FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 24, 1999

• 0903

[English]

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

I welcome Mr. Giroux from the Scotia Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association.

Mr. Giroux, the floor is yours. We have about half an hour for you to make your original presentation, and then we'll go to questions.

Welcome.

Mr. Brian Giroux (Executive Director, Scotia Fundy Mobile Gear Fishermen's Association): I'll follow your guideline of seven or eight minutes and then a few questions. I have another another meeting that's running concurrently in the next room, and I'd like to get back to that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Brian Giroux: I just have a point of clarification. I clarified it with the girls up front, but it's the Scotia Fundy Mobile Gear Fishermen's Association.

I'm based in Yarmouth. We represent larger vessels, the 45-foot to 65-foot class of vessels, that fish for groundfish, and I'll speak on these as well.

I was very simply going to talk today about the management models and management structure questions I had received in the circulation in advance of the meeting and table a book review of something I've uncovered. We have some copies of it coming. It might be some interesting reading for the committee in terms of trying to find some balance on this issue of who can do this job of managing the resources.

I don't think there's any question, at least in our minds, that it's a difficult job and that it has to be done effectively. I don't think anyone has a genetic ability to do it better than anyone else.

What I would support is keeping the existing structures as much as possible and using the existing consultative and other mechanisms we have. If in fact you are bringing people into the commercial side of this, we already have a structure in place. Many people would complain that the structure is not effective, but....

I guess you could say in some respects we're consulted ad nauseam in this industry. We have individual species meetings, and we have meetings that relate to the scientific process from raw data inputs, through assessment, through peer review, through publication.

• 0905

Most of the people who complain about systems of consultation or the system of management are people who, in the vast majority of situations, haven't gotten their own way. It's very difficult in some of these groups and sectors to sit down with hundreds of participants with hundreds of different agendas and try to come up with some kind of a consensus.

You know what it's like. You're all MPs, and you represent ridings that come from a diversity of interests. It's very difficult for you to sit down and consult all of your constituents and all of your people on the issues that arise from day to day. It's very difficult to build a way forward. I guess we elect a government to lead us through these issues in many respects, and that goes back to the core of what I'm saying about the existing process structure.

We have what I consider to be one of the best scientific structures in the world, albeit a bit damaged and reduced because of program review, as all government was, so to speak. We have a management regime that tries to accommodate the different elements and different processes that happen within. Again, though, oftentimes if you trace back the critics of the system, they're people not getting their own way, or it's this agenda or that agenda not going in the direction they'd like it to go.

Certainly we would be very nervous about setting up a concurrent or duplicate or special status management regime. At some levels, it's probably perfectly appropriate to do so when you get into the implementation of plans and when you get into the detailed implementation of enforcements, codes of conduct, or different elements within it. But having a two-, three- or four-track scientific process is inefficient and probably not conducive to a proper product anyway. We don't have the resources for it regardless. Having a two-, three- or four-track management regime is probably not a good idea either. Again, we consult ad nauseam in this business at a whole range of tiers.

This is the commercial industry. There are ways to fit anybody's voice into that process. The meetings are public, and the meetings are publicized. As long as you represent legitimate stakeholders, you can have a say at these meetings. There is no closed door aspect here unless people begin to tell you that. But after having worked in this type of business for 10 years...it's fully open and available for anyone who decides to participate in the process. Minutes are circulated, etc.

So for the potential management model question and management structure question, I would say to you that I would not like to deviate from the existing structure of science and its rigorous analysis and protocol. There are ways to fit information in and to fit traditional knowledge in from all sectors, and things like that. I think management itself is more of a consensus-building exercise nowadays. You're trying to come up with a way forward in the tough times and in the difficult situations in which everybody has to get by with less and less.

From the enforcement point of view, I'm not going to ask anyone.... I'd be significantly upset if anyone decided to try to come up with a two-tier, three-tier or whatever-tier enforcement system. We have very similar rules here. We have an enforcement system that's already professional and in place. It's very difficult for you to tell your brother or the guy who lives in the house next to you that he's not allowed to do something. That's why we hire professional enforcement agencies. That's why we have some separation of these enforcement personnel from the communities in many respects. It's so they don't get too closely allied to the issues and the community forces that happen within these communities.

So I guess you could say the three elements of our existing structure, as you're bringing anybody into the structure, must remain intact. We could start to modify the local delivery ends maybe, or the details of the plan, or some of the local elements, but if we go down the road creating separate-track structures for every group, then I'll be asking for one tomorrow in terms of my own scientific process, my own management, and my own enforcement. That's the way it will go. Everybody wants their own piece of the can.

In many respects, we're coming from a rather tarnished time, when we've made some mistakes and the environment hasn't cooperated with us very much. We've ratcheted back and have tried to be exceptionally conservative in the management of these resources, for which the Government of Canada has a responsibility under the act, along with a fiduciary responsibility towards the natives.

• 0910

The Government of Canada ultimately has the responsibility to preserve these natural resources for the good of the country. I don't think the good of the country would be served by having multi-track processes to handle science, enforcement, or management. The good of the country is served by having an open process, having a reasonable process that treats everybody similarly and fairly, and having a process that's world-class from the point of view of the best science we can generate, the best analysis we can get out of that, and then building a management regime that has some consistency in it.

We've come out of the dark time, I agree. I would put forward, though, that many things have been changed. We've totally renovated the assessment and peer review process, for example, in many of these areas of science now. Enforcement is taking on more of a role of auditing, forensics, and a couple of other elements that have to do with modern times.

I think we're at a point at which we're doing more with less, and we're capable of doing better. We'll continue to strive to do better, but I don't think we have enough resources to start splitting off and hiving off and creating separate structures.

I have a book review and I think we've circulated it. It's just from the point of view that no one actually has a perfect, natural ability to do this resource management job. Maybe your research committee can find you a copy of this book.

The Chair: Is the book review called “Playing with Fire”?

Mr. Brian Giroux: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Who wants to start? Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I wish to greet Mr. Giroux.

I took notes while you were speaking, Brian. You mentioned a single management model and a single model for assessing biomass. I think that that is what we currently have. I want to be sure about what you're saying. You want to make sure that while living side by side with Aboriginals, people will be subject to the same regulations and to the same biological assessment. You want to ensure that the data will be shared.

Why am I taking the time to go over this again? It is because I want to avoid getting targeted in the debate. The Standing Committee and I have already asked for a review of the management regime of Fisheries and Oceans. It was not transparent enough for us and people at the grassroots were not being adequately heard out.

Perhaps I arrived a bit late, but could you give me some details about the group that you represent? I think that this group includes some people who are subject to the individual quota regime. I do not know whether all your associations follow the same management model, but I want to emphasize that you already have a head start, because you already have a management method. I remember that in the past we had to fight to obtain this kind of management tool.

My question is as follows. If there are things to be improved or to get done, how can we continue integrating all that? Some say that they do not have enough information. In my opinion, migratory resources constitute the biggest issue. We ask the same question every year: Could we, or should we try to set a percentage for each province? Would that be desirable?

In the case at hand this morning, namely the lobster fishery, we are dealing with sedentary stocks. Thus, it becomes a non-issue. Management is done at the coastal community level.

So, would there be some way of setting percentages for migratory resources? Would it be conceivable, especially as Canada, as a member of NAFO, already has quotas set in advance each year to prevent quarrels with other countries? I'd like you to specify the main species caught by your fishermen as well as your type of management model. Regarding migratory resources, should the percentages be improved so as to avoid quarrels among groups and provinces?

• 0915

[English]

Mr. Brian Giroux: To my knowledge, there now exists a well-organized system already through the different international groups that we belong to, whether we're talking about NAFO or ICCAT or some of the circumpolar groups. For the percentages of the resources, once the science is done, things basically kick out into a sharing formula, and the sharing formulas are already well organized.

Even within our country, to my knowledge, we have informal arrangements between the provinces in which the provinces are guaranteed their relative historic percentages of those resources. For example, when we're dealing with gulf stocks, there are well-established percentages, and people try to keep to those well-established provincial percentages. I've heard outputs from the minister's meeting with different provincial ministers, in which they talked about historic levels and historic access and historic percentages as being roughly the same every year.

Where I live, our main species in this fleet at this time is groundfish that are migratory. For example, we have one stock that ranges from Boston to St. Pierre. We try to work with the different areas like the United States to do some analysis on that, and with other regions within Canada, but they do range over boundaries, both international ones and physical ones that we put in the way as provinces or as management regions of the department.

I guess we try to organize in such a way that when there's an assessment done, all of the information is gathered. That information is then analyzed and put through proven models, it is tuned up, and then the output is used in the different quota-setting mechanisms. Usually it's a TAC, and then the different fleet sectors and regions have their own percentage thereof.

With the Americans per se, in terms of a rigid percentage or a percentage of who gets what on the boundary line between Canada and the United States on the east coast, there is no agreement at this time. The treaty we had in the mid-1970s with the United States guaranteed them access to a whole range of resources across the Scotian Shelf, in the gulf, and in Newfoundland. They actually had negotiated access in the gulf for redfish, for some of the cod elements, and for some of the haddock along the Scotian Shelf, and things like that. The American Congress repudiated that treaty, and the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States ended up at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. A line was then established, but we all know those lines have migratory fish that go back and forth.

