fairly comfortable that there are the mechanisms and the moneys in place to safeguard that interaction.

· (1325)

The Chair: Thank you.

Any questions, Mr. Matthews?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister and his deputy for coming.

You referred to the Prestige incident, Minister, and you finished off your reference to that when you talked about designated safe havens, and you said it's something that Canada should address and so on.

Can you give us some ideas on how you would ever go about designating a safe haven? If I were living anywhere on the coastline, I wouldn't want my area to be designated a safe haven if something happened to a tanker-load of oil coming from Hibernia, say. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on how you would really designate that, because no one is going to want to be designated as that, I wouldn't think. So how would you ever implement it, or how does it work?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Bill, you do have a knack for touching on the touchy issues. How you would go about designating that would be very difficult, but sometimes you have to make the difficult decisions because, in this case, you should be able to contain the disaster or the spillage to a confined area. Make no doubt, the spillage that would be contained in that confined area would be horrendous. One has to weigh off that versus the water strategy.

As for arriving at which of the harbours on the south coast, for argument's sake, would be a safe haven, I'm sure you wouldn't be loving that decision-making process.

The Chair: There are two questions, Minister, from me. Could you tell me precisely how long you've been waiting for an answer with regard to why the charges were dropped?

Hon. Robert Mercer: I have to take a look at the dates that the charges were dropped because the letter was....

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Hon. Robert Mercer: Yes, something of that nature.

The Chair: About three weeks.

Hon. Robert Mercer: We have a copy of the charge that was actually laid. We went to the court and obtained a copy of that, but the rationale of why the charge was dropped--

The Chair: I'm just wondering if you had been waiting for two days, or three weeks, or something like that.

Hon. Robert Mercer: No, no, no.

The Chair: So it's a number of weeks?

Hon. Robert Mercer: Yes, it's measurable in that timeframe.

The Chair: You also indicated pointedly that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans declined to participate in any way in the meeting in Galicia.Did any federal department take part--the Department of Transport, for example?

Hon. Robert Mercer: To the best of my knowledge, no. The Canadian ambassador to Spain accompanied the delegation once it arrived in Spain, but there was no representation from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hearn, a very short one.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have a question I think we didn't touch on. It's in relation to something affecting the fishery, the Gander weather office. The liaison between you and the federal department seemed to shut the door very quickly.

Hon. Robert Mercer: Again, there has been correspondence between my office and the federal minister's office. When I left the office yesterday, I hadn't seen a reply.

When this first became an issue back in early January, when the rumours started to circulate that something might be pending at Gander, the former minister of environment wrote the federal minister. On the very day the announcement was made about what was happening in Gander, I received a letter from the regional minister—not the federal minister—leading me to believe that the federal minister had the best interests of Newfoundland at heart, and that things would be done to help the business sector in the Gander area, and so on and so forth. I read that with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Then an hour or two later, I listened to the announcement on the news that the Gander weather office personnel were being shifted, with so many going to Nova Scotia and so many to Quebec.

· (1330)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate your cooperation and your presentation.

Thank you very much.

I would ask the other group to come back now.

If there are any questions, they will be from Monsieur Roy, Mr. Efford, Mr. Wood, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Stoffer.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Winsor. I want to talk about your proposal, the same one that Mr. Elley also mentioned.

I would like to know whether your proposal regarding aquaculture and the feed lot had been financially assessed. Was any assessment made of its impact on job creation and on the resource as such? In my opinion, unless I am mistaken, an impact would have to be immense before making a dent in the resource. You would have to release vast quantities into the wild. Has this been assessed?

[English]

Mr. Fred Winsor: I''d like to defer to my two colleagues here, Mr. Bavington and Mr. Best, to answer the question. They are much more familiar with it.

The Chair: Why don't we give Mr. Best a chance to get on the record.

Mr. Tom Best (President, Petty Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative): I don't think, personally, it's an issue of employment. It's an issue of stock recovery we're talking about. We're talking about a situation where....

To go into my background, I've been around quite a long while in the industry. I've been an inshore fish harvester owner-operator since 1963, and I'm going to leave a whole pile of information with you. I hadn't requested to come and present, but I did agree with Mr. Winsor. I believe his proposal makes so much sense that it might not get listened to at all. That's usually what happens with sensible proposals. I said I'd come along, given that I'm president of the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative.

The fact of the matter is that there's been a quite a bit of work going on with cod grow-out in the province over the last eight to ten years. In fact, the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative was probably one of the ones that were instrumental in kick-starting that in reaction to glut situations back in the late 1980s. Ironic as it may be, there were more codfish being landed in our community than plants in the area wanted to buy and process, because they were involved in processing other species that we didn't even consider should be fished--like capelin and others.

