FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 6, 2004

Á

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, CPC))

Mr. David Bevan (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

Á

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

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

Á

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Á

1120

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Á

1125

Mr. Denis Rivard (Director, Fisheries Research, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

Á

1130

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Á

1135

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

Á

1140

Mr. Denis Rivard

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Á

1145

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Bevan

Á

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

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

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Á

1155

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Sylvain Paradis (Director, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC)

Â

1200

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

Â

1205

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Andy Burton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. David Bevan

Â

1210

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Bevan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Paul Steckle

Â

1215

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Barry Rashotte (Director, Resource Management Branch, Atlantic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Â

1220

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Barry Rashotte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1225

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Denis Rivard

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Denis Rivard

Â

1235

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Barry Rashotte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Â

1240

Mr. Barry Rashotte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Guy Beaupré (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Â

1245

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Guy Beaupré

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Guy Beaupré

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Guy Beaupré

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Guy Beaupré

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1250

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Â

1255

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Barry Rashotte

Mr. Andy Burton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

·

1300

Mr. Barry Rashotte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. John Cummins

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 014

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 6, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, CPC)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    We have quorum, so we will begin this morning's meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). This morning's discussion will be on the Atlantic fisheries report, the government response, and the document released by the minister on March 25.

    Before we go on, there are a couple of announcements to make.

    On the first one, Mr. Bevan, could I ask you to introduce your members for our console operator? She can't see the signs, so it's difficult. Could we first have you introduce your colleagues, please?

    Mr. David Bevan (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): My colleagues are Sylvain Paradis, director of fisheries, environment and biodiversity science directorate; Michel Vermette, acting director general of program planning and coordination directorate; Barry Rashotte, acting director general of resource management branch, Atlantic region; and Denis Rivard, director, fisheries research.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Okay. Thank you.

    First, I should mention that the chairman, Mr. Wappel, is not available this morning. He is in attendance at a health meeting, where he is a witness on an issue of some importance. He sends his regrets and his best wishes.

    Before we start, I should like to congratulate Mr. Bevan this morning, as well. Mr. Bevan, I believe, had the word “acting” removed from his title yesterday and is now, I believe, the deputy minister of fisheries and aquaculture management. Is that correct?

    Mr. David Bevan: I am assistant deputy minister.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): You are assistant deputy minister. Congratulations, Mr. Bevan.

    You'll be filling Pat Chamut's shoes, and Pat has big shoes to fill. We certainly wish you all the best in your new position.

    Again, before I ask Mr. Bevan to make his presentation, I should like to point out to the committee that the Pearse-McRae report was released on the west coast yesterday. It's a joint report by the province and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the state of the fishery on the west coast. If you haven't yet received a copy, you should make an effort to do so, because the report is significant and, I might add, controversial as well. It's something worth looking at.

    With those preliminaries taken care of, Mr. Bevan, I will ask you to make your presentation, please.

    Mr. David Bevan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to say good morning to all the honourable members present. I'm pleased to join you here today to respond to your questions regarding the Department of Fisheries and Oceans response to the standing committee's report on Atlantic fisheries issues, specifically the release of the Atlantic fisheries policy framework and the stabilization of sharing arrangements in 2004.

[Translation]

    I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee and to say that we will continue to value your advice as we move forward with the DFO renewal process.

[English]

    I'd like to reiterate the comments made by Minister Regan on March 25 when he announced the Atlantic fisheries policy framework and the stabilization of sharing arrangements in the Atlantic commercial fisheries for 2004.

    DFO is committed to sustainable development; that is, we are committed to ensuring that economic opportunities are supported while conserving resources and protecting the environment. In order to achieve this, we will apply a more collaborative approach to management of our fisheries—“our” not being just DFO, obviously, but “our” being the people of Canada, the provinces, and stakeholders.

    We seek ways to promote shared stewardship of the resource, as we did with Tuesday's announcement to reopen the northern and southern Gulf of St. Lawrence cod stocks to limited, directed fishing efforts, and to promote self-reliance of fishers and fleets, and to bridge the gap that had existed between the perception of fishermen regarding abundance and the analysis that was conducted by science.

    To accomplish these important objectives, we will implement improved fisheries management systems that are founded upon clear, fair, and transparent processes, resulting in greater stability for all participants.

    The stabilization of sharing arrangements was an initial step we took to provide some opportunity for fishers to get ready for this year's fishery, to avoid the endless debate on how to share the tax, and to try to have people concentrate on the things that are important—adding value instead of seeking the last fish in terms of volume—and how to go about the development of fishing plans in order to have the conservation frameworks in place, such that we can have a sustainable use of those resources for future generations.

    Uncertainty in access and allocation undermines efforts to promote stability, creates a disincentive to conserve, and preoccupies industry participants. Stabilizing sharing arrangements clears the table for a more transformative approach to governance of fisheries.

    On March 25, most sharing arrangements in commercial fisheries were extended for one year to allow time to develop a process, in consultation with stakeholders, for longer-term stabilization. This move demonstrated to resource users that we are determined to break out of the past and move forward with a progressive, coherent, and modernized fisheries management system.

    Our next steps in this regard will be very important, and while we continue to move forward on many fronts, the longer-term stabilization of sharing arrangements is a significant priority.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    During the next phase we will focus on three main themes. First, by establishing long-term sharing arrangements in as many fisheries as possible, we will promote resource use and conservation and give stakeholders the flexibility they need to manage their fishing firms and to deal with other important matters.

[English]

    Second, we are developing a process and criteria for changing sharing arrangements, including a process for fleets to propose changes to sharing arrangements. This will entrench stabilization and will promote shared stewardship.

    Third, rules-based conflict resolution mechanisms for use at the local level will encourage commercial licence holders to solve problems related to sharing and will reduce the need for interference from DFO. We are committed to accomplishing this work in consultation with the stakeholders.

[Translation]

    Thank you for your attention.

    I would now be happy to answer your questions concerning any business on the agenda.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

    Were there any further presentations from your group, Mr. Bevan?

    Mr. David Bevan: No, I think we'd like to provide you with the opportunity to ask questions about the response that was sent to you responding to your report.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you very much, then, Mr. Bevan.

    We'll go to questions this morning, first with Mr. Hearn, please, for ten minutes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Let me thank the members for coming and congratulate Mr. Bevan. Hopefully, having you here before our committee a number of times has drawn the attention of the higher-ups to the work you're doing, sir. We can take some credit for having you there. We might deny that a little later on over the years, but hopefully not.

    Having said that, getting into the report itself and the recommendations, one of the first recommendations we made is that another round of consultations should take place. The government has rejected that; however, I believe strongly the policy review has not been done in an in-depth fashion the way it could be if more people had input.

    I analyzed carefully the presenters at the various meetings and I would suggest it was top-heavy with the processors' point of view and the union hierarchy. Why do I say that? You might say we had presentations from certain unions, and they represent fishermen. That's not necessarily so. It depends on the topics with which they deal.

    A lot of ordinary, on-the-ground or on-the-water harvesters had no idea this was taking place. I've had plenty of discussions in our own province and in Prince Edward Island—in fact, just recently with fishermen heavily involved in the industry—who didn't even have a clue there were such hearings taking place until they heard about the reports.

    I think what the review did was create an awareness that a lot of issues were being studied and input was being sought. But it's like everything else: it doesn't matter how well we advertise; quite often the notice of meetings never gets to the people who are most concerned and who, quite often, can give us the best spin on what should be done.

    So I certainly think there has to be more follow-up in the field. That's one question, and I'll just throw out two others.

Á  (1115)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Do you want to get an answer to that one first?

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Sure, we can take them one at a time, if you wish.

    Mr. David Bevan: We had very extensive consultations during the more than four years the policy framework was under development. There were numerous visits to 19 different communities in Atlantic Canada, and many hundreds of interventions at the meetings and following the meetings. So we did make the effort to make this as inclusive and open a process as we possibly could. We kept the provinces informed and briefed and in the loop at all times.

    Subsequent to the report from the standing committee, we had one more round of consultations specifically related to the owner-operator issue and to trust agreements. Those constituted another round of consultations that took place prior to the announcement by the minister in March of this year.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chair, the issue mentioned by Mr. Bevan, the owner-operator policy, is I believe probably the second most crucial issue we have—certainly on the east coast; it's a problem all over, as we know, but particularly on the east coast—next only to achieving some proper management control of the fish stocks, the groundfish stocks in particular. I might be a little biased there.

    Concerning the owner-operator policy, I think government feels the same as we do: that an individual is given a licence, and that individual should be the one who fishes. That's not what's happening, of course. It's almost now like providing licences in blocks, giving the general licence to processors to go out and, in turn, distribute that general power among people who come to them looking for assistance. The harvest in many parts of Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, is now controlled by a few people.