At this time, we've been building our dialogue with the Americans about those issues of better assessment of the transboundary stocks. There have been some discussions surrounding management approaches, but it's very different in their system. They use a system of days at sea, with no quota output control, so to speak. You're given a certain amount of days and you go fishing. Whatever you catch in those days, within certain other rules, like mesh size or whatever, goes toward the total days that are allocated to fleets. In our system, usually you're allocated a quota, but we also have management systems, as you know. Lobsters are basically through trap limits and season. For herring, there are some other issues there. So we have different models ourselves.

But we haven't gotten into the issue of fixing any percentages, nor have we had any other discussions like that on this coast with the United States. In the NAFO forum, it's a well-established process. It then flows into the Canadian quota regime, which should ensure regional issues are looked after.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

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

Good morning, Mr. Giroux. I appreciate your comments this morning. I think you've made very good sense and have taken a very common-sense approach to the issues at hand.

I'm sure you're aware that in Sparrow, at paragraph 1119, the Supreme Court says:

The aboriginal peoples, with their history of conservation consciousness and interdependence with natural resources, would surely be expected at the least to be informed regarding the determination of an appropriate scheme for the regulation of the fisheries.

• 0920

Government has gone along that road. They've taken that bit of foolishness to heart, and in fact we do have a two-tiered enforcement system in place in B.C. and, I understand, in some areas down here. Isn't that the case? How are we going to deal with that? How are we going to address this issue? You've suggested that the system that's in place is already adequate for input, that any group that wants to participate can. There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between what you and the court are saying and government policy. Am I off the track on that ?

Mr. Brian Giroux: We come from a different context in terms of the way the AFS has been implemented and just watching that process unfold with all of its problems.

I've been following some of it as closely as I can, coming from the other coast, so to speak, but wasn't there a case recently where someone was caught selling to some of the supermarkets large quantities of canned salmon that came out of the food fishery per se?

I think there's no arguing that there are legitimate rights to food fisheries and to sustenance fisheries and that there are probably many native communities in the country that do an excellent job of it, if you're in isolation or you have a consistent, ongoing track record with those species. I have been in contact with Inuit groups in the north. Those peoples have been living with the beluga stocks for hundreds of years. They still live there, and they have never lost contact with those beluga stocks. So they probably know them more intimately than any animal biologist ever will. I don't think that's the case in all situations. I think there is a legitimate case to be made that once those peoples become unlinked from some of those day-to-day stock issues, then you have the same problems we have with white fishermen.

We have to assess the information we have on these stocks and try to find a way we can strike, if there is in fact commercial available. I know the first access goes along a tiered system based on rights that are out there, but it's not in anybody's best interest for us as the government and the crown, with the responsibility to manage these resources, to allow them to be frittered away, to be canned and sold under the table, so to speak. That's not in the best interest in the long term of the fiduciary responsibilities you have to natives or the responsibilities you have under the act for the fisheries resources in general with the crown having ownership of those resources. I've watched that with horror, as a matter of fact.

The same thing is true for some of the elements of evolution. People have asked us, wouldn't you like some more self-management, self-this, and self-that? Yes, there are some elements we can do more on. We can do more work on our internal things. There are mechanisms, such as a licensing structure, IQs, non-IQs, or whatever you can fit within the context of a good discussion on appropriate management.

Are we going to give everybody the right to enforce their own speed limits in terms of every town or every individual? You already have the right to enforce a speed limit by obeying it, but we find people on the highways everyday that don't obey the speed limit. So you get to a certain point where you need to have a management/enforcement authority that can enforce the laws that are determined to be the best for the resources we're given in trust.

Mr. John Cummins: On the notion of access to resources, you mentioned that in some instances native groups have lost contact with the harvest of a particular species. Should the government require, before they acknowledge a treaty right exists as far as access to a particular species is concerned, that it should be demonstrated that there was traditional access before and a traditional harvest in that species?

Mr. Brian Giroux: I think the latest clarification, or whatever the Supreme Court did last week, has some elements of that within it, but I don't know if, rigidly speaking, that will be the solution to this eventually.

• 0925

Some of those resources are in low abundance. Many anadromous fish, fish that run up the rivers, salmon and gaspereau, have been severely depleted by bad land use practices and acid rain—things like that. For example, most of the salmon rivers in Nova Scotia have been decimated by acid rain. So we could consider giving the salmon to the native communities as one of their traditional resources, which it was, but now it's not there.

So I don't think it's appropriate to say that's the only discussion we can have. Certainly, I think you have to recognize that if you're moving into a new species or a species that maybe wasn't traditionally fished, and there are lots of good examples of that, there are existing structures and management and enforcement regimes people can fit into, as can any other citizen in the country.

Mr. John Cummins: Why isn't it a matter of government policy as opposed to a treaty right?

Mr. Brian Giroux: As I say, I've watched with horror how one of my least favourite deputy ministers at the time, Bruce Rawson, whom you might remember—

Mr. John Cummins: I remember him well.

Mr. Brian Giroux: We used to call him Pol Pot.

Mr. John Cummins: That's nice. That's polite.

The Chair: Do you remember that time he was chased, John?

Go ahead. Sorry, Brian.

Mr. Brian Giroux: He chose to go down that road. That was the genesis of what we have today on the west coast.

On the east coast it wasn't as dramatic an issue, as far as I can determine. He took that upon himself as a bit of a pet project, I think. On the east coast it hasn't unfolded like that. There have been many successful implementations of the AFS, if we can use that term, on this coast. We have a small shrimp fishery off eastern Nova Scotia where there's native participation, and it's working well. But everybody's on the same playing field. Everybody operates within the same regime and cooperates with regard to the science and works on the outputs of that.

I think there are other examples that were working very well before the latest controversy. There are always going to be controversies. I think the way it was implemented was rather nasty. Maybe we're living with the children of that, so to speak. Instead of having more dialogue and trying to come up with a process that was inclusive, the deputy at the time chose a process that was very divisive.

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Brian, for coming today.

I was just wondering if there has been any interest shown by the native community in your specific sector in the fishery. I'm thinking more of the groundfish.

Mr. Brian Giroux: I have no idea. I think these are early days in terms of us understanding what in fact the requirements may be. I'm not presupposing anything.

Mr. Mark Muise: No, I'm asking if the native community has shown an interest.

Mr. Brian Giroux: I had some discussions at the very beginning, and these were all just generalized discussions. As I said, they're in the shrimp fishery in which the same vessels operate off the Canso area. But we've had no specific discussions. Again, these are just very early days. I don't know where the eventual solution to this may lie. I know some groups in the industry in the gulf and in our area have tried to push the natives in some directions like this, and I think that's a bit nasty. But we'll see what unfolds.

Mr. Mark Muise: If it develops into something the aboriginals show interest in going into, when you said we should use the models that are there, do you mean one rule for all, one fishing season for all, that you follow the same management regime that exists?

Mr. Brian Giroux: Yes, and the mechanisms would be relatively simple in many respects. The vast majority of the groundfish licences that are out are in some kind of management pool, ITQ system, or whatever now. It's relatively simple to acquire them in some process. I would say that the model we support would be that you're part of the system, take a number. Here are the meeting dates. If you have some information to feed into the science process, please fill out your log books, etc. But here are the rules. Here's what the season is, here's what this is, here's what that is.

• 0930

It's a little different in our fishery, because the season is year-round, except where it's controlled by quota. In all sectors, whether you're in fixed gear or mobile gear, you're controlled by quota, so we don't necessarily care if you catch your quota in January or December. It's irrelevant for us.

There are spawning area closures and there are things that relate to size and things like that, which are biologically driven, but essentially we're in a little bit different system, that's all.

Mr. Mark Muise: To enter into the fishery, for example, the lobster fishery, there are 968 or some number of licences, so throughout the year there are usually a number that come up for sale. Is that same type of thing happening in the mobile sector, your sector?

Mr. Brian Giroux: Anywhere between 2% and 3% of the licences in the general licence pool of all species change hands every year—give or take 2% to 3%. Almost every type of fishery is revolving at all times. People grow older and retire, new entrants come in, or people sell out for all kinds of reasons. There are essentially 2% to 3% of licences that transact every year—change hands—maybe from father to son, or maybe into an open market situation.

Mr. Mark Muise: How would the cost relate? We know, for example, that a lobster licence and gear could be $350,000 maybe $400,000 depending. Are the costs for the mobile gears similar? The boats are bigger, I recognize that.

Mr. Brian Giroux: It probably all goes back to a standard method of evaluating a business. If you look at the potential for earnings from that unit and then multiply it by a factor of anywhere from seven to 10 to amortize the money, so to speak, you generally end up with the value of what people consider to be the licence.

We also use a thumbnail of what the unit is capable of grossing in a year. So if you gross $100,000 worth of lobster, it's a thumbnail sketch of what the value of the enterprise is worth.

We use standard business analysis, the same sorts of things people use to sell a grocery store.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Brian, it's nice to see you again. You're right, when it comes to meetings, you've probably attended every meeting there's ever been, in many regards. One thing fishermen and fishermen's groups do is meet an awful lot. I want to thank you for participating in all of that.

The mobile gear is mostly under an ITQ system. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Giroux: Almost all of the fleet, yes. There's a small section of the fleet that operates in a pooled system of a competitive fishery.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you know, after the Marshall decision came down, the first concentration of attention was based on lobsters.

We heard differences of opinion toward the management of those lobster stocks. Would you or would you not support an ITQ system on lobsters?