When he came to me a few weeks ago, after the FRCC hearings in St. John's and Petty Harbour, and asked me what I thought of his proposal, I said yes, absolutely, no problem, I think it's a good idea. It's something that a whole lot of cod trap fishermen along the northeast coast could participate in, especially at a time when.... In the case of the northeast coast, a lot of people have crab to depend on right now and you're not hearing as much outcry as you're hearing in the gulf area with respect to the closure of the cod fishery. But believe me, it was and continues to be just as important to the northeast coast of Newfoundland as it is to the gulf area--probably more important. If it weren't for the fact that we're now involved in crab fisheries, I think this is where the major part of the outcry would be--from the southern shore of the Avalon Peninsula and along parts of the northeast coast.

Our involvement in cod grow-out was in reaction to the reopening of a limited cod fishery over the last number of years, trying to be responsible in acknowledging that we had problems in the cod fishery and looking at how we could work better with smaller quotas. So we got into these cod grow-out, doubling weight, doubling value issues, trying to make more with less.

In my case, I'm a cod trap fishermen--I have been since 1963--and a combined handline operator. Since 1963--I started fishing with my two younger brothers when I was 17 years of age--my average cod landings were in the area of 300,000 pounds per year, fishing in less than 35-foot vessels in Petty Harbour. Petty Harbour, in the last 10 years prior to the moratorium, landed 70 million pounds of cod, and that's what they depended on fully. There was no other community along the southern shore, as Loyola would agree, that even came within a whimper of landing those amounts of fish. So you have to realize how important cod was to the whole of the northeast coast, and in particular to the communities along the southern shore.

I think at this point in time this concept of using cod trap fishermen while they still exist.... If you look at attrition and the age of people in the industry today in the inshore fishery, a lot of them are around my age--and I won't say what that is. But let's say the average is around 48 to 49 years of age. There are a lot of skills in cod trap fishing that people don't realize. There are good ones, and there are not-so-good fellows, from a skill perspective, who fish and use cod traps in the province. But there are quite a number of them still out there and they don't have a lot of opportunity to do things on the water.

I've already had an experience with cod grow-out. I spent three months two years ago growing cod out in a very hostile weather area--Petty Harbour is along the straight shore of our province--and after growing out for three months, I lost 26,000 to 27,000 pounds of cod in a rip in the roof of my cod trap at a time when handline fishermen were on limited quotas and weren't doing very well catching their quotas. But you can rest assured for the next two months they all made up the difference in their quota.

So it proved the fish were there and they hung around after they escaped from my holding site. Again this year, even though we didn't participate in cod grow-out, the fish came back to that particular area and people caught portions of their quota there this year. They didn't get all their quota, because it was a very bad fishery along the northeast coast.

It proved to me that this was only a simple, single application in a community where fish have been lost. There are some 200 or 300 communities along this coastline where people could be doing something different from what we were doing, probably in conjunction with sentinel fisheries --and I coordinate the co-op sentinel fisheries activities in the province as well, outside of what's going on with the fishermen's union. Fogo Island was doing something separate from what we were doing at Petty Harbour, but I was the one who was instrumental in pushing and promoting the idea of the co-ops being involved in the sentinel fisheries programs.

· (1335)

Anyway, I don't want to spend all day here. I could spend two months, believe me.

I want to let you know that from my perspective as a long-time inshore fisherman who has been—and I think Mr. Efford and others will agree—very vocal, very outspoken, I have put forward numerous recommendations on what should or shouldn't be happening with resource management issues and how we manage our fisheries, a lot of which I'm going to leave with you rather than present it. If you haven't had the benefit of looking at it, all the answers to all the questions you're asking are included in the recommendations we've been making for the last 15 to 20 years. That's my point on that matter.

I think this is a really good concept and something that should be pursued.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Efford, do you have any questions of any of the members of the panel?

Mr. R. John Efford: I have a couple of comments and at least one question.

I'll just make reference to Tom first. I've been working with and have known Tom for quite some years. The Petty Harbour people have won awards from many fishing parts of the world for responsible fishing. They've been the leaders in abandoning my pet peeve, the gill nets, and being open-line fishermen in that area. I just want to make mention that they are the leaders in responsible fishing in Petty Harbour.

Mr. Winsor and Mr. Bavington, I don't disagree with the concept of what you're saying, but here's where I have a problem: you have to address one problem before you can get to where you want to go.

You mentioned the capelin fishery. The average catch in the capelin fishery in the worst days was 40,000 tonnes. In the last five to ten years it's been 20,000 tonnes a year. I just had a fax a week ago from DFO, which I took to Ottawa, by the way, saying that last year the population of harp seals consumed 940,000 metric tonnes of caplin—harp alone, not the hooded, and not the grey seal.