    I know we can argue that legally licences are only issued to individuals, and of course on paper that is true. The under-the-table agreements, the trust agreements, the side agreements are to me completely and utterly illegal, because the minister—and he admitted it in the House—is the one who dictates who can fish, and it should only be the minister who does that. Permission to an individual should give that individual the right to control his or her licence. This bartering and selling and under-the-table dealing is creating an industry where a handful of people are controlling the industry. It's extremely dangerous and is going to have ramifications for everybody.

    I'll throw out one other little one, and that's on science—

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Do you want a comment on that, perhaps, first?

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Okay, go ahead.

    Mr. David Bevan: As you're aware from the announcement of the minister in March, preserving the independence of the inshore fishery was a key component of the Atlantic policy framework.

    There is obviously a problem, in that the licence holders are not always the ones who reap the benefits. In Atlantic Canada, there are a lot of expenses involved in the purchase of the enterprises. In some cases, most of those expenses can be made up in purchasing the licence, which has no property value; it can't be mortgaged, and therefore it's a huge capital acquisition without any ability to lever the acquisition for loans, etc. That, in part, has led to this problem.

    We're looking at the issue now. We have had the consultations throughout Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Nunavut regarding this issue. We've had a lot of good input from a number of stakeholders. Mind you, it was the first time that we've had meetings attended by lawyers and chartered accountants, which was interesting. That information is now with us and is being analyzed.

    Having said that, there will be much more consultation when we move out with the implementation of the framework and the details of how we're going to move ahead with the implementation of the policy framework.

    Around this issue specifically, we're going to have to look at what the government's proposals will be and how to actually achieve the independence of the inshore fleet, and to recognize that we have a significant problem where a licence could be a million dollars in some lobster fishing areas. But the situation is distorted when people come in with the money and have somebody get the licence from the department, and all of the benefits flow back to the person who put the money up in the first place. That's the challenge we're faced with.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I can appreciate that, but it's like the old saying, you got yourself into the mess and you have to get yourself out, because things like that happen—or perhaps it's because we weren't aware they were happening around the department that we got into this mess in the beginning.

    If I'm designated as a fisherman, I can go up and get a licence to fish; the minister grants me a licence and I pay my fee, whatever it is. I think that we've just let the price of licences get completely and utterly out of hand, and government has had a hand in that by buying off licences, whether they be for native bands, or whatever. But the price or value of licences has escalated to the point where the average fisherman can no longer get into the industry. He can't turn to the bank, as you say, because of lack of security; so he turns to the harvester or processor, who gladly grabs up the 50 boats around and controls the whole industry.

    So it is in a mess, and probably the simplest way to settle it is to just come down to a lower-value licence to the individual, and the rest will fall into place.

    However, let me just switch gears for one second to ask a short question on science. When former Minister Thibault and I met a year and a half or so ago with a number of the ministers from the north Atlantic, all of them around the table, without exception, stated that the biggest problem we have in the fishery is that we don't know what's going on in the ocean. Are we in that category now? I'm oversimplifying to a point, but in relation to the total picture, do we need more science? I think it's pretty obvious, but....

    Mr. David Bevan: If you're talking about whether we understand the dynamics of ecosystems in a way that we can actually predict that, if we do this, that will be the outcome, I don't think that's the case. We don't have that degree of understanding to actually know how to manage, if you would, an ecosystem. We obviously have science that would provide advice on management options for a particular species...what the risk would be in having certain levels of harvest, etc.

    But if you're asking if we could tell you what the natural mortality would be under certain circumstances in two or three years, no, we don't have that level of understanding. I don't know that anybody does. But I'll turn it over to Denis Rivard.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Denis Rivard (Director, Fisheries Research, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): In fact, I had the luxury to see it in many groups outside the country, for example, in Europe. I can compare what is done here with what is going on in Europe, at least. I am well aware of what's happening in other countries, such as the U.S.A. and Australia. Currently, I have exchanges with those people.

    I think we compare well overall in terms of what we use for assessment techniques and in terms of collecting information, by having surveys, for example, that monitor the stocks. We are quite respected in terms of our expertise when we go abroad. In some cases, I think we are beyond the crowd.

    One area in particular where we do a lot more than what is done in Europe, for example, is in collaboration with the industry. We had a number of programs that were started, in fact, in the late 1980s and took off in a bigger way in the 1990s. We tried to involve the fishermen more in data collection and in the design of science programs, and we had them sit in on the priority process that was taking place, as well. People take all of the data and sit together to try to analyze what's going on to have a fix on stock status. I think we are ahead of the crowd in terms of that specific aspect. We have, in fact, put forward programs that make collaboration happen in very innovative ways.

    I think we compare well. Of course, we can always do more science. I think our challenge is to do what we can with the resources available. Lately, one of the challenges we've taken up is to try to leverage the money we have a little more by inviting people to pitch in money-wise.

    They bring an expertise to try to advance the science, as well. We have things such as the fisheries science collaborative program. I think this is something you mentioned in your report. It is a way in which to tell people we have a pile of money, $1.6 million in particular, and we would like to sit with them to design the program. On their part, perhaps they can throw in some expertise. They can provide the boats and the crew. They can actually assist in carrying out the program.

    This pilot has been going on for a year and a half now. I think it has been quite fruitful. I think we compare well to other countries overall.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you.

    I have a comment on science. I can't let the opportunity go by. You had an opportunity to partner with the snow crab guys in the gulf, but you didn't do it. We can get into that, but first we'll go to the Liberal side.

    Mr. Provenzano, I think you had your hand up first. Would you like to go first?

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Okay. Perhaps if I don't use all of my time, one of my colleagues would be happy to use it.

    Mr. Chair, I'd like to put some questions on seals to the people here this morning. I don't think I'd be overstating that many members of the committee feel the situation regarding seals was a significant factor in the collapse of the groundfish fishery. I don't need to go into all of that.

    I think the government, in responding to the report, did agree it would promote a sustainable seal harvest. Is that a fair statement? Was there some agreement on the point that a sustainable seal harvest should be promoted? What were the government's efforts, if any, to this point, in terms of actually developing a strategy for the promotion of a sustainable seal harvest?

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. David Bevan: Clearly, in our three-year seal plan we have a total TAC over the three-year period of 975,000 animals. Last year the total allowable in any one year was in the range of 350,000. Last year that was not taken, due to a number of factors. Ice conditions and access to the seals was a major factor. This year we are looking at a very healthy hunt. Currently, about 339,000 animals have been taken and the hunt is still progressing.

    We see this as a very substantial industry now. It's standing on its own two feet. It doesn't need the subsidies that it once did. The prices are adequate to make it not only cover its costs, but be a profitable industry, and people are prosecuting it now as a business.

    So that's what's going on right now, and I think this reflects the fact that in the past we did work with the Canadian Sealers Association, we did have development work done. It would now appear that that's no longer necessary. The hunt simply needs to be managed in a sustainable way to allow the fishers to get access to the animals, because the market is there for the products.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Your last statement was interesting. I was actually very interested to know whether the current levels of the harvest matched the demand for seal products. Are you saying that's the case?

    Mr. David Bevan: That's the case. The Canadian Sealers Association had wanted to cap the total allowable catch at about 350,000 in order to have the match between market demand and supply.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Where is that? Is the demand higher than the supply at the moment?

    Mr. David Bevan: Obviously, you could have more seals taken in the short term. In the long term that would not be sustainable, if you go much beyond what we're at now. In the short term you could take more seals, but then the price would go down. It's the old law of supply and demand. So their desire is to keep the price at a level that makes it profitable for them to harvest.

    At the current levels we will probably see some decline in the population from the high that was observed of about 5.5 billion down to something under 5 million over the course of the three years, should the total allowable catch be taken. That will have to be recalibrated later with further insight provided by this year's survey of harp seal abundance. That will then inform the next five-year plan. We'll have one more year in this three-year plan, then once we have the information on the population, we can work with the industry and with other stakeholders to develop the next five-year plan for the seal hunt, which would then have a predictable outcome in terms of the population. We could look at that in terms of the markets and how they want to run the fishery.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Promoting a sustainable harvest, does that in any way involve the department or some other department of government in promoting the market for that harvest?

    Mr. David Bevan: As a result of previous decisions in the 1990s, we no longer have a market promotion role. At that time we did have a subsidy role for providing some price support for the meat. That's no longer there. This is now an industry that functions profitably on the economics of the market in a sustainable way, given the approach we've taken to the management of the fishery.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm not sure you could answer this one, then. The U.S. as a potential market for seal products, what's happening there?