Mr. Brian Giroux: When you look at the way you can assess different stocks, the fundamental problem we have with lobsters is that we don't have any tools or mechanisms to give you a number, so to speak. So the underpinnings of it would be almost impossible. You'd be just picking a number, so it would be a rather arbitrary exercise.

For the other species we have, we have models and assessment mechanisms that can give you a number that says 10 tonnes, 20 tonnes, or whatever. I've never heard any serious discussion about it in my life. I know the rumour has been out there persistently for years, and I think it's been rather counterproductive from the point of view of getting people to deal with management or other issues.

Lobsters are so different from other stocks. As Yvan referred to earlier, some stocks will migrate or aggregate together for spawning, but lobsters are found under each little rock. There are some migrational issues—inshore and offshore—in the seasons, when they go into warmer water in the winter and things like that, but essentially, you can't fish lobsters with large boats; you have to go underneath and put your trap against that rock pile or along that reef ridge.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The question wasn't about the size of the boat. The question was whether you support an ITQ system for lobster. It's either yes or no.

Mr. Brian Giroux: I support ITQ systems as a management regime for appropriate species, but I don't think it's appropriate in lobsters.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, I appreciate those comments. You did talk about a management system of having everything under one umbrella, even though there are certain species that fall under different systems, i.e., one for ITQ and.... I assume by your comments earlier this morning that this causes some concern in the fishing industry among various people.

For example, you have the corporate sector on one side, you have the inshore fishermen on the other side, and you know there are various court cases proceeding over the system of the ITQs and whether the government had the right to implement such a program.

• 0935

But you are correct in one thing, what you said about Georges Bank and the Grand Banks. The answer to that is that Trudeau was once asked a question about why fisheries is such a difficult portfolio, and he is quoted as saying “The problem with fish is that they swim”. I think your sentiment is that it is quite correct.

But you also mentioned that it is difficult to get together and form a consensus on the various opinions. You probably know that this committee, with five different political parties, was able in the previous year to come up with eight unanimous reports. When five different political parties—as extreme as the Reform Party and the New Democrats, and then the people in the middle—can come up with eight unanimous reports—

A voice: I love the way you describe it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —that's pretty good—reaching consensus, listening to testimony, and writing down decent recommendations.

But as you know, the government has the right to completely ignore those reports and toss them in the dustbin if that's what they so desire.

I'm going to ask you just one question. The consultative process of course, as you know, means attending many, many meetings, right? Do you think you can work with aboriginal people, in terms of involving them in terms of the management systems? You mentioned the north. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board operates quite successfully up in Nunavut. Can you see something similar to that, say a Mi'kmaq or a traditional management system, working in conjunction—I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it—with the current management regimes, where they can co-manage the resource?

Mr. Brian Giroux: I guess you could say that I think this all rests on a bunch of tiers. Ultimately, the delivery of the thing.... Whether it's an ITQ, whether you get five days to fish this year, or whether you've got a season, with trap limits, or whatever, I don't care. The actual physical, on-the-ground management regime can be the flavour of whatever you choose. I think you're being misled if people tell you that the only management regime is a quota-based system or an ITQ system, or things like that. That's not true.

I have a job where I represent vessels that are involved in an ITQ system that was imposed by a government action, not by a choice of free will. I also personally participate in a number of other fisheries that are based on totally different regimes—for example, a geographic regime, in the case of the sea urchin fishery—that have no relationship to quota, ITQ, or anything of that nature. All function and work within their own mechanisms.

To pull it back to the next level, those management regimes need information to operate. They need a process to disseminate that information, to discuss it, and to come up with what to do in terms of how to manage that regime, whether it's a zone, a competitive quota, or a trap season, whatever.

So I think we should be very careful before we splinter off those next tiers of management, science, and enforcement. There may be some elements on the land, in some of the river fisheries, and in some of the very, very close estuarine fisheries that you might be able to do better with more locally based mechanisms.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

Is it a pressing question, Charlie? Go ahead with one question, because we've got to move on.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): It won't take too long.

Could you give me your feeling about how this works? Everyone we've talked with here tells us that the solution has to come from local sources first, not from the bureaucrats in Ottawa. When I look at this it seems, from a distance at least, that after September 17, when the first Marshall decision came down, the native groups were, as we might say in Newfoundland, on the pig's back. They were in the driver's seat. They had control. They had judgments that they thought gave them tremendous power, influence, and control of not only fisheries, but a lot of other resources as well.

After the second Marshall decision, it seems that a lot of that power the natives thought they had has been lost. How is that reflected on a local level? Is it going to be more difficult to get agreement from native and non-native groups now, after the second Marshall clarification rather than after the first one?

Mr. Brian Giroux: It was a rather interesting experience, because I think, in many respects, the message we were getting from the native groups and the individual meetings we had was very much different from what people were interpreting in the press. It was certainly a time of a shift in the paradigm, to use that overworked expression, where things were going to change. We knew that. The most important thing probably was to try to get information and try to find out what the process and the mechanisms were going to be for that. I don't think the message I was getting from any of the native groups was, “Yahoo! I have the chequebook now. Let's go and charge up the account.” It was very much more of a considered approach and trying to do this in a logical manner.

• 0940

The message that was coming out of some of the other communities, I think driven by the lack of information, the lack of clarity, and the lack of direction, was very much one of broad and wide and far-sweeping interpretation, and that was fuelling some fires. We also had people jumping on the bandwagon and maybe using this issue to highlight their own pet project, whether it be a “Bay of Fundy unique in the world management regime” that says, look, we know how to do it, give it to us, but by the way, we're going to squeeze out 80% of the economic value of the fishery here. Some groups have purported to.... They jump on the bandwagon and say yes, we will go and we'll become involved with the natives, and maybe they will help us, or they will be a shield to put forward our agenda.

I see there was another initiative happening like that in the gulf as well, where groups had basically said, “We couldn't get our agenda that way, so we'll get the native groups to help us spearhead the agenda another way.” I really think there were a lot of other things going on as well, with people jumping on this bandwagon, scaremongering a bit, and pushing more into this thing than really there was in this thing.

Really it takes time to react to these things, it takes time to answer the questions, and it takes time to figure out how we're going to do this. I don't think it's fair to say that all of the uncertainty was coming from statements or actions. A lot of the uncertainty was coming from people reading something into it. And you must admit that the original decision had some significant questions attached to it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giroux. We have to move on. Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll call on the Native Council of Nova Scotia, Roger Hunka and Cory Francis. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Hunka, I think you know the process. Perhaps we can have a fairly quick overview and then get to questions.

Mr. Roger Hunka (Aboriginal Rights Facilitator, Native Council of Nova Scotia): Thank you very much for coming to Nova Scotia. It's rare to see the committees here. Our chief and president couldn't make it. She's in the hospital. She asked me to present the brief.

With me is Cory Francis. He's a prefect. He was recognized by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans way back in 1992 as a guardian, you could call it, for fisheries.

Basically I'll give an overview of what we want to present to this committee and then allow for questions. I'll do this in the context that we're prepared to answer all and every question referring to Marshall, remembering that we are dealing with the resources and nothing else, while at the same time realizing that the resources are what is the promise of Canada and why we have a Canada—a Kanata to use the Iroquois word—that people come to this land to share in those resources, to make a livelihood, to achieve a standard of life that is the envy of the world. That is what Canada is all about. Our government functions on five principles: a belief in God, the rule of law, peace, order, and good government.

With that, the Native Council of Nova Scotia represents the large community of aboriginal peoples who continue to reside on their traditional lands, Mi'kma'ki, throughout every community, the coastal communities all around Nova Scotia. They were not displaced by the Indian Act reservations through the Indian Act of 1868, which is a consolidation of many colonial acts. In other words, these are the aboriginal Mi'kmaq people who have continued an undisplaced occupation of these lands and have lived and worked on these lands continually for thousands of years.

• 0945

The Constitution of 1982 was drafted by the governments of Canada and entrenched aboriginal and treaty rights for aboriginal peoples. It was seen then that there are many people in this country who were being displaced and disadvantaged. It was a vision of a just society that prompted this—so that the francophone should have a place in Canada, so that women should have a place in Canada, so that the disabled should have a place in Canada, and so that aboriginal people should have a place in Canada.

Historic faults alienated the Mi'kmaq from the fishery through the process of restrictions, denial, and exclusions. Exclusions are now shadows of the past. The imbalance created by other user groups, the disregard at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to change or support new positions—these needs are now acknowledged. Today, through patience and dialogue, and hopefully a better understanding, everyone is accepting the fact that now and into the future the Mi'kmaq shall not be denied a position within the fishery to be self-sufficient and masters of their own affairs as a people.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—a $20 million, $30 million, $40 million report—concluded that fundamental change is needed in the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada. The royal commission's vision included rebuilding aboriginal nationhood, supporting effective and accountable aboriginal government, establishing government-to-government relationships between Canada and aboriginal peoples, and taking practical steps to improve the living conditions of aboriginal peoples. It's right to say that everybody in this country must realize that off-reserve aboriginal people are the most marginalized...living in poverty. It's right to say that everyone knows that the Indian Act reservation system, with the 684 bands, is not something we flag around the world as an envy to Canada.