I'm getting to the point of the question: cod grow-out, replenishing the stocks. David Vardy, the former deputy minister of fisheries, came out with that idea, and it was discounted by Ottawa. It's a good idea; it can work.

What is the point of focusing your attention and putting that fish in the ocean while looking at the drastic thing that is happening out there with the major imbalance in nature that's been caused by the greed of overfishing and fear of the animal rights organizations that left that major imbalance? You have six million harp seals, you have one million hooded, you have three-quarters of a million grey—seven and three-quarter million seals. If they each eat one tonne of fish a year, that's seven and three-quarter million tonnes of marine life.

If we don't address what Gus is talking about, the massive exploitation of fish outside the 200-mile limit—he's absolutely right—and the very massive exploitation by the predator-prey relationship, everything you say and everything you do will be just for nothing. That's what we have a problem with. We have to solve two major problems before we get to where you are.

The capelin is in the food chain of the cod, and 940,000 tonnes, compared with the little bit they.... I'm not saying the fishermen should take it, but compared with this, the little bit they caught last year and the year before is insignificant. The big picture is before our eyes, and we're not addressing it.

· (1340)

The Chair: Do you have any comment, Mr. Winsor?

Mr. Fred Winsor: Sure. My take on that would be that this is one reason why we recommended the 3L eco-zone, so that we have a closed area that's essentially a no-fishing zone. That would allow stocks in that area to recover.

It's been proven around the world. There are a number of reports out. One that comes to mind was in Nature in 1995, where they examined about 130 stocks around the world, showing that if you have a closed area where there is no fishing activity, no intrusion, if you remove the major predator out of the natural environment—humans—then the resources in that area will recover.

Of course, we have a problem not only with capelin; it's also herring and squid, and probably even mackerel are stocks that have been fished down quite low. My take on the seal thing would be that you would provide this area where these stocks could recover on their own, and it should be the case that they would recover quite rapidly. That may well look after the seal population, in that they'll have something to eat.

One of the reasons why seals are inshore is that there's no food offshore. There's no food at all offshore. That's one of the reasons we're seeing so many seals in close to land.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn, one question.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the things we've talked about is trying to keep people involved during this hard time. This is one way to do it, the productive way to do it, and I agree.

I guess the question is this, and I am trying to get one into the boat. In relation to the investment in aquaculture, and we hear about a lot of money being pumped into aquaculture, if we put the same type of investment into enhancing our natural wild stock throughout the salmon rivers perhaps rather than in aquaculture itself--and I think Mr. Etchegary referred to this--I wonder whether it wouldn't be more productive in the long term.

Probably we could have a comment from either side.

Mr. Dean Bavington: I would say most definitely to that question, because as it stands now the cod hatchery has been built. It has received a lot of government subsidy. The industry has received a lot of government subsidy compared to cod grow-out. Cod grow-out is next to nothing compared to the amount of investment needed to start up one cod farm. That will employ three people to produce 1,000 tonnes of cod. One farm can produce 1,000 tonnes of cod, but if those cod escaped.... When Tom Best's wild cod escaped they actually enhanced the fishery. It actually led to more fish into the ecosystem. If hatchery fish escape they genetically pollute the wild stock. They are not disease-adapted or behaviourally adapted to the bays in which they are going to be grown.

In Newfoundland full-cycle cod aquaculture, based on the hatchery model, can only occur on the south coast,where there are ice-free conditions. So even with a limited amount of jobs and employment in rural communities, it'll only help the part of the island that actually already has a wild cod fishery still open.

The other issue is, how are you going to feed all these cod? What are the hatchery-based cod going to eat? They have to be fed fishmeal. There is no fishmeal plant in Newfoundland now. They have to be imported from outside the province. What makes up fishmeal are the very species we are talking about today, mainly the endangered species of capelin and herring. If they are not being fished in our territory, the capelin and herring stocks have to be imported from South America and from off the west coast of Africa.

So we're exporting the environmental problem instead of dealing with it here. This is why we really advocate a small-scale inshore fishery solution to bringing back the wild stocks. And the hatchery model has never proven itself anywhere in the world to bring back wild productivity of fisheries.

· (1345)

The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry--

Mr. Tom Best: Mr. Chairman, can you give me a minute?

The Chair: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Tom Best: I came all the way from Petty Harbour to support you. I'm supposed to be getting boats ready to put in the water. My partners are at home doing that kind of thing.

I want to make a comment in response to John's question. I know about seals as well. I spent several years in the offshore seal fishery.