    Mr. David Bevan: You may be aware the Senate is looking at passing a motion condemning the hunt, so I don't think that means they're going to be open to removal of the current ban on the markets. We have really pushed that issue with them. It was originally done, as I understand it, because there was a concern over the abundance of seals, concern over the fact that there might be population crashes, and therefore they put the ban on. Obviously, this is not the case in Canada. That rationale was not something that could be used to ban the trade in a product that was legally taken. Having said that, we have been unsuccessful to date to find a way to remove that barrier.

    Also, there are good markets in northern Europe and in Russia and in Asia. Those are the markets that are taking the products at this time.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I think there's a conference coming up in spring 2004 on seal oil products. It was mentioned in the response by the government. Well, we're there. I believe the objective is to outline the findings of current research and development on products such as seal oil, collagen, and protein products.

    I'm just wondering whether the department is going to have any role in that, and who's going to be carrying that message and that brief at the conference? Will it be DFO? Will you be participating?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. David Bevan: I'll have to check with other parts of the department. I'm not aware of the participation, so I'll have to get back to the committee on that question.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: It was mentioned as part of the response.

    Mr. David Bevan: I understand that. I just don't have that available with me.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

    Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you.

    Can I just do a quick follow-up on seals?

    The issue here is that the FRCC wants protection for cod nursery areas. These areas are not where the seals are being harvested for pelts. So what are you doing about that, and why are you ignoring, apparently, the FRCC recommendation?

    Mr. David Bevan: As you might recall, in 2003, concern around cod conservation was very high. There were closures. At the same time, $6 million was set aside for a number of research projects. Some were related to seals, so seal abundance is being looked at. In addition, there are other elements of the program that I can ask my colleague Denis Rivard to talk to.

    But on the seal exclusion zones, as they were called by the FRCC, we have a pilot underway in Smith Sound that is evaluating how that can work, and how well it can work. So there are steps being taken to numerate the number of seals in the zone, eliminate the number of seals, see how long they take to come back, if they come back at all, determine what other impacts they may have on the population, and then determine if that is a procedure that can be expanded into other areas.

    I can ask Denis Rivard to give you more information.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Denis Rivard: Thank you, Dave.

    In that program, $6 million has been allotted to do some science on seal research in Atlantic Canada. The program started last year, and we are about halfway through it now. It should be completed by the end of next year.

    Essentially, the program has five key elements that we're trying to address.

    One is to determine the current abundance of seal populations. That part of the program is assessing the state of the populations of harp seals, hooded seals, and grey seals in Atlantic Canada. The harp seal survey and the grey seal survey have been completed. The hooded seal survey will be done next winter. That data will be analyzed in the coming months, and we should be able to provide an update on population size at the next peer review meeting, which will be held next winter.

    The program also covers things like the habitat used by seals and how it overlaps the cod habitat. A lot of the program focuses on, for example, tagging seals. So we have satellite tags that have been put on a number of seals, various species of seals, to see where they spend their time. We're glad we were able to get some support to get these tags. They are very expensive. They will allow us to fine-tune our models so we can adjust the parameters that allow us to evaluate the impact of seal populations on various fish species, including cod.

    Another component of the program is addressing the predation of seals on cod and other species. Collecting stomachs, for example, to see what they eat is another essential element.

    A fourth element addresses management tools, and Dave has referred to the seal exclusion zone. In particular, we established a test zone in Smith Sound in January 2004. Smith Sound is a bay in Newfoundland where an aggregation of cod seem to reside. They move back and forth along the coast, probably from that area, so we thought it was proper to test the concept there. That pilot will probably take place over the next couple of years.

    We are monitoring the seal population and the impact of that project as we speak. We're going to invite experts from around the world to come and help us assess that. If they have done similar experiments in other countries, for example, what were their results? We're going to have a conference next week, and selected experts will come to discuss their experience in that area.

    The other aspect of the program is the coordination of the project with workshops, and things of that nature.

    So that's the project that's in place now. Again, we are about halfway through that project.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): That's a whole lot of activity, but it certainly doesn't seem to be addressing the concerns expressed by fishermen and scientists and reflected in the FRCC's recommendation that something be done to eliminate seals in these cod spawning areas. I guess that's your answer.

    Mr. Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): About how much time do I have?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): You have a little bit of time here now. Because I took a little of your time, do you want to go on to your next session? You have ten minutes coming up.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have about three points here.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Why don't you go ahead? I'll just consider that I used up your time, and we'll add to it.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: As I said, I've got about three points here.

    I'm going to take a risk right off the bat, Mr. Chairman, a bit of a chance, because I'm going to commend the department for the action that has been taken on the seals. I know that if an election comes forward, that might be used against me on the wharf and I'll have to deny that I commended the department.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): It's part of the record now, Mr. Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes. I think it has been positive and I think it has been well received in the fishing community. I think we're heading in the right direction on it.

    On the fleet separation and a couple of points that Loyola made, I think my colleagues around here are much older and would probably remember further back than I would. I remember growing up in Glace Bay in a fishing community, and the guys who fished were poor. They fished at the mercy of the company owners and the processors. The owners kept the prices down and kept the expenses up. It wasn't until the mid-1970s...and it was Romeo LeBlanc who advocated the fleet separation and the development of the inshore fishery.

    The sad part now is that in the last three, four or five years, we've gone full circle. We're seeing it drift back to where it was prior to that. I believe the regulations are there. I believe the principles still stand true and are important.

    Loyola mentioned the cost of a licence now, $1.5 million, and how ridiculous that is. It depends on what side of the $1.5 million you're on. If you're selling, then that's fabulous and it's great that the enterprises.... The fishermen are now in a position where we even have affluent fishermen. But where I see the problem is that the processors are holding the cards, because there's an obvious lack of access to capital for the fishing community. That has to be addressed in some way.

    As well, when we're looking at the family businesses, the licences being passed down from generation to generation, the complications, the capital gains, the hit they take with capital gains, that has to be addressed. It's not just DFO that has to be involved in this. We have to have the Department of Finance. We have to have CCRA. The government agencies have to come together to address this, because this is going to get tougher and tougher. As the processors become more the owners of the quota and the stock, it's going to get tougher to get this thing back on the rails.

    So I think the opportunity is immediate. I don't know if it's an opportunity, but it's essential that we deal with this.

    Is there any communication between DFO and those other departments, in conjunction with the independent fishermen, to deal with those issues of fleet separation and the willing of licences down a generation?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. David Bevan: There has definitely been communication. Has it led us to a point where we can come up with proposals? The answer to that is no, at this point.

    We do, however, share your view that there's an impending sense of urgency here. For example, I attended an Eastern Fishermen's Federation meeting on lobster a few weeks back. They had the demographics of their members up on the screen. It was pretty startling to see that those under 30 are far outnumbered by those over 65, and that they actually had a demographic of 71 plus. I think there is obviously a need to deal with intergenerational transfer of licences.

    There's obviously a problem. There's no capital to deal with these things. We've been in the market, as you're aware, for the last few years, and we are unable to compete. The price of a snow crab licence is well beyond that which is our cap. LFAs in southwest Nova Scotia and other areas are well beyond price ranges that we had been prepared to pay. The market is demanding very high prices for access to these fisheries, and the capital isn't there from a normal process.

    As long as that exists, we're going to have tremendous pressure on it. It's not something that we can easily deal with from the symptom side. We can't easily come up with the means whereby we can control what happens inside individual fishing enterprises. There are thousands of them. That's not part of our core competency. We're going to have to look at this from the point of view of the problem. The problem is access to capital and the problem is the costs. The problem is also the broader issue of how you structure these enterprises. That's what we have to start to look at.

    We've seen some interesting proposals coming out of the Pearse-McRae report, the joint task force report in British Columbia. Perhaps those are some things we should consider more broadly. There have been a lot of suggestions from some of the people who've come to the consultations on this issue. While they don't want certain types of results, they do want to have a property in terms of a licence, something they can take, literally, to the bank. Those are potential solutions.

    But we do share your view that this is an issue that's going to become very serious in a very short period of time, given the demographics of the people in the fleet. The younger people who are currently crew members, etc., who want to get access to the licence, need access to capital. The people selling it aren't going to want to have the licence devalued by the inability of capital flow.

    Both sides of this coin are going to be looked at. We have to come back with proposals on how to solve the problem.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have one other question.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Make it a quick one.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It's in regard to two hatcheries. I know it's through the Pacific salmon endowment fund that hatcheries are being funded on the west coast. As for the Atlantic salmon, the federation doesn't get up and cheer-lead for hatcheries, but they're like the mother-in-law. They know that they're out there and that there's a role to play, and they respect them, but....