We must take practical steps to improve the living conditions of aboriginal people. This calls for a partnership, and partnerships are established by listening—two sides listening to each other—understanding each other, respecting each other as Canadians. Then we will have partnerships. Until people start to listen, understand, and respect, we will not achieve partnerships. That is a fundamental that every human being on this planet earth realizes as a basis for partnership. There has to be a listening, an understanding, and respect. Then we move forward.

We call on four principles: mutual respect, recognition, responsibility, and sharing. The Government of Canada agrees with the commission. As a standing committee, and many other standing committees.... This is government policy of the day, as pronounced in its action plan, Gathering Strength. The Government of Canada, through the elected representatives of Canadians, agrees with the commission's conclusions that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people must work together, using a non-adversarial approach to shape a new vision of their relationship and to make that vision a reality.

In that spirit, Canada has undertaken to build a renewed partnership with aboriginal people and governments. Canada's vision of partnership means celebrating our diversity, from east to west, from north to south, while sharing common goals.

What are common goals? The promise of Canada that is for everybody in Canada. A standard of living. It means developing effective working relationships with aboriginal organizations and communities. Above all, it means all levels of government, not just the federal government—provincial governments, municipal governments, the private sector, citizens, individuals, working together with aboriginal people side by side to achieve practical solutions to address their needs. Our common aim should be to help strengthen. This is the aim of the Government of Canada, to strengthen aboriginal communities and economies and to overcome obstacles that have slowed the progress in the past. The federal government recognizes, as did the commission, that meaningful and lasting change will require many years to implement. The renewal of Canada's relationship with aboriginal people must begin now.

• 0950

The Chair: Roger, Can you highlight some of the rest of it, or we won't have time for questions.

Mr. Roger Hunka: Sure.

The Chair: Members will read this, but just draw out your key points, because we will need time to get to questions.

Mr. Roger Hunka: All right. To get back to the Marshall decision, the Marshall decision clearly stated, in terms of one of many treaties in the Maritimes that, yes, aboriginal people can harvest natural resources and also trade those resources for their well-being. The federal government agreed with this and also again stated that negotiations are important mechanisms for increasing aboriginal people's participation.

The Native Council of Nova Scotia Netukulimkewe'l Commission—and that's the purple-aqua package—has been recognized by the federal government since 1992 to be an authority and a management regime for off-reserve aboriginal people and has managed very effectively the food, social, and ceremonial food fisheries of off-reserve aboriginal people.

Unfortunately, since October 2 there has been a shift, where a few what I would term advisors or whatever have promoted a movement that has created a tremendous number of human violations in Nova Scotia. There is a statement by the minister that's a modern manifestation, a total misreading, of the law of the land.

Our AFS agreement on the lobster fishery alone, only the lobster fishery, was terminated instantly. DFO officers were engaged in a campaign of private harassment. We had individuals who were threatened with going to jail. We had individuals in shopping malls who were threatened that they could not fish. There was an illegal statement that somehow off-reserve aboriginal people can't fish lobster, can't continue their fisheries. There was hate propaganda—and this is just a part of it—in news media blaming aboriginal people for the decimation of stocks when it was well reported that 1,185,000 traps of lobster were set inshore by the non-native fishermen. Who's decimating what? There were fundamental violations of human rights of people in Canada by officers. There are RCMP charges against DFO officers for harassment. That's how it escalated.

Some time ago the government indicated to the chief and president of the Native Council of Nova Scotia, as well as our counterpart, Betty LaVallée, in New Brunswick and P.E.I., that they would consult, they would talk with us, Mr. MacKenzie would come down and talk with us. They wanted to work out a resolution. They said, “We talk about aboriginal peoples. You are aboriginal peoples. Just because you live off reserve...it doesn't matter, we will talk with you.” To this date there haven't been any calls, any discussions, or any dialogue. It comes as no shock to read in the terms of reference that there was again an agenda that maybe we should concentrate on Indian Act bands and reserves only. And Mr. Nault jumped into that thing about everything else under the sun.

• 0955

We were very gratified to hear that the stay clarification by the Supreme Court on November 17 finally put to rest this nonsense about who this treaty applies to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 1868 Indian Act and status before the act. This is a treaty that is of benefit to the heirs, regardless of where they live.

The fact is the Supreme Court went further in saying those aboriginal peoples who are Mi'kmaq heirs and live in those communities—our heirs, the non-displaced aboriginal people who will continue their occupations and will live and work in the areas—are the beneficiaries. That was great. That stay clarification answered many of the questions you have here.

The assault has to stop. It can only stop with leadership. The treaties apply to all Mi'kmaq aboriginal people. We must remember we're talking about aboriginal rights in the Constitution, as well as treaty rights. This is one treaty. We heard that the treaty in 1752 was another treaty. This is a very small component of the 1760-61 treaty.

The components of all of these treaties talk about peace, friendship, and trade. The 1760 treaty simply indicated that “while you exist and remain as a people, we will uphold the honour of the sovereign to maintain that. You will remain a people. If you happen to have some resources to trade with us, which we're trading with you already and will continue to trade, you may so do. Don't do it with the French.”

We must remember the context. It was not that long ago when the British entered into the treaty with Canada in 1924 and assumed the honour of the crown, in right of Canada, to honour all of these treaties with the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I want to briefly state that when we talk about potential management models, in reference to this aboriginal approach, we have, since 1992, established a management regime for the offers of aboriginal people that is 100% a cooperative co-management regime with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is not something out of the blue.

The regime, which is detailed in the documents I presented to you—you can read them on the airplane or wherever—has been touted as a model for many other groups in Canada to follow. It has enforcement prefects working together with DFO officers. It has science and monitoring—indeed, the monitoring is more effective than what exists for anyone else. So there is no abuse.

The aboriginal fishing strategy, implemented by the Government of Canada in 1992-93, is a very good strategy if you have the will to work with it and if you provide the resources to regions to work with it. It can work.

There is a management tool, so I don't really need to comment on that. You can read it and ask me all kinds of questions.

On management structures, aboriginal people and Mi'kmaq know how to work side by side. We've lived side by side with non-aboriginal people in the Maritimes longer than anyone else. We share the resources. The word is “share”, not “take” or “keep”. It's not myself and me alone. It's sharing. That is a concept Mi'kmaq have always used with everybody, and continue to use and will use.

On what process to ensure that practical solutions will be found, a very simple process is to sit down and talk. National DFO, sit down and talk with the Native Council of Nova Scotia. Mr. MacKenzie, sit down and talk with the Native Council of Nova Scotia. Let's talk and work out regimes.

• 1000

In the absence of anybody wanting to talk since September 17, and all the political hoopla happening in the Maritimes, we have issued the SAMR for lobster alone. This is a model that allows aboriginal people, who choose to enter the lobster fishery, to gain a moderate livelihood through a managed regime.

It is based on four principles. The first is that conservation of the biomass is paramount. Secondly, the entry does not displace anybody from the existing 1,885,000 legal lobster traps of the fisheries and local communities province-wide. It's the family that will benefit, and annual reports and statistics will be provided.

To do that, there is something the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must help with. Minister Dhaliwal, the regions, and the Government of Canada cannot and must not continue to erode the science budgets for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. You must stop doing that. You need more science. In the region you need more science. When I talk about science, I'm talking about empirical science, not that I think it's going to rain today.

You also must provide more support for enforcement and enforcement training. DFO officers must no longer just pretend to be policemen; they must be the steward protectors. They must learn that they need more help. You can't have DFO officers running here and there and trying to live as human beings with their families. They are understaffed. The aboriginal communities must be supported with enforcement too. That is a message that must go back.

Other than that, just ask the ministers and the aboriginal directorate of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, Ashley and company, or MacKenzie, when they will come and talk with the community.

The Chair: Can we wrap it, sir?

Mr. Roger Hunka: That's it.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. We only have about 10 minutes for questions, which is going to be a problem.

Mr. Cummins, very quickly.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you for the presentation.

One of the key issues of the original Marshall decision—which you've mentioned, of course, in your address—was who will be recognized as being covered by the treaty. You suggest in your document that in the November 17 decision, Canada confirmed the position of the Native Council of Nova Scotia that the treaties applied to the Mi'kmaq who traditionally used the resource as a community in their traditional areas. Yet it seems to me the reality is that the government hasn't recognized non-status natives as being covered by that treaty. Could you be more specific on the reference in the decision that would support your position?

Mr. Roger Hunka: First of all, in the Marshall decision itself the court did not bring about any question as to the beneficiaries; they'd already alluded to that in Simon a long time ago—connection to the people. In its stay clarifications, it clearly stated:

The treaties were local and the reciprocal benefits were local. In the absence of a fresh agreement with the Crown, the exercise of a treaty...will be limited to the area traditionally used by the local community with which the “separate but similar” treaty was made. Moreover, the treaty rights do not belong to the individual, but are exercised by...the local community.

• 1005

It's paragraph 17, which is the third paragraph, and it's the second-last sentence.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: Paragraph 17, you're saying?

Mr. Roger Hunka: It's the third paragraph. It starts with “The British Governor in Halifax thus proceeded on the basis that local”—

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Roger Hunka: The next sentence clarifies that. They went and clarified exactly what they mean by that, and added again the beneficiaries who have maintained....

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Roger Hunka: As for this nonsense about non-status and status, as I said, that's Indian Act. It has nothing to do with being a human being and a rightful heir by descendancy.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I read the witness's document and I thank him for it. It is a fine presentation. I should say that the concept of political independence and the presence of Aboriginal people are new to me in fisheries, although three years ago, in Gaspé, the Listuguj band stood up for its rights. This was a surprise for us in our area.