I'm seeing the impact of seals on cod and capelin and everything else. I know there were research documents around in 1981 that indicated that there were 7 million tonnes of capelin in the system. One said 7 million tonnes, another said 4 million tonnes. It had been reduced by 1981 to 300,000 or 400,000.

I don't know what's going on with the science. On one hand, they are saying there are no capelin in the system; on the other hand, they are saying they are consuming 850,000 to 900,000 tonnes of capelin a year. Now, where is the scientific evidence that they are consuming this? There is a lot of conflicting information out there.

So I agree with John that we have a major problem. Anyone who thinks that a healthy capelin resource is not a key and important component to the whole ecosystem is making a serious error in judgment with respect to what's important so that seals will not follow cod, what's important so that some other species will not be cleaning up juvenile cod, and so on.

So there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with other than the massive seal population and foreign overfishing--and they need to be dealt with. I wish I could get a chance some other time to come here and spend two hours to tell you what they all are.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you.

Time marches on. It waits for no man, as we know, and we're victims of that. I really must apologize, but I have to bang the gavel.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Mr. Chairman, we've been sitting down here and waiting for an hour and we haven't had more than five seconds.

The Chair: But the members had an opportunity to ask questions of you if they wished, and they chose to ask the questions that they did.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Well, they had questions, but we didn't get a chance to answer.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chairman, in fairness, when I qualified that as a question, I wanted the comment from both sides.

The Chair: Perhaps you have a comment on Mr. Hearn's comment.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Yes, I have a comment.

The Chair: Go right ahead, Mr. Etchegary.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: That's why we're here.

The Chair: I understand, sir, but--

Mr. Gus Etchegary: I would imagine that it costs quite a lot of money to put this committee in this room.

The Chair: Absolutely, but I can't be a slave-driver. I have staff here who need a break.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: We'd like to make a contribution.

The answer is this. First of all, someone should at least ask the question, has there been an economic analysis? That's number one, because there's been millions of dollars wasted unnecessarily in aquaculture.

Go to Iceland, where there's a natural wild fishery, no aquaculture. The income of the Icelander is fifth in the world because it's a well-managed fishery. Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? Because the management, the administration of fisheries is next door to the fisheries. It runs the fisheries. The right regulations are in place, the right enforcement measures are in place, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I have one last remark.

Why waste money when all it does is create a flow of money into a system that we know, from a lot of experience, doesn't work? Why not, all of us, try to convince the government of this country that they have to make a decision, and that decision is to stop overfishing in the most prolific fishing area in the world? And it's not only for cod. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that for 35 years, 10,000 men and women were directly involved in a fishery that was 85% in the form of flatfish, redfish, and turbot, and 15% from cod, from the same prolific area that we're talking about.

So let's get sensible and practical and economically practical, and try to propose to our government something that works in the wild and something that works on the basis of the two most successful countries in the world, Norway and Iceland. Why go around with your heads cut off trying to find ways of managing a fishery, when only 700 miles away, 210,000 people have created a country and they have done an enormous job?

For God's sake, wake up! We ask the elected people of Canada, not just Newfoundland, to wake up and stop listening to bloody nonsense. Talk about managing a wild fishery, as they have in two other countries in the world that are practically in the same latitude as we are.

I've listened to scientists who talked about the problems in the environment. And here we are, on the western side of the North Atlantic, practically dying, and 700 and 2,000 miles away in the same latitude in the North Atlantic, you have two of the most successful fisheries in the world. Doesn't that hit somebody with a question as to why that's happening?

The answer is simple--simple. It's too bloody simple. Because we have hundreds of people all wanting money, in one form or another. Our universities, for example, in this area--

· (1350)

The Chair: Mr. Etchegary, sorry. You're preaching to the converted. This committee is desperately trying to go to Norway and to Iceland to do exactly what you have said. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues back home consider that a waste of money.

Of course we couldn't agree less, because we think it's very important for us to see how other countries have been successful. We're hoping that we'll resolve that problem tomorrow, and if we do, you'll see this committee travel to those two countries for, among other issues, those two issues in June. Let's hope there aren't people who then say, there are some MPs taking another jaunt at the taxpayers' expense.

You're absolutely right, we have to get there and we have to see how the success stories are done.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Mr. Chairman, advise your minister to go to Iceland and to go to Norway and to mix with the people in the industry, the people who are in harvesting, processing, and marketing. That's who he has to see and talk to. That's the key to it.

Don't, for God's sake, go to Madrid and Lisbon and some bloody place and sit down and speak for weeks to people who actually have no knowledge of the industry.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: I shall do so.

I am most grateful for your patience, most grateful for your evidence on behalf of our committee. Of course, as Mr. Best said, we could go on for two months, but we simply don't have the time. Thank you so much.

We'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.