    There are a great number of people within the industry who recognize the impact that hatcheries have. Where does the department stand? And where do we stand in terms of an investment in Atlantic salmon, in the broader context, as we look at conservation and habitat preservation, and hatcheries being maybe a component of that?

    I'll finish with that, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. David Bevan: Clearly we have a serious problem in some areas of Atlantic Canada, and particularly Nova Scotia, the southwest Nova Scotia area, where the river systems are subject to acidification. They're too acidified now to support the juvenile salmon. We have been contemplating using the hatcheries to preserve those genetic strains. So that's one thing we are contemplating. It's something we may need to contemplate in terms of the Pacific as well, as we face the challenges posed by the Species at Risk Act.

    As you're probably aware, we have had on the books the potential for an Atlantic salmon endowment fund, similar to the Pacific salmon endowment fund. That has not yet received funding. There have been opportunities to have that considered at the budget time, but it has yet to receive funding, so we don't have that capacity in Atlantic Canada.

    Having said that, we do obviously do research in partnership with private institutions in New Brunswick, with the Province of Quebec, with our own resources in other areas, and we spend about $3 million a year on the really difficult question, which is what's happening with marine survival? There have been enough smolts produced in recent years to have returns increase, but they're not returning from the marine ecosystem, and the question is why not? So there's quite a bit of money spent there.

    In addition, we've worked with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization to set up an international board for cooperative research, which is focused on the marine survival. That board has been established, funding is flowing into it from a number of sources, and we have looked at coordination with all the other parties of NASCO to deal with that particular question.

    There's never enough to satisfy every watershed, all the stakeholders in each of the watersheds. We recognize that, but we are attempting at this time to deal with the one question, the marine survival, that has plagued the Atlantic salmon for a number of years. We do always try to be prepared to deal with the question of the endowment funds when the opportunity comes up.

Á  (1150)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

    I want to compliment you, Mr. Cuzner. You get a minute left and you ask a question that takes about four and a half minutes. You learned well from your buddy Hearn over here.

    And I know that Mr. Stoffer is expert at that sort of thing too. So, Mr. Stoffer, you have the floor.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much.

    I want to follow up on Roger's question regarding the Atlantic salmon endowment fund.

    First of all, congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Bevan.

    As you know, the Rubber Boot Brigade of Atlantic Canada is a very effective volunteer group of people throughout all of Atlantic Canada, and they spend an awful lot of their own money and time doing the best to rehabilitate the rivers and to bring back the salmon. So my first question is, at your level, have you ever recommended to the deputy minister and to the minister that indeed the Atlantic salmon endowment fund would be a good investment?

    Mr. David Bevan: We'd be prepared in times of budgets to have that on the table for consideration. That's what we've done. That's about as far as I can really go on that, given that those are decisions made by government and I can't really comment on what happens there. But we have prepared the MCs, we've gone the route to make sure that, should there be a decision to fund those, we'd be ready to act on it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Today--in fact, probably right now as we speak--9,000 tiny little future salmon are going to be going down the Sackville River. They are going to be put in there, and Walter Regan of the Sackville Rivers Association informs me that today is the last time they're going to be able to do that, because that program for restocking has been cancelled. That is what he's informing me.

    I want to know if you're aware of that and if indeed the government could reverse that decision in order to allow these groups to continue the restocking program.

    Mr. David Bevan: I was not aware of that. I'm not sure where the funding was coming from, etc., and I'd have to get back to you with further information on it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again, it's the Sackville Rivers Association, and Walter Regan is the gentleman's name, the president of that association. He informs me that the 9,000 they put in the river now is the last time they're going to be able to do that. He had indicated that DFO informed him that the program ceases.

    So if you could, we'd appreciate that.

    Sir, my other question for you is this. I'm amazed at the lightning speed of DFO. The FRCC report came out on April 29, and on May 4 the minister made the announcement. That's five days. That's pretty good, because I remember sending correspondence to DFO and it took 90-something days to get a letter back regarding a particular individual's concern.

    So my question is, is the Sable Island Gully a protected area right now? Is it completely protected?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. David Bevan: To my knowledge--and that's certainly something that's outside of my direct responsibility--there's been no formal announcement on that at this moment. That, therefore, is something that's in the works.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: In question period last week, Minister Regan had indicated that indeed it was a protected area.

    Mr. David Bevan: I'm unable to really get into that one because I don't know the status. There's the potential for announcements shortly. Whether the announcement came after the fact or whether it's announced and something is already in place, I can't tell you that.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I guess the reason I say that is that I've been here since 1997 and various organizations or groups have been arguing since then to have this designated as a protected area. And it's almost seven years. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but the minister made a very good decision in terms of the gulf, in terms of the quota allocation of the cod. We support that decision. It only took five days after a report came out--it had a lightning speed--yet you can look at other groups that have been asking for over seven years for the designation of a protected area.

    The reason I say that is the northern bottlenose whale.... As you know, scientists with COSEWIC are considering...I'm not sure if they've listed it as an endangered species or not, but I do know that it's at least a threatened species, and they congregate near the Sable Island Gully. So why the delay in ensuring that their home base, more or less, where they hang out, hasn't yet been a protected area for them?

    Mr. David Bevan: We do about 175 fish plans a year, so we have some practice in doing fishing plans and we do them every year, for better or for worse. So we definitely have a lot of practice in that.

    We have not been practised in the development of the MPAs. That's new, and it's taking a lot of consultation. We need to get it right. I know there's been a lot of progress made. I think they're very close to being able to make announcements, but I can't really give you any more of the specifics on that without getting back to the department and having the ocean sector come back to you.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, great.

    Then, may I ask another question? We issued concerns in our last report regarding military dump sites that are out in the ocean. Obviously, the department is working with DND in that regard. Is there any timeline that you can give us of when that information should be completed by DND as to how many and where these sites are within the ocean?

    Mr. David Bevan: I don't think I have that, but Sylvain may.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis (Director, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): We're working very closely with DND, and they've started a huge program called the WADP, the warfare agent disposal project. We are trying to identify all the locations where possible military agents could have been disposed or placed. We had an interdepartmental meeting recently, but I wouldn't be able to give you a clear timeline. We can get back to you on that one. I can certainly inquire from the committee and find out what the timelines are for this committee to come back.

    One agreement that we have, though, is that as soon as the reports are ready--it's a major risk assessment that is being done--the material will be shared with other departments for us to make the assessment over the risks that are posed by these disposal sites and to do a review of the risk assessment model as well.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: All right.

    Mr. Chairman, I just recently had the opportunity to go to--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): You're a little over time now, Mr. Stoffer, but if you keep it quick, we'll let you go on this one.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

    I had the chance to visit Sable Island last Friday, and the people on the island, Zoe Lucas and Gerald, are concerned that the government may decide to take all the people off that island and not to support that regard. Was that a factual statement of what they've indicated, or has the department looked at other means of keeping people on the island?

    Mr. David Bevan: That, I think, is Transport Canada and the coast guard. I don't know the specifics of that, but we will have to get back to you on that one as well.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Mr. Burton, please.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    A really quick one for a short answer...and then I've have a more complicated question.

    On this seal oil conference you mentioned, are there any details on that, as to where it is and the actual date? I'm quite curious.

  (1200)  

    Mr. David Bevan: We've undertaken to get you a response on that. We'll do that as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

    I know we're here on the east coast fishery, but on the west coast we're also concerned about hatchery funding. Could you just quickly tell me what the considerations are for continued funding for west coast hatchery projects?

    Mr. David Bevan: At this point, there are some measures to look for efficiencies, to the tune of about $1 million, under the salmonid enhancement program. Beyond that, no decisions have been made on any other alterations. That is all that's on the table at this point. It's not looking for changes to the delivery of the program but for efficiencies within the administration of the program to help reduce the costs.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Would you be considering turning the program over, for instance, and any one community, such as a native band or something like that, could--

    Mr. David Bevan: Lots of possibilities are under consideration, but there have been no decisions at this time. It will continue in 2004-05 as it has in the past, with the exception of those measures to increase the efficiency.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you for that.

    I'm quite interested in the seal situation. Mr. Provenzano actually did ask a number of the questions that I was thinking about, but if you don't mind, I'd really like to relate it to the west coast as well. We do obviously have, I think, some concerns on the west coast, certainly not at the population levels of the east coast, but there are definitely concerns for the salmon population on the west coast in terms of predation by various herds of seals in various areas.

    You mentioned right at the beginning of your introductory remarks that DFO was committed to sustainable development and economic opportunities. I firmly believe there is an economic opportunity on the west coast, specifically in my area around the Queen Charlotte Islands and along the north coast. I'm just wondering where DFO is in terms of possibly considering some type of sustainable harvest of the sea lion population on the west coast.