To mitigate the surprise or consternation felt by the so- called traditional fishing communities, what are your people, namely the Mi'kmak nation, doing to try to communicate with these fishing communities? If I'm not mistaken, the officials of Fisheries and Oceans are not the ones who advertise this or give out information. I would like to know whether the Mi'kmak nation is doing anything on its own. The fact that the Standing Committee of Fisheries is meeting both with representatives of the Mi'kmak nation and with representatives of the fishermen, allows everyone to find out what is going on, but I would like to know what they are doing on their own initiative.

Secondly, I looked at your document with the green cover. Page 3 deals with the impact of this on the existing commercial fishery. Certain things are mentioned. I understand that you would like to call a spade a spade, but it may not be good to start negotiations by telling the traditional fishermen that they are not entirely pure and white or without sin. I will, however, note these statements. We will try to have these things verified by Fisheries and Oceans officials, since we have asked to meet with them.

Nonetheless, I am rather surprised by this. If we want to communicate, we should perhaps tone down the statements in that paper. These are your statements. I am not judging them; I simply wish to emphasize them.

So, what are the Aboriginal nations doing to inform the fishing communities and what are your contacts with these fishermen?

[English]

Mr. Roger Hunka: Thank you.

In the aqua binder, there's a little book called Towards a Better Understanding. We have produced 20,000 of these booklets, which have been distributed to all kinds of fishermen and government agencies and everyone else. We worked with DFO to produce this—Mi'kmaq Netukulimk. Twenty thousand copies of that book have been produced. That has been produced with the Mi'kmaq people, the native council, the union, and DFO. If you read it, it tells you exactly, and that was back in 1993 and 1994. We have communicated with everybody...we have tried to communicate, but you must remember that the Mi'kmaq community is small. We don't have the resources to go everywhere else.

• 1010

So there has been a big effort and a continued effort, but when you don't have the other side wanting to listen, it makes it difficult. That was Cory's job.

As far as the “sin”, that's not a sin. That's the question Mr. Stoffer had. Lobster fishing is by traps. DFO issues, on top of what the licence costs, which is $2,000 per licence a year...and some years there are 450 traps. They issue 450 traps and then they issue another 100 traps because these may be lost during a storm. That's legal.

Every fisherman in the lobster fishery will tell you that in the trap fishery there are those in every area that have an excess. We're saying to just take those 100 lost traps, right? Just take the 100 for each fisherman. They have their 450 by licence. That alone will give you how many traps? Ten percent...some people say it's 50%, 20%, 30%. Take 10% of 1,885,000 lobster traps. That's 188,000 lobster traps without adding one more.

Take the same regime, with 450 per fisherman. How many is that? That brings 300 Mi'kmaq lobster fishermen into the industry without doing one little thing to the biomass, to conservation, without doing one little thing to anything. But it allows aboriginal people to become self-sufficient and earn that moderate livelihood, which is $100,000 after equipment and everything else, which all the lobster fishermen earn.

No, it's not a sin. That is a fact. DFO approved it, demonstrated it. That is known in that industry. It's a trap industry.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, did you have a question? Be very quick. I have some I want to ask myself but I'm going to forego them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have one question, but I have a slight comment before that. The previous presenter, Mr. Giroux, presented us with an article by Shepard Krech, in which he basically goes over his interpretation, the myth of the ecological Indian in his regard. I also couldn't help but notice he didn't bring us any documents or reports of mobile draggers that dump fish species over the side. In the interests of fair play, you'd think he would have brought both of them so we could have a balanced argument.

I've asked this question ad nauseam. I've asked aboriginal chiefs on beds...for example, Mr. Sark on Prince Edward Island, on Lennox Island. The question I asked him was, does the Marshall decision apply to non-status aboriginals? He said no. I've asked some very experienced lawyers, people who should know. At best, they're hesitant in their answers, but they don't say yes or no. They really don't know.

So I guess my concern for you is not just your interpretation of what the government's interpretation is of the ruling or what they're saying. You mentioned Mr. Goodale and Mr. Nault and Mr. Dhaliwal, but there is also the fact that aboriginal chiefs representing the councils are saying that in their interpretation the Marshall decision applies only to status aboriginals. Now I assume you disagree with that.

Mr. Roger Hunka: No, I don't...I'll tell you what: in 1760 the treaties were with the Mi'kmaq people—a “people”. We're talking about people, about people living everywhere. The Indian Act came into being in 1868. The Indian Act is one of the last apathetic acts in the free world. The Indian Act has nothing to do with establishing you as a Mi'kmaq. The Indian Act will never ever call you a Mi'kmaq, a Cree, an Ojibway, an Innu, a Seneca, a Haida. It doesn't. It's a number. It's an application like the SIN number. It has absolutely nothing to do with being Indian. Pre-1985 you could have married to become an Indian or you could have been adopted to become an Indian. The Indian Act is simply an application for a social insurance number—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, but—

Mr. Roger Hunka: —so the chiefs basically are Indian Act chiefs, by councils. This is not the traditional Mi'kmaq grand council around you. The people belong to a people by kinship, by association, and everybody knows what the Mi'kmaq is.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just very briefly, then, because we now go by the titles of status and non-status...of course you don't agree with that symbol because you agree that all aboriginal people are of equal status, I assume. So does the Marshall decision, in your opinion, apply to non-status aboriginals?

• 1015

Mr. Roger Hunka: It applies to non-status aboriginals who have a connection, yes, it does.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Mr. Matthews, and then Mr. Power.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you, Mr. Hunka, for your presentation. I was interested in hearing your plea for the opportunity to talk. You listed a number of departments and agencies and so on.

My understanding is that there is a process in place, put in place by Natural Resources Minister Goodale, to talk to you people. I think it's led by Mr. Fred Caron at the PCO, and I think there are representatives from DFO, DIAND, Natural Resources, and so on. Are you saying you, or anyone from your organization, have not yet talked to Mr. Caron?

Mr. Roger Hunka: Yes, Mr. Caron has.... There was a tremendous amount of lobbying, but two weeks ago he did come down, after Mr. Goodale said, “Yes, I have to talk.” But Mr. MacKenzie is the negotiator.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

Mr. Roger Hunka: Mr. Fred Caron of Privy Council is broad-basing how it applies to the communities, but that discussion was a first discussion to see whether we would be part of a process of consultation. That's all that was—an introductory session.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So you're saying there was no indication from Mr. Caron that there would be follow-up discussions with MacKenzie or Thériault?

Mr. Roger Hunka: Exactly.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Bill?

Mr. Bill Matthews: No.

The Chair: Mr. Power.

Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Muise asked a question along the same lines, about the numbers of people. One of the problems here is that in the numbers you just mentioned, you're not planning on displacing any of the present fishers. You're simply going to rework the numbers from 1.8 million and take 10% of that, and you'll have 300 people. But if all the people you represent exert the right you think they have, wouldn't there be a lot more than 300 people wanting to come into the lobster fishery?

And on that point, we met with Bernd Christmas just a little while ago in Ottawa, and his position between September 17 and November 17—with a clarification, but at least after September 17—was that the Mi'kmaq would negotiate with the people of Canada for a minimum of 30%, and up to 50%, of all Atlantic Canadian fisheries. That's their position: 30% to 50% of all Atlantic Canadian fisheries.

I don't know how many people are actually represented by your council, but I think it's about 30,000 people. So tell us the numbers, because I don't see the numbers working unless somebody gets displaced.

Mr. Roger Hunka: Well, it's very simple. Number one, in Nova Scotia alone there are 899,000 Nova Scotians. Not 899,000 Nova Scotians go into the lobster fishery. On reserve and off reserve, there are 18,000 aboriginal people in Nova Scotia; 12,000 live off reserve. You're not going to have 12,000 men, women, children, and elders go into the lobster fishery. That is nonsense.

The second thing is this. Those who do wish to make a hard livelihood in the fishing industry will go through a process of applying for it.

Mr. Charlie Power: Every Nova Scotian does not have the right to go into the lobster fishery. You're telling me everybody who's represented by your native council now has the right, according to your interpretation, to be involved in the lobster fishery.

Mr. Roger Hunka: I'm sorry. Every Nova Scotian has the right to apply for a licence under the DFO regime, for $2,000 a licence, which is renewable every year. Every Nova Scotian who wants to, in Canada, apply for a DFO licence for lobster fishing has that right to go to a DFO office and buy that licence. The problem is there's only 1% to 2% changeable every year. Every Mi'kmaq has the same right to do that. The only problem is they can't even buy a licence to get in, number one, and now it's a matter of changing the regime to accommodate those few.

I cannot say whether the Native Council is looking for 40%, 50%, or 30%. We're just concentrating on this one thing alone. By just taking the displacements—

Mr. Charlie Power: But you see my point. There's a lot of concern in Atlantic Canada about the displacement of people. Some are talking about licence buyouts. But if the Mi'kmaq status on-reserve group are saying they are negotiating 30% to 50% of all fisheries, and you're saying your 18,000 members have a right to come in and apply for a lobster licence, the lobster has to come from someplace. If there isn't additional biomass, then somebody has to be displaced. The numbers, when you put them all together, simply don't add up, and that's where a lot of the apprehension comes from.

• 1020

Mr. Roger Hunka: But the displacement in this one fishery will not be a displacement. Everyone is feeling there's a displacement. It's not; it's an accommodation. That's what was meant by trying to bring the aboriginal people in this country up to a standard of life that's adequate for everyone.

They've been displaced for years from the lobster fishery, and now that Canadians have said, “Maybe we should think about aboriginal people being part of this country” and now that the Supreme Court is saying, “Come on, let them get access to some of these resources”, there's this big hue and cry: “Oh, we're going to lose our livelihood.” It's a fallacy.

Mr. Charlie Power: But—

The Chair: I'm going to have to cut it, because we're running behind time.

Mr. Muise, you had a very quick question.

Mr. Mark Muise: I don't know if I can do it really quickly.

The Chair: Do it quickly or I'll cut you.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I'll do it quickly then.

Thank you, Mr. Hunka. That was a very good presentation.

Yesterday a witness told us that in St. Mary's Bay, one million pounds of lobster were taken out last summer for the food fishery, and this has been going on for three, four, or five years. He also made the comment that it's the biggest black market fishery around.

I understand when you say your community wants to enter the fishery and their premises are conservation of the biomass and non-displacement. Well, St. Mary's Bay is closed in that summer season for a number of reasons. It's primarily for conservation, because the lobster gather there to do their breeding and their moulting. They're very vulnerable. There are tonnes of lobster there. The gentleman was saying you can catch lobster so easily there.

So if you're going into St. Mary's Bay during the summer to do that, you're going against your premises of conserving the biomass and not displacing, because if you're using up the biomass, effectively you're displacing everyone, because you're going to ruin that resource.

I'd like your comments on that.

Mr. Roger Hunka: Well, number one, I don't know who the gentleman was, and number two, now you're talking about whoever the aboriginal people were who went to St. Mary's Bay to food-fish, and that food fishery was transferred into some sort of commercial black market.

Well, our regime is well managed. We have protocols. If a person were doing that, then they would be charged and thrown away. That's number one.

Number two, whoever the black marketeers were, I don't think the persons who are buying the lobster on the black market are the aboriginal people. I'm sure they're not.

Mr. Mark Muise: No.

Mr. Roger Hunka: So there's your regime there.

As far as the Marshall decision is concerned, it put an end to the black market having to occur, because it said, “You have a food fishery under Sparrow, and now in Nova Scotia, if you are Mi'kmaq and you want to commercially fish, here's your right, with a managed regime.”

That's where government has to come to grips and work with the Mi'kmaq to say, “There's a food fishery, and you have your regimes there. Now, if you want to go into commercial, here's a new set of guidelines, a new set of rules. This is how we're going to have your entry into commercial fishing.”

So the Marshall decision put an end to the need for a black market.

The Chair: If I can interject here for a moment, though, the food fishery under Sparrow was designed to be in fact a food and ceremonial fishery for food. How do you prevent that from becoming a commercial fishery?

Mr. Roger Hunka: With the regime, with the Netukulimkewe'l Commission or the band council commissions they have or the Fish and Wildlife Commission, you enter into agreements that say, “Your food fishery is that. Any one of your members, anybody, who's caught using a food fishery right for commercial access, the community itself will sanction that person.”

We have operations at DFO already. We've sanctioned one or two people, not to do with this, but just on violation of our own guideline timeframes, which are in there. It had nothing to do with DFO regulations.

So the community itself can deal with it and manage it.

The Chair: I'm sorry; we're out of time.

Mr. Hunka, Mr. Francis, thank you very much for your presentation.

We will call on Mr. Saulnier as an individual.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. Roger Hunka: Thank you very much for hearing me. I always do speak loudly, because I think I'm going deaf.

The Chair: So do some politicians at times, so don't worry about it.

• 1025

Welcome, Mr. Saulnier. Please keep your remarks fairly short, and then we'll get to questions. Thank you.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier (Individual Presentation): Do you want me to read exactly what I wrote on paper or—

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: Do whatever suits you best.

[English]

The Chair: You can read it or highlight it. Keep it as short as you can.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: First, I want to explain that this is strictly from our members, the straight direction we took ourselves. It's not just mine. I represent the Maritime Fishermen's Union. It's just a few little things I scribbled down as I was going along. There are many other things.

When the Federal Court decision on native fishing rights was announced on September 17, 1999, what was the first reaction amongst inshore fishermen in our area? Was it anything about racism against the native people? I don't think it was at all. Or was it greed amongst our fellow fishermen, which was some of the comment we fishermen read in many newspapers? No, it was not. To us, that doesn't make sense.

What I heard, and other fishermen heard and felt during those first two weeks, was lots and lots of fear by fellow fishermen. When the words “unfettered regulation” came into the picture and they told us what that meant, there was a lot of fear, because no action was being taken by DFO Ottawa on the decision or what it meant to us fishermen.

As you know, fishermen are not the type for long-term negotiations. Basically, they want an answer now, not tomorrow. It has always been that way. It's a way of life. You can't tell them we're going to negotiate this deal and it's going to take a few weeks. They want a straight answer. That's the way they were brought up.

A lot of the younger fishermen especially, who just borrowed $300,000 or $400,000 on government-guaranteed loans two or three years back, where do they stand?

I've been a lobster fisherman for 27 years. If my boat is not paid by now, there's a problem. It is. But there's a lot of concern among these younger fishermen. Where do they go now? What's going to happen? They've mortgaged their house and everything they have. It's a big scare.

The fishermen have very good reason for being very scared and skeptical about the Marshall decision. With what they saw going on since the Sparrow decision was announced in 1990 and what started taking place in 1992, I think, on this so-called food fishery, regulated food fishery only, and all of a sudden here comes a year-round commercial fishery, my God, they have reason to be concerned.

That fishery was conducted mostly by non-status natives, and that fishery wound up being the biggest illegal commercial fishery we've ever seen in St. Mary's Bay, with landings—and I stressed this in my document—on average, up to 40,000 pounds per week alone. This is coming out of DFO documents. There were up to 60,000 pounds per week being landed in the Yarmouth area. Those were the best weeks.

This June 4 to December 30 fishery taking place is 100% against conservation. Let me stress again that these landings were recorded by DFO's so-called observe and record program this summer. That's all they did. There were officers all over the place to observe and record what was coming out of boats. They have records of where they went in trucks, which lobster pound they wound up in, which 18-wheeler they went in afterwards, and where they were delivered. So everything's on paper. We've seen it.

• 1030

One of my reasons for no summer fishery or out-of-season fishery is the large number of female lobsters that come into St. Mary's Bay in the summertime to moult, to do their thing, to release their eggs. The reason I stress this is because in the last two weeks of May, I will take home lobsters every second day, an average of 20 pounds or so, to freeze and for my summer's consumption. Out of that 20 pounds—and I've watched it—are pretty good-sized lobster, about one and a half to two and a half pounds, and 75% happen to be females.

There are no eggs underneath the tails of that 75%. You can't say these are egg-bearing females, because you can't see them, but after you cook them and break them off, 60% have eggs in their bodies. That's a known fact. That's one of the problems...what's lacking in this lobster fishery. We don't have anything on paper for science. This is just common knowledge by fishermen like myself.

According to DFO, some of these females carry 4,000 to 6,000 eggs. Some carry more. I've heard from Doug Pezzack, who is a biologist on lobster, that some can carry up to 13,000 eggs. These eggs are destroyed. They are coming in, and outside the body, underneath the tail...to release their eggs. And they're destroyed.

With the number of eggs being killed all summer with what has been happening in the past few years, it's very frightening. I hear the word “conservation” and I see that in the paper. The fellow before me was saying a small percentage, 2% of the catch, is being landed by native people or non-status, or whatever. It does seem very small, but when you take into consideration that 75% of that 2% are females, and at least 60% of them are carrying 4,000 to 6,000 eggs, that number is very significant. I've called a few environmentalists, people who put things on paper. I've never reacted on paper, but I've reacted on the phone to express this strong concern. I know it's only one lobster and the number is only 2%, but when you take that number of eggs into consideration, to me, that doesn't make sense.

I've stressed that to one of the native chiefs. What if I, as an Acadian, all of a sudden had a right to go hunting deer all summer long, year round? The native people are good hunters. We are the pros on the lobster; we see what they do and what they don't do. If I went back in their neck of the woods and started shooting female deer in the summertime, what would their first reaction be? I would say, it's only one deer, but they would say, no, this is not the right time to shoot deer; that female deer is carrying two deer or...I don't know how much they carry. That's how much I know about the deer population. And this is how much the native people know about the lobster situation. They would try to get me out of there because we would get rid of that population so fast.

So there is a right time and a wrong time to harvest any kind of product. That's what I'm trying to stress here.

So we, the fishermen—and I'm specifically talking about LFA 34 right now, because I can't talk for LFA 32 or whatever other areas—have protected our livelihood very well without government regulations—somewhat; we've had some.

Our grandfathers are the ones who established these seasons, years and years back. DFO did not. They imposed trap limits. There was no such thing as trap limits, but when things started getting out of hand and going overboard, that's when our fathers, and my father for one, started saying to DFO, “We need trap limits. Boats are getting bigger. We're putting more pressure on the fishery. We have to put a halt to this.”