    We were in Norway last year; they're producing a lot of products that seem to have good value. Obviously the east coast seal organization is able to market their products, and I do have people on the west coast who are interested in a similar situation. The previous minister seemed to be considering the possibility of some type of harvest commitment. I'd like to know if DFO is pursuing that in any way with the new minister, and if we could expect some sort of an approach along those lines in the near future.

    Mr. David Bevan: We have had proposals coming in from the west coast. What we need to do, obviously, is look at those proposals relevant to the sustainability of a hunt, and at what level it could be maintained, etc., and then have public stakeholder discussions in that regard.

    It's very preliminary at this point. We have not gone into a very large...with no public consultations yet. We have not looked at the actual biology of the target species. Those are things we would have to do.

    So there is a possibility there, but a lot of work would have to be done to get there. I guess we've been concentrating on a few of the other issues on the west coast, and have not yet really put that as a priority.

    Mr. Andy Burton: What sort of consultation happens on the east coast prior to a seal hunt? You're saying that we have to consult and study and so on, but we must have some indication of population levels on the west coast. If not, I think the availability is there to determine those levels using local knowledge, local information, which could probably be done fairly rapidly.

    You talk about public consultation. I'm not sure what you mean by that in terms of.... Surely DFO has the right to make decisions on harvest levels of whatever species. I think we need to look at ecosystem management in harvesting rather than species-specific management. I think the seals obviously are part of this whole system.

    I guess I'm wondering why it's taking so long to realize that there is a problem on the west coast as well as on the east coast, and why we can't deal with it more quickly.

  (1205)  

    Mr. David Bevan: There's been a long-standing body of scientific knowledge on the east coast to help manage the fishery. On the development of the current three-year plan, we had a seal forum in St. John's, Newfoundland, attended by approximately 200 or so stakeholders. It was a big process, involving not just hunters and provincial governments but also everyone from animal rights on through. It was a very interesting process. I chaired it, and it was sometimes felt that we needed to get between the proponents of the various views in order to keep it on track.

    We would need to go through the same kind of process in the Pacific region as well. We'd need to get the biology and then have fairly open and transparent consultations involving not just those who want to hunt but also those who are otherwise concerned.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Just very quickly, could we get some sort of commitment from DFO that they would at least start along this path in terms of consultation and scientific knowledge-gathering? Because if we don't start, we'll never finish, and I think it's long overdue.

    Is there a possibility of a commitment that DFO will start along that path for the west coast?

    Mr. David Bevan: I'd have to have further consultations inside the department. I can't commit the department right here and now. But I think you've expressed a view that's also been shared by some of the proponents, and we do have a responsibility to come back to you with an answer on that.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you, Mr. Burton.

    I'd like to follow up on that, if I may, Mr. Bevan. Take the Puntledge River in Courtenay on Vancouver Island; the seals and the sea lions sit there, watch for the spring salmon to come in, and then slide off the bank, into the river, to take the salmon. I've had reports of that sort of behaviour for years.

    Of course, years ago at the mouth of the Fraser River you didn't see any seals or sea lions, and now they just line the dike. The committee members saw it on our last trip to the west coast. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that early in the spring, for example, when there are a few spring salmon coming into the Fraser River, they're going to be targeted by these seals and sea lions. And something is going to have to be done.

    What I'm getting from you is that the department has not begun to investigate the impact, and has not decided to take some action. Is that a correct assumption on my part or not?

    Mr. David Bevan: I'm going to have to get back to you on that, because I want to ask the Pacific region. You may be aware that there have been actions taken in the past, in particular in the Puntledge River, to protect migrating salmon from seals. Some measures will also be taken this year in terms of some of the species at risk, with concerns around Sakinaw Lake in particular.

    So there are specific areas where there has been action, but I think the broader issue, of whether there should be a seal hunt in Pacific Canada, has not yet been fully ramped up. No, we have not gone there and looked at that. We have looked at specific conservation concerns in particular areas, and taken measures to deal with predation, but that doesn't get at the broader issue of the population--namely, has it been growing, and if so, to what extent, and can that be something that would support a hunt?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): It just seems to me that with this whole notion of species at risk--which is of concern to you, as we discussed before the committee sat today--there are difficulties. But what you have with the cod on the east coast and, I would suggest, with certain runs of fish in the Fraser River and other rivers, is a species at risk, and the key predator here is the seal and the sea lion. A huge public relations battle has to be fought. I think we have to gear up for that, or the department does, and quickly, because I think these things are coming to a head.

    Mr. David Bevan: I think we do have to come back to the committee with a response to the obvious position of the committee to investigate the idea or the possibility of a seal hunt.

    I mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, before the meeting that there was a possibility of an announcement. Apparently that has in fact started. It's a significant announcement on foreign overfishing on the Grand Banks. I've been asked to go to support the minister in this regard. We do have copies here of what is being announced.

    Mr. Guy Beaupré from the international directorate could answer any questions, should the committee have any. Unfortunately, I have to leave now to support the minister.

  (1210)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have just a little snapper, a little question before you leave. You're going to be our lead at NAFO, I presume.

    Mr. David Bevan: That's correct.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: In relation to what's in the announcement, and looking ahead to the NAFO meetings, are we going to try to build support for managing these stocks on the nose and tail?

    Mr. David Bevan: Clearly, we've raised that issue with a number of the contracting parties. We don't have the support at this point. It's difficult for me to say what's going to happen in the next number of months. The NAFO meeting, while not that far away...it's only September, and there are events.... It's going to be difficult for me to say at this time exactly what we're going to do at that meeting.

    The announcement does indicate the level of overfishing. It's significant. It's alarming. It's in the range of.... Well, I'd better let Mr. Beaupré give you that detail.

    At any rate, we are going to have to take action long before the meeting.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you again, Mr. Bevan, for your testimony this morning. Congratulations again on your promotion, your new job.

    My job, as you know, is to wake up every morning and be the fisheries minister's worst nightmare. You, at times, may get caught in the crossfire, and I apologize for that when it happens. You're an outstanding man, and we certainly appreciate your efforts.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): I'm going to take the direction of the committee. The announcements are here, I believe, that Mr. Bevan is going for. Are there copies available now? Are there some announcements here?

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: There's extra funding to deal with overfishing. A major delegation is being sent to try to build support, and a few things like that.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are they going down to the Greenpeace--

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: It's something like that. I'll leave it up to the department to give you the specifics.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Should we continue with the meeting?

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I think we should continue with this at the conclusion of this meeting, given that our intentions are to address these people for the moment, unless there's something....

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Fine. We'll go then to Mr. Steckle, please.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: That is not to prevent me from getting my time at the microphone.

  (1215)  

    Mr. John Cummins: No. But I agree with you.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: My interests, expertise, and experience are largely with the freshwater fishery in the Great Lakes area. We don't have any seals in that area, but we have other species that give us a lot of problems. We've discussed those many times. I don't think I need to remind the department what those species are.

    A question was raised by the chairman, and perhaps a number of people this morning, about how to manage public relations between what is best for the ecosystem in managing it and what certain people and public interest groups today are trying to put forward as their agenda. I think primarily of what has happened over a good many years with Greenpeace and its effort in lobbying against the seal hunt.

    We harvest a reasonable number of seals today. I'm not sure it's the right number, but given that's what science says, we will take that as the right number for the time being. The chairman has given us some indication that some species of salmon may be endangered because sea lions and seals are in areas where perhaps they have not been previously, historically, just as we have black cormorants in the Great Lakes system. They're not indigenous to that area, but they've come into that area and they're causing us a lot of harm. Now we have people who believe that because they're there they have always been there, and they should be protected. We protect what we can see, but we can't see the fish in the water.

    How do we find that balance? I know it is a pretty difficult question, but whose interest comes first? We have people who make a living out of the fishing industry, and some have lost that living because the species are no longer there. The cod is a good example. I'm not here to suggest it was due to overfishing, trawlers, or seals, but we've lost the cod fishery at a great cost, not only to people in their personal lives who created a living from that industry, but to taxpayers right across the country who supported the people who lost that industry.

    We have science. We have traditional knowledge from the people who have done the fishing. But many times in the past there has been conflict between what the scientists were saying and what the traditional fishermen were saying. How do we find the balance and know what to believe, whether it's tradition-based knowledge, or science done by official scientists who go out on the water? How do we find that balance and reconcile those two?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte (Director, Resource Management Branch, Atlantic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): That is a very difficult question to answer, but I think the principal answer is open communication and consultation. Mr. Bevan mentioned the seal forum, for example, which brought a lot of groups together in a room. There wasn't complete consensus on the issues themselves, but from my perspective, prior to those open discussions there was a lot more controversy and negative press from a lot of groups on the seal hunt. Following it, we still get that, but it's not major. There are still the groups out there whose job is to fight against a seal hunt.