There are the escape mechanisms or hatches on traps. I and most fishermen have used escape hatches for 18 years, since they first came out. DFO only made that a rule...I can't speculate when, maybe four or five years ago. This is one thing we did on our own when I lived in St. Mary's Bay.

• 1035

There's also v-notching. I have studied v-notching for a number of years. I've been doing it. There were five of us doing it for five years to try to see if this program worked. There was a problem with questions on bacteria. Would they die? I was v-notching lobsters and keeping them in my traps for up to a month to see if that cut would cure.

When this doubling of production was announced by Minister Anderson, that's why LFA 34 went for v-notching. Some of the scientific survey was already done by fishermen, not by DFO and not by anybody else. We're the perfect people to do these scientific things. We're the ones out there.

According to DFO logs—now, these numbers could be right or wrong—135,000 female lobsters were v-notched in the season of last year, the fall of 1998 and the spring of 1999. These females will be protected for years to come. I know the notch will go away after three years, but if we catch v-notched lobsters with no eggs this year, most of us will v-notch them again. That just proves to what extent some fishermen have gone to try to conserve our fishery. Our fishery is in good shape and we want to keep it that way.

But I would like to say that we, the fishermen in Southwest Nova, accept the great majority of the Marshall decision on a regulated fishery only. We can and will work with the status native fishermen, side by side. This is the direction that was given to us by our fellow fishermen in our association and around the wharves. I'm sure Mark Muise has been around the area, and I don't think he's had too much bad influence from fishermen saying they don't want them. That's not the problem.

Just think about it. Chief Debra Robinson came into a room full of 800 fishermen. The first time she was announced as Chief Robinson, she got a standing ovation from the fishermen. The feeling there was unreal. We didn't have a problem with the native fishermen coming with us in our fishery. But like I did a few minutes ago, I want to stress that we're the experts on the rules and how this fishery has been surviving in the past few years through what we did.

In closing, I'd like to state that the only way to regulate and to accept this Marshall decision and have it work is on a community basis. Community-based management is the key here. It's the only way to go. The area down home is the Kespuwik area, according to the natives. They can work within their area, within their LFAs. They can work on conservation, on seasons, or whatever the case may be. It seems to be working quite well with the groundfish. The only problem is a lack of quotas and numbers, but it has been working quite well and it's manageable. But I want to make it quite clear that all of the Marshall decision should not be off the backs of just the small inshore fishermen.

The biggest problem with this Marshall decision is that as soon as the decision came out on eels—it didn't state anything about lobster anywhere in there—the lobster fishery seemed to be the easiest way for them to get into the fishery, because some of them already had boats and traps. You don't need a scientist to catch lobsters in the summertime.

So let us not penalize these guys, these fellow fishermen, for being the only ones to protect, because they protect their fishery quite well.

That's my conclusion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saulnier.

Members, we'll have to be quick on the questions and quick on the answers, or we'll not have time for a sandwich at lunch. We have to catch a plane, too, later in the day.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Quickly, and for the record, Mr. Saulnier, who do you represent? I see it's Maritime Fishermen's Union, Local 9. Would you just tell us what area Local 9 covers, please?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Local 9 covers southwest Nova Scotia. It's basically Digby and Yarmouth, and we have some members in Shelburne County.

Mr. John Cummins: Okay, thank you.

• 1040

On the first page of your document, you talk about

the largest illegal commercial fishery of the day with landings of 40,000 lbs per week in St. Mary's Bay and 60,000 lbs in Yarmouth area being landed from June 1st to September 30th.

You also

stress that these landings were recorded by D.F.O's observe and record program.

Whatever came of those observations? Did DFO ever lay charges?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Not a one. According to DFO, they were kind of hesitant to do something. When this Marshall decision came out in September, they were kind of skeptical—this is according to some of the area managers—that everything would backfire on them. So that's a very good question. We've been asking that question for a long time: Why were there no charges laid?

Mr. John Cummins: Do you have any ideas? What's the scuttlebutt? Why aren't these charges laid in these circumstances?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: God, if I only knew. This just doesn't make sense. Everybody knows exactly what was going on, and DFO did as well.

Mr. John Cummins: It's not something that's necessarily happening at nighttime, is it? These boats are coming in during the daytime, they're off-loading, and away goes the product. Is that not the way it happens?

Mr. Hubert Cummins: That's the way it happens, but most of the landings were coming in at nighttime at the last part of it, according to fellow fishermen who were giving me calls. What was happening was that too much was being observed in the daytime, and I guess—I'm just speculating based on what fellow fishermen tell me—some of these boats were going out at night, they were only gone a couple of hours, and they were then coming in with 1,500 or 1,600 pounds. That tells us that this observe-and-record thing was getting maybe a little bit too high, so they kept a few out of there and only sent one boat. There are a lot of little harbours, so they could come in different harbours and then all these extra lobsters would not be recorded.

Mr. John Cummins: I have had those kinds of reports on the west coast. In fact, one of the things I do in the summertime is observe ongoing food fisheries. I've tracked fish right down to the United States, fish that have been taken there for processing. They were imported illegally into the United States, were processed in the United States, and were sold for big dollars. We've never managed to get the department to lay charges, but we've certainly recorded the information. Did you record that information on who was moving the stuff and where it was going? Did you keep accurate records on that?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: No, I personally did not. I did observe one night. I was hiding there all night and I did observe exactly what was going on. I am a fisherman, and to be honest, I don't have to agree with what every other fisherman tells me. I like to see things for myself. After all these assumptions, I've followed trucks just to get a better understanding of what position I should take, because you can't believe everything you hear. Sometimes they overreact.

Mr. John Cummins: That's right.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: I've followed these trucks around and I've had personal information, yes, but I didn't record it.

Mr. John Cummins: I've done the same, and I guess my advice to you on that—and I think you have to let your people know—is that when these things do happen, you have to take pictures and you have to record licence numbers and times and everything else. You have to be very careful. I think it's the only way you're going to build a case on some of this stuff. There's no doubt that these things are happening, but we have to build a case.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: If I might, according to DFO, the biggest problem is that you can take all the pictures you want and they can truck these lobsters all through the counties and provinces, but if you don't see the transaction of money taking place in a small backroom, what do you do?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Saulnier, I wonder if you could give the clerk a couple of names of enforcement officers in the area who might have some of this information. As a committee, we are anticipating holding an in camera session with enforcement officers who work on the water in order to get the information, even if we have to go so far as to subpoena them.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

In your presentation, you indicated that you're willing to work with the aboriginal community and Debra Robinson. I noticed the information coming out of there. The integration of the meetings you had was very successful, but you also said you're willing to work with status Indians, right? Would you also be willing to work, if the courts eventually...? I know we've heard evidence to the contrary, but I don't think the courts have been absolutely clear on whether non-status aboriginals are part of the Marshall decision. I think that question is still out there. If they rule, if it goes to court and the Supreme Court again offers another clarification or another ruling that indicates that non-status aboriginals are part of this agreement, would your organization be willing to work with them as you do the status aboriginals?

• 1045

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: That's a big question. It's not about having anything against the non-status, but as I said in my presentation, what we've seen to date, or what's been happening with the non-status fishery, what they've been doing.... The biggest problem with the non-status is that they're all individuals. Who would you talk to? How would you make any business, any compromise, any seasons, any conservation? If you do that, if things don't change from non-status.... I'm not saying they couldn't be in the picture, but they would have to have a spokesperson, somebody we could negotiate with...or open the doors to San Quentin completely and let everybody out.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I hadn't heard that one yet.

My last question for you is this. Your last paragraph says “the Marshall decisions should not be off the backs of the small inshore fishermen”. Do you believe, then, in order for cooperation and consultation, that the offshore sector must be involved in any negotiations? If there is to be either a comparison or a cross-transfer of licences or a reduction, for example, of the offshore in order to incorporate the aboriginals, should they be part of this equation as well?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes, I think they should. If all doesn't fall into place, if we accept in LFA 33, 34, and part of 35, for instance, 20 units—they don't want to call them licences, but 20 units—and we can't get a program by government for a voluntary buyout in order not to put more enforcement and more pressure on our fishery...well, Clearwater has quite a bit of quota also on lobster, and we think they're basically all the same. So if we can't accommodate 20, maybe offshore can accommodate 5 and we could accommodate 15, to bring that quota down a bit. That's hard to regulate, because the following year they can always bring their quota up.

So licensing is the way to go, because with licences you know what the effect is going to be.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. Charlie Power: Pete, can I ask a question along the same lines?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. It's your turn now.

Mr. Charlie Power: Our thoughts when we do some of these meetings is that.... You're saying these treaty rights and this whole Marshall decision shouldn't be on the backs of the inshore fishermen. Peter asked you if it should be shared with offshore fishers. Would it also be your opinion that the fishery of whatever nature shouldn't be responsible for satisfying all of the problems that come out of the Marshall decision?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes, you're right. No, we shouldn't be responsible. I mean, the fishermen themselves.... Some kind of government official in 1760 or 1761 made this document.

Mr. Charlie Power: The government.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes, the government did, and government-appointed Supreme Court judges came up with more decisions in 1760. So why should government put everything in place and then say “Well, it's just a few inshore fishermen”? Government has a role to play here.

Mr. Charlie Power: Indeed, it should be all the people of Canada...[Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes, on everything. I agree.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Well, I think the minister has made it clear that this won't be on the backs of fishermen.