    But I think the Atlantic policy framework itself identifies a number of strategies we're trying to put forward. We're trying to get industry more involved in the decision-making; we're trying to be open and transparent in all the decisions. We talk about stewardship recently. We've been talking about co-management and partnership in the past. I think all of these elements are a way to move forward.

    I don't think you're ever going to get to a position where all the groups are going to agree. The example used is a seal hunt in B.C. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of groups out in B.C against that, but I think the first step is to get them around a table in a forum, discuss the issues, and get the science on the table—and the other issues.

    I don't know if that answers your question, but that's basically where the department is heading.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I know it's a difficult question. Obviously communications is generally the starting point, where basically we come together and start to understand the issues and our concerns.

    The minister and the department had an opinion on April 26 that the cod fishery should not be reopened. On May 4 there was a section, the 3Pn and 4RS areas, opened for cod fishing for this year to, I think, 3,500 tonnes. Why the change in direction?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: The principal change in direction was that since the initial decision to close last year, there's been a lot of communication and consultation. As you know, the provinces are involved in the process now to develop what we hope are recovery plans for these stocks.

    When the minister made his decision—partly based on the FRCC report, which promoted this idea of stewardship, of trying to get science and industry on the same wavelength and determining how you do that—he rightly decided that the best way was to have a limited fishery: you state that there will be a fishery this year at those levels. There were a few conditions applied to that announcement. The minister requires the industry to develop conservation harvesting plans, which they've always been doing for groundfish fisheries. He wanted them to focus on certain things with respect to conservation, with respect to balancing the capacity that's out there with the available resource, because it's going to be a very big challenge for the department and industry to manage this type of limited fishery.

    There are some decisions to be made by industry as to how they balance it. Whether it means everybody can go fishing or just certain groundfish-dependent fishermen has yet to be resolved, but there will be discussion.

    The other element he's demanding—and this is to try to decrease the gap between the science view and the industry's view of the resource—is that industry and science and the department must sit down to develop, between now and next year's fishery, indices to judge whether the stock is stable, declining, or increasing, and they must have specific rules agreed to beforehand on what happens should there be an indication of decrease; i.e, either we close the fishery, or we reduce the TAC by 50%, or whatever.

    So I think things are a bit different from last year.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Paul Steckle: But the science would suggest, would it, that we should have a fishery this year at a limited quantity?

    I support the view of opening it. My question is, what changed people's minds? Was it public pressure? Was it pressure from the fishing industry? Was it science? What was it?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I think it was basically the requirement to close the gap between the points of view. I don't think, in the minister's mind, you can have real conservation without the industry buying into it.

    For example, the northern cod stock— 2J, 3KL—is still under moratorium. You haven't seen anybody arguing about that. That's because the industry and everybody seems to agree. If we can get them to agree on the state of the stock—and I'd like to say that I think DFO science is the best science on this—

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I have just one more question, and that is, does your strategy for building cod stocks include cod farming and cod grow-out initiatives?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: In the strategy, those elements are ongoing. I saw a program on television this past week about some cod grow-out facilities in Newfoundland. I believe those are part of the whole equation.

    Of course, when the minister announced these limited quotas—the 3,000 and 3,500 tonnes—he indicated that all removals are going to be counted under them. This includes the sentinel science fisheries that industry carries out, the experimentation with gear, and I assume any other removals such as these.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

    Just to make the committee aware, Mr. Beaupré, the director general for international affairs, has joined us. I think we want to continue the line of questioning, but perhaps before the committee rises he will inform us and bring us up to speed on the announcement that's ongoing.

    Mr. Hearn.

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

    I would suggest that if we have other pertinent questions we try to get through them quickly, because we'd certainly like to hear Mr. Beaupré. I believe his announcement has more significance to this total picture than a lot of what we have done. We're seeing some movement here, and I think we should discuss it.

    Let me make just a few quick observations. Sometimes we tend to come down on the department, but there are things happening. From our own perspective around the table here, we can take some credit for some of this. In relation to seals, to see some action on the seals, to see the increased quota, certainly is a positive thing. I think it's going over very well.

    I believe from some of the discussions I've had, and undoubtedly you also, that there are probably more markets out there where we can expand—not the United States, perhaps, but you mentioned Asia. I believe there's a phenomenal market there if we tap in. They're also interested in a lot of other furs. When you see a planeload of mink being flown into Newfoundland to set up a major mink operation—because of the furs, of course—you know there is a market somewhere.

    You talk about seal exclusion zones. Mr. Chair, I have two very quick questions.

    What are some of your plans to keep the seals out, if you're saying the zone is set up in Smith Sound; or are you looking for ways to set up the zone in Smith Sound? Which is it?

    The other question, which nobody has ever answered to my satisfaction after years and years of discussion, requires one very simple answer. Do seals eat cod? What's the story about that?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: Maybe I could turn over part of the answer to my colleague from science on the consumption question.

    Mr. Denis Rivard: There is no doubt in the studies that have been done that seals eat cod, and they eat a number of other species of fish as well. This has been well documented. The question of predation could be one issue, but I would like to draw to your attention that there are other problems that may prevent the cod stocks from recovering. Productivity of the cod stocks is a lot lower than it used to be. The growth has not been as good throughout the 1990s. This is one of the reasons the stocks had difficulty recovering. The standing stock biomass is low as well. The fact that you don't have enough of the spawners there means it is difficult, when the good times come, to actually create all of the larvae, all of the eggs, all of the babies that will be needed to establish the future population. So we are fighting a number of biological issues in trying to re-establish these stocks.

    I think we should keep the whole picture in mind when we are discussing seal predation. There are a number of other factors affecting the productivity of the cod stocks and groundfish stocks in general.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I thank you for that. I agree totally. I didn't want to indicate, nor did we as a committee ever indicate, that we blamed seals alone. It may be a major factor, but some of them you can control, some of them you can't, the natural ones. We're aware of that.

    On the seal exclusion zone?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I'll just make a comment on what Denis said. I was involved in some detailed discussions on this predator-prey angle recently. It was pointed out that it's not just the seals, there are other predators out there. The mackerel stock is quite healthy these days. It was pointed out during these discussions that there are these other predators that affect the recovery of the cod stocks.

    On the seal exclusion zones, I can't really give you much information. I'm hearing that there have been meetings on setting these up, and they're running into difficulties on exactly your question, how we do this and what the effects are. I'm not sure if there's any other information here at the table. This is the feedback I've been getting up to this point.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have two other points in relation to the fishery, not directly connected to the report, but part of it. One deals with the coast guard.

    The coast guard has just come out with a new list of regulations. They probably haven't been announced yet, and may not be official yet. One of them is extremely dangerous for fishermen off our coast. As you know, as the resource becomes smaller and smaller, fishermen are pushed farther and farther out to sea, especially crab fishermen with smaller boats who go out 200 miles to fish for crab.

    If you're in distress and call in, the coast guard will basically say to you under the new regulations, “Well, is there somebody there who can give you a tow? Is there a commercial tow tug around, or whatever?” If you're out there with your radio gone and probably your engine down, you're probably going to say, “I don't think so”. They will say, “We will make some calls for you to see if we can get somebody to go out and tow you in”. John Cummins says, “Yes, I'll go out and tow them in for $20,000”. If the coast guard tells you about this--this is in writing, by the way--and you say no, they take that to mean you had a chance to be towed and turned it down, even though the cost was astronomical.

    They're trying to treat all parts of the country alike--in fact, that's basically spelled out--but you cannot. In some areas you do have a lot of people in the towing business. You certainly have them on your coast in the more sheltered areas. But 200 hundred miles off the coast of Newfoundland is not where you can play around with search and rescue. If the present regulations are implemented, somebody will be lost because of the inaction of the coast guard, and it will become a major issue.

    One other little issue we've raised before with the minister is vessel insurance. Years ago, the department had a vessel insurance program. Then, as rates stabilized, the commercial provider could provide the insurance more cheaply than the government could. In fact, most people were going to the private sector. That has changed tremendously. Nobody wants to insure a boat any more. It costs an arm and a leg. Many are not insured. There is a major deductible, and in most cases they won't insure anything over 10 years old. Basically, for the average fisherman there's nothing available. Yet in agriculture, and so on, we have special insurance programs.

    I asked the minister about this, and he basically said they didn't want to get back into the insurance program. However, it's getting to the point where if somebody doesn't, we are going to have an industry in trouble.

    These are two issues I'd like you to maybe not comment on, but certainly take note of.

  (1230)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Those are a little off the agenda this morning, Mr. Hearn. They're good issues, there's no question about that, but I'm not sure whether the witnesses are prepared to discuss them.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'm willing to just leave it on the record for their information, rather than waste the time. I'd rather hear from Mr. Beaupré.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Okay.

    Mr. Stoffer, please.

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

    One of the good things that DFO does is give funding to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. They do a great job, especially on the east coast, in supplementing the work of the coast guard.

    There's another organization that works very closely with the DFO, and that's the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society. When they appeared before us in Halifax, our chairman, Mr. Wappel, was very impressed with the work they had done. I've met with them on several occasions over the years.

    I believe they originally had funding when they started up in 1974. One of our recommendations was that the department continue to fund them. They do tremendous work with the department in another role of scientific research and giving advice. The recommendation came back that the government was not prepared to fund them. May I ask why?

    Mr. Denis Rivard: I met some of the members of the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society in February, when we had a workshop on collaboration in fisheries research. Our scientists in the Maritimes are, in fact, members of that society, so we certainly support it in kind. The department doesn't financially support associations directly, per se, but we do support associations when they can be part of a collaborative program, if you will.

    It so happened that the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society in the Maritimes has been one of the sponsor organizations or one of the manager associations, if you will, of the sentinel program. It's one of the ways they have found to support the broader initiative of educating fishermen, training people, and participating in collaborative work.

    Lately, what we have done is meet with them, and the local fishery and science directors have met with them. They have agreed, on the one hand, to adjust the program of the society so it meets the available budgetary envelope and to allow them, in the spirit of collaborative work, to not only use the sentinel program funding to monitor cod, but to use that envelope to address other issues of interest to their members. I'm told this arrangement culminated, in fact, in a new joint project agreement with the organizations. This should help them to move ahead, in fact, at least in the coming year.

    Again, we recognize that this is a good way to do some collaboration, this is a good way to do some education, and this is a good way to involve the industry in collaborative work. I think we have worked on what we can do to assist the organization to move ahead and continue a program this year.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I have one final comment before Mr. Beaupré speaks.

    Gentlemen, anything you can do to recommend to the government that the Atlantic salmon endowment fund should indeed get the funding we've been requesting in our all-party report would be good. As you know, for every dollar they would receive, they probably spend ten dollars of their own money. It's a tremendous investment. It's not an expenditure, it is an investment.

    There are thousands of people in Atlantic Canada at work on the rivers, the Rubber Boot Brigade, as we call them. If the recommendation could be strongly endorsed by you to the department, it would be greatly appreciated, as well as in terms of the hatchery programs. I know there are differences between the Atlantic Salmon Federation and hatcheries, but I'm a firm believer that hatcheries play an important role.

    Recently, in Mr. Cuzner's riding, the Margaree Fish Hatchery received $50,000, if I'm not mistaken. Was it a little bit more?

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It was $500,000.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Excellent. To me, it's an investment, it's not an expenditure.

    If that kind of rationale could be portrayed to the Atlantic salmon endowment fund, similar to what happened on the west coast, I think you'd go a long way in assisting those people.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Is there a response?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: All I can say is we'll pass on your recommendation and we'll see where it goes from there.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: All you can do is try.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Before we go to Mr. Beaupré, I have a couple of quick questions.

    Earlier, we were talking about scientific research and cooperation within industry. Since 1989, the snow crab fishermen in area 12 have invested close to $10 million in scientific research. This past year, there was an end to the co-management arrangement they had with the minister, and the government refused to permit the traditional crab fishermen to undertake scientific work. They had intended to fund it with their own money and provide their own scientists, vessels, and gear.

    It was a good example of cooperation between industry and government, and the government backed off. Could we have an answer on why it happened? Why did the government back away from these fellows, who had demonstrated their commitment over the years with a $10 million investment? Why did the government say they didn't want it? Can anyone answer that?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I believe you are referring to last year's...?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): That's correct.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: The fact is, the department was ready to enter into that agreement. The problem at the time, I believe, was that the industry was refusing to meet some of the basic requirements of the department relating to the data collected and how they were going to be transmitted to the department. It's for that reason that this did not go forward.

    Just to bring you up to date, we're handling this somewhat differently this year. The minister announced that off the top of the 26,600 tonnes, he put aside 400 tonnes of that to carry out the science work required. That was supported by the mid-shore fishers, I understand. It went out for a demand for bids, and there was a successful recipient, who I believe was from the Magdalen Islands and who may be one of the mid-shore players, but I can't confirm that specifically. It seems to be on track again this year, and the mid-shore fleet, which you were referring to, is onside with that process this year.

    Last year, we were willing to go forward, but there were some technical elements there that the proponents did not wish to fulfill with respect to supplying the data, how they would be supplied, and how they could be used.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): But my comment is that their contribution has been substantial in any one year. I would have hoped the department would have been able to resolve those issues to keep the money flowing in, because money for science is scarce. If you look at $10 million over the last 15 years, that's not an insubstantial fund on a yearly basis, and it's money that probably should be addressed.

    The last comment I might want to make—and perhaps Mr. Bevan is the one who should be answering this, but unfortunately he's not with us—is that this whole Atlantic fisheries policy review went on in much the same way as the Pearse-McRae process went forward on the west coast, which was just reported yesterday. It went on without any mention of the fact that over the last number of years, there have been hundreds of millions of dollars used to buy up licences, boats, and gear, and to transfer them into an aboriginal fishery. This Atlantic fisheries policy review has gone on as if that didn't even happen, and yet it's had a huge impact on the fishery and the management of the resource.

    Why is it that you can conduct a policy review and totally ignore that critical element?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I'm not quite sure what the question is.

    I would assume that first nations could participate in those rounds of consultations. The Marshall decision by the Supreme Court was obviously an obligation that the department had to fulfill. We did that by setting up a system that was agreed to by the fishing industry. The one premise was that we would incorporate the first nations into the fishery without increasing capacity. The way we did that was through the purchase of licences from willing fishers who wished to depart from the fishery.

    Mr. John Cummins: I guess the point is that the whole issue didn't even warrant a mention in this Atlantic fisheries policy review. I'm just saying that, in my view, you can't conduct a policy review and ignore the impact these hundreds of millions of dollars have had.

    While you referred to Marshall, I mean, that's just not the case. You've argued to the contrary in the Barlow case and the Shubenacadie case, and some of the assumptions the department has used in getting into the marketplace aren't really a true representation of Marshall. So there's been this mixed message coming out from the department. On the one hand, when it comes to policy, you say that Marshall makes you do it; one the other hand, when you go to court, as I mentioned with those two cases, you say, well, it's not really the case.

    Anyway, we should get on to Mr. Beaupré.

    If you would, sir.

    Mr. Guy Beaupré (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize. I had the message just recently that the press conference with the minister has been delayed to this afternoon at 3:45 p.m.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Yes, Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you.

    I'll leave the announcement to the minister, but what does perturb me is--and certainly I would ask the officials to pass it along--that the announcement has been delayed until 3 o'clock. The minister is going to be in the House today. Ministerial statements will take place in the House, and that's where the minister should be making his statement. That's where all ministers should be making their statements so that the other parties will have a chance to respond.

    We've seen too much of this from ministers all over the place, running around making announcements, relevant to the people of this country, outside the House when Parliament is in session. If the House is closed, we have no problems. I think that's an insult to the House and an insult to all of us to have a press conference announcing a major decision a week before an election, albeit outside the House.

    So I certainly would ask you to pass that along to him, and he should make his announcement in the House. If not, perhaps we'll make it for him.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): True as that may be, Mr. Hearn, it's not the position of the official before us to enter into the minister's political decision, as you say.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: No, absolutely, and I'm only asking him to pass on the message. I'm certainly not blaming him.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Okay, so perhaps we have some questions.

    Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo Mr. Hearn's comments. I agree with him. That's why the House of Commons is there.

    If it's possible, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can ask some questions that may, for example, not expose what the announcement may say. There are some questions regarding enforcement that I would like to ask, if possible.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Mr. Stoffer, you have the floor.

    I would just remind the members of the committee that our research people have gone over the government's response and have prepared some excellent questions here and some lines of questioning that we haven't addressed this morning. I think they are worthy of addressing. You might just take a look at that. We do have about 15 minutes left, and I'm sure the officials would enjoy some of these very penetrating questions. They'd enjoy the opportunity to respond, I'm sure.

    Anyway, Mr. Stoffer, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Beaupré, I know you announced that the minister is going to make the decision later, but one thing we have said, domestically and internationally, is that if we don't get tough on enforcement, all the rules and regulations mean absolutely nothing.

    What happened in the CBC special on the Tecum Sea, I think it's called, if I'm not mistaken...that was an example of a bureaucratic mess. You had three departments and really nobody taking the lead to enforce the regulations and the rules, and this ship ended up going away nowhere.

    Is it your intention, without releasing the details of it, that indeed we will never see another incident of the Tecum Sea in this country again?

    Mr. Guy Beaupré: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

    I think what you're referring to is partly addressed by the announcement the minister made on March 16 that was relating to increasing the Canadian presence on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and that was also referring to the renewal of the contract of the provincial airlines for air surveillance. In that announcement the minister also referred to increased funding for monitoring and analysis of the information that we get from vessel monitoring systems and observer reports.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: In our recent coast guard report, we unanimously adopted the position that we believe it's the coast guard that should be patrolling and monitoring what goes on out on our oceans. Again, without releasing any details, has that recommendation been taken seriously in the possible announcement coming up?

    Mr. Guy Beaupré: Yes, it has.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: And will there be additional funding attached to that announcement?

    Mr. Guy Beaupré: I think so.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're getting good.

    Obviously, when Canada appears to raise its head and say, okay, we're going to get tougher now on violators.... Has there been, prior to this announcement, consultation with, say, the United States or Greenland or other countries in regard to what their viewpoints of it may be, or will the announcement be made and then...consult with, for example, NAFO countries or UNFA, or whatever?

    Mr. Guy Beaupré: I would say we are in continuous contact with our counterparts in the NAFO regional organization and other organizations. So the announcement that the minister is going to make is not going to come as a surprise.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

    One of the things I find most effective in enforcement is, for example, if you're in the Yukon and you shoot a sheep or a goat out of season, your truck, your gun, and everything else are confiscated, taken away and done. If you're caught with drugs, if you're importing drugs, the vehicle that you have is taken and eventually sold at public auction.

    Is there any indication, besides what we've heard in the news about a $1 million fine, that for anybody committing infractions in terms of pollution or whatever, the ship they operate will indeed be confiscated?

    You don't have to say yes or no; you can nod, you know.

    I mean, money is one thing, but you if take away their vessel.... One of the arguments I've always made is if you want to stop drinking and driving, take the vehicle away from the person who's caught. I can assure you you'll drastically reduce the incidence in this country. It's the same when you're overfishing or polluting our waters. If you take the vessel away and sell it at public auction or for scrap, I can assure you, you'll reduce the incidence.

    Is that kind of tough legislation or tough enforcement coming at 3:45 p.m.?

    I know he can't say it, but he can nod.

    Okay, that's a recommendation then. How's that?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  (1250)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I guess my question would be more directed at Mr. Rivard. It's with regard to seismic activity off the west coast of Cape Breton. There had been some initial science done during the period of the seismic testing. We have been told before that this science was being tabulated. When can we expect to have that forthcoming?

    In the wake of that, we have seen CNSOPB grant additional seismic licences, permits, for over on the other side of the province, over in area 23, I believe. It's implied that the minister can overrule any CNSOPB decision. Is that in fact true? Just give me the overview of where we are with the seismic.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: My understanding is that the minister cannot override a CNSOPB decision. I think it relates to NRCan, the Minister of Natural Resources, and I think the board has its own authority based on the federal-provincial--

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Is that even in accordance with the Law of the Sea?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, if I may interrupt, doesn't the minister have ultimate authority under the protection of fish and fish habitat? He's never delegated his authority over saying yes, something can happen, or no, it can't. Is that correct, that he can ultimately say no?

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: Yes, that's correct. But the role of DFO through CNSOPB is to provide advice on the risk attached to it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: But the minister could say no if he wanted to.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: I assume he could, in light of section 35.

    Actually, what we're doing is we're hearing a series of peer reviews, and over the next two weeks, we're hearing a peer review panel where university scientists, industry scientists, and government scientists will be meeting to review five to six papers that deal with the impact of seismic activities on mammals, fish, juveniles, larvae, and vertebrates, as well as some propagation models. So we're actually doing a full scientific review at this time.

    In relation to the shooting that took place, the seismic activities that took place in Cape Breton, the study is rolling out. It's a long-term study. We assume the papers could be ready in the fall for a peer review process where all the parties will be invited to come and provide advice to the department and other agencies.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But obviously, there was a body of science, maybe not specific to Cape Breton but an international body of science, that applies to the impact of seismic on the crab grounds that your branch would have felt confident in, with these particular criteria. I mean, you people put fairly specific...was it DFO that put those criteria in place, those parameters, or was it CNSOPB that would have done that?

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: In the Cape Breton case, the review process was done by the board, it wasn't done by DFO, but we had scientists providing advice to the board.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: So I would imagine that there would have been enough, a large body of international study done on this, so that they didn't feel there was any immediate or substantial danger. They weren't compromising the precautionary principle, I suppose.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: Not at the point when the decision was made by the board. The scientific recommendation that went to the board was not a DFO recommendation, it was an independent scientific panel's recommendation, which had various parties involved in it. But there was agreement that further research would be quite valuable, and that's why we're actually doing the crab study in Cape Breton at this time.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I also want to ask about the munitions, the dump sites. I know there's a fairly substantial piece of work being undertaken by DND to establish what types of munitions are out there, the extent to which they're out there, and where in fact they're found. Do you have somebody working hand in glove with DND on that, or just where do you guys in DFO stand on that?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: Our understanding is that DND has actually contracted out to an expert firm the full review. And they're going quite in depth; in fact, they are actually interviewing older government scientists who would have had something to do with this and could identify munition dump sites that may not have been reported previously.

    So it's a very major undertaking; in fact, it's a $14-million undertaking. They've designed a risk assessment model for humans and ecosystems, and various species of fish will be looked at, and a series of contaminants are listed. The agreement is that as a soon as the reports are ready they will be shared with all key departments that have a mandate. So we're already planning for a series of our scientists to look at the body of science that will be provided and then report back to DND on concerns we would see and further research that may be required to give us additional information.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Excellent. Thank you.

    Mr. Burton.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to take advice and ask one of the excellent questions that were prepared for us, because it does actually fit in with one that I had roughed out for myself. I'm going to quote from here: “The Minister of the Environment is reported to have suggested that the Fisheries Actprovides a more appropriate legal framework for dealing with threatened or endangeredcod stocks”.

    I think if you take that a step further and look at the whole issue of the Species at Risk Act, and the concerns we have about how that will affect the fishery, how does DFO anticipate or plan on rationalizing those kinds of issues, along with the environment minister, while taking into account the obvious economic impacts that managing the species at risk issues will have on the commercial fishery? How are you going to approach that?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I'll take a stab at that.

    I think the reference from the Minister of the Environment was basically that the Fisheries Act provides the tools. As you know, one of the steps should the stocks be listed, and even if they are not listed, is to develop a recovery plan. I think the Fisheries Act provides the government a very good tool with which to address that. I think that's the relationship with the minister's comment.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Yes, the tools are there, as you admit, but how are you going to put that into action when a commercial fishery on the Fraser River is shut down because of the minimal amount of returns to the Cultus and the Sakinaw? There are some real concerns about how, in trying to protect those possibly endangered species, you are going to protect the commercial fishery and the people who rely on that. How are you going to rationalize that?

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: My understanding is that once a species is listed, and the government lists the species, then we have to act. In the case you've noted, it's a requirement for government to take actions to minimize the incidental catches of those species. It's not to say you can't have a limited bycatch, as long as it doesn't jeopardize recovery. So leading up to the listing there are consultations on the impacts, the economic and social impacts also. Once it's listed--hopefully before it's listed--then we should be in a situation to have a rebuilding plan for those species in effect.

    Now, we're just getting into this and hopefully in the future we'll have these plans ready to go before there's a need to list anything. Again, it's all consultation and trying to come up with mechanisms to allow certain activities while protecting these species.

    Mr. Andy Burton: I guess that answered my question to a degree, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Just on the same line, in a recent report--and this was about the west coast--John Fraser implied that DFO was relying more on SARA than the Fisheries Act to protect weak stocks and suggested it was a mistake.

    Any comments?

·  (1300)  

    Mr. Barry Rashotte: I guess the only comment I have is that you use the best tool you have available. Some people feel the Fisheries Act is the best tool and others feel SARA is the best tool. I think you can use both, depending on the circumstances.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): I guess the issue really is that...the power lies within the Fisheries Act. My personal take on it is that the whole matter of management is really confounded by imposing SARA and COSEWIC on the marine resources, which I would prefer to see remain the sole responsibility of the department.

    It's 1 o'clock. I certainly want to thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today and giving evidence. The efforts that you made to prepare are very much appreciated, and we thank you again.

    I will accept a motion for adjournment.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I so move.

    Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Hearn, thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.