Mr. Muise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Hubert, for coming to this meeting. I know that you are very busy preparing for the opening of fisheries next week.

Did you hear the question I put to Mr. Hunka regarding lobster fishing in the summer in St. Mary's bay?

Here is what I said to Mr. Hunka: You say that you want to protect the biomass, to live in peace and friendship and not to displace anyone in the fishery, but we were told that at least one million lobsters had been caught in St. Mary's bay last summer. I know that this has been going on for several years. I said: If you want to protect the biomass and the fishery and not displace anyone at all, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, how can you let such things go on? He replied: “The Marshall decision will really help to stop that. Anyone using food fishing for commercial purposes could be prosecuted.” This was new to me.

• 1050

What do you think of this, Hubert? Is this how you saw these matters? If that were the case, it would be positive.

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: Yes, if he had told the truth. He said two or three things that I cannot accept at all. He mentioned the case of the 400 traps... [Editor's note: Inaudible]

There is the conservation issue. The fishermen were afraid that... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... the Aboriginals have practised conservation up to now. They say that they have been practising conservation for five or six years. They have no idea of what conservation is. They have no idea of how it should be done. I have been fishing for 27 years and I am not sure of that myself. What we need now, is a summer fishery. Aboriginals and fishermen could go fishing on certain days or weeks in the summer to see what is happening there in the summertime.

An Aboriginal can remain on a reserve during his entire life, but he cannot say that he knows more about this than I do, and even I, myself, am not sure of this. Why not set up a pilot project to satisfy both sides: the Aboriginals and the fishermen? There is enough... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... the percentage of females... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... and carry out a full survey. In a few years, we may have something to work with in order to ensure conservation.

When I hear conservation mentioned... They are on the right track, but the train has not left the station yet.

Mr. Mark Muise: I was not aware of what had happened and how difficult things had been during the past two months, since the Marshall decision. Last week, the government decided to increase the maximum lobster size. How will this affect fishing in southwest Nova Scotia?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: In southwest Nova Scotia, we have never really seen this size, now increased by 1/16 for conservation. We are fishermen... [Editor's note: Inaudible] There are many offshore fishermen. Offshore fishermen catch 3 1/4 lobster; and it was 3 3/16 for us. Everywhere else, the size was increased by 1/16. We worked hard on protection with the V-notch. I spoke a great deal with Bob Bayer, a lobster scientist from the University of Maine in Orono. We've been using the V-notch for 50 years, in a non- regulated fishery that is open all year round. We thought that the V-notch was more important than size for conservation. Not much 3 3/16 to 3 1/4 size lobster can be found. It is really rare. The biggest ones are the ones that...

We saw that this could be cheaper in some places. This is the V-notch. In Newfoundland, two years ago, a fisherman told us that it was the only place in the zone where the V-notch was used for lobster and the only place in Newfoundland where the lobster population had increased. We were told that at that place, water was warmer than in Nova Scotia. We went and looked. If it is warmer there than in Nova Scotia, and if it is colder in Newfoundland than here, there should certainly be no problem between the two.

• 1055

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Muise.

I do have one question on this. You're moving from three and one-sixteenth to three and a quarter, as I understand it. I'm of the understanding that Lobster Fishing Area 34 was in agreement with this approach two years ago. Now, I've heard stories both ways, but what's your view? Was there agreement when Minister Anderson came out with the procedure to double egg production? Was there agreement to go to a carapace size increase at this time or not? Or was it going to be further reviewed?

Second, on the increase to three and a quarter, what is the difference, from a marketing perspective, between...? I was rereading some of the evidence last night, and that's why I ask it. Somebody indicated yesterday that a three-and-one-sixteenth-inch lobster is the weight that matches the market demand. Three and a quarter makes it too expensive a lobster for that market demand. Do you have any information to provide on that?

Mr. Hubert Saulnier: On your first question, I've been involved in the workshop in LFA 34 and, yes, we realized it was a four-year program. As for the amount involved in doubling the egg production, the question was asked many times, “Doubling of what? Give us a number.” But there was none. But that's irrelevant.

Yes, it was kind of looked into. We will do v-notching this year, and the hope was maybe to go to a size increase the following year. That was the whole plan. There was the window, and there was the maximum, which we didn't want to get into.

So, yes, there was, but in light of what's been happening with the Marshall decision, LFA 34 and some of the local chiefs wrote a letter to Minister Dhaliwal, asking him to put a hold on the size increase for now, to ease tensions and pressure amongst fishermen. I see that didn't take place.

Yes, that was the original plan. Now fishermen are backing off. I'm not on the lobster advisory, so I pretty well can't say when Spinney would have done that.

But on the size increase from three and three-sixteenths to three and a quarter, it's not a very significant weight of the lobster itself. The biggest problem there is that your inshore fishermen catch more than those in the middle ground and the offshore and further off, and some of your buyers do have a market for the three and three-sixteenths, while others don't. So the buyer who has a very good market on the three and three-sixteenths does not want to lose it to three and a quarter, to have competition amongst other buyers. Even in the States, they're up to three and a quarter—and everybody else.

So it all depends on who you to. I always ask the question: are you talking for the benefit of the industry as a whole, or are you answering my question for the benefit of your company or yourself? Even as a fisherman, it's the same thing.

There are two ways to answer that question. Right now some of our members don't want it to go up, some do, and some don't care, but there's a lot of pressure amongst other LFAs that did go up to three and a quarter. That's the biggest part of their problem.

As for what's going to come out of that, I didn't want to take a position, because it's a mixed reaction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saulnier. That's good information for us to have. Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will move on to the Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protection Association, Norma Richardson and Nellie Baker.

Mr. Mark Muise: You can cut me off any time, Mr. Chair, if you want to ask my questions. That was excellent. Thank you.

The Chair: No problem. ESP, Mark.

Welcome, Ms. Richardson and Ms. Baker.

• 1100

Ms. Norma Richardson (President, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protection Association): Good morning, honourable members of the fisheries standing committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

The Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association has been in existence since 1957, representing fishermen and -women along Nova Scotia's eastern shore. In 1998, the provincial—

The Chair: Ms. Richardson, I don't want to cut you off before you start, but could you try to highlight it, please, so we have time for questions? We are starting to run substantially behind. Go ahead.

Ms. Norma Richardson: All right.

The Marshall decision has caused great concern for our fish harvesters and processors. We have been under a groundfish moratorium since 1992 and our fishermen have turned to other species such as lobster. Although lobster is an important species along the eastern shore, landings are lower than in other areas. The multi-species licence concept is how our fishermen have been able to survive. The laws and regulations that govern us have been put in place by government policies and for the most part have been adhered to by the fishing industry.

We hold no ill will for the aboriginals but feel they need to understand how we got to where we are today. Years ago it was a free-for-all, and everyone had the opportunity to be a fisherman. As time passed and resources became less, there were more regulations put in place to protect and conserve the resource and to try to provide security for those people left in the fishery.

We recognize that the natives have a place in the fishing industry, but their entry must be accomplished in a regulated manner, to protect the resource and also to protect those people who have their whole life invested in this industry. A large number of these people know nothing else, so what is the point of displacing one group of Canadians to benefit another group? This will only defeat the purpose.

We have joined the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance and believe strongly in the principles they have put forward; I will not list them, but a copy is attached. We feel there are ways to resolve this issue if these guiding principles are followed.

There are a few other key issues.

Funding needs to be in place for this negotiation process. This funding has to be equal for the fishing industry and the aboriginal community. If we are to move forward, the use of consultants at the grassroots level will not allow anything to be accomplished.

The terms of reference for the chief federal representative stated that moneys would be available to native communities to allow them to work through the transition period and to other groups, not specifically mentioning the fishing industry as an important player in these negotiations.

The terms of reference for the chief negotiator and assistant negotiator need to be looked at again. Commercial professional fishermen have a major stake in the fishery and should not be termed as “others” in the fishery. There needs to be a clear place in the process for commercial professional fishermen. As they stand, the terms have left little room for the involvement of the fishing industry. This is very unsatisfactory if we are to be treated in a fair and equitable manner.

Since this case has been before the courts for almost six years, it was also very disappointing to learn that the native community had approached DFO several months previous to the decision to put a contingency plan in place. This is typical, and the department has to be accountable.

The Marshall decision has been exploited by the media, and we do not want to see the politicians do the same thing. The fishermen and fishing industry, as well as the native community, should not be used as pawns in any political manner, which is what we have seen in the past.

We feel that the capital gains provision needs to be reviewed in light of the possibility of buybacks of licences to allow entry of the natives into the fishery. We feel an allowance of $500,000 is critical, as this has been an issue within the fishing community for several years.

We feel that the Atlantic policy review, which began in the spring, should be put on hold. This is not the time to go forward with such an initiative, as the fishing industry is preoccupied with the Marshall decision.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go to questions.

Mr. Cummins.

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

Thank you for your presentation this morning, Ms. Richardson.

You talk about the buybacks of licences in order to enter the natives in the fishery. One of the concerns that has been expressed at other times at the committee is that if there is a buyback that isn't selective, in that it focuses either by design or by chance on the purchase of licences in one community, it could have an impact on that small community. You can take several licences out of a small harbour and all of a sudden that harbour is no longer viable. Is it a concern of your association as to how that buyback would be conducted?

• 1105

Ms. Norma Richardson: That buyback would need to be conducted in almost the same manner as how our licences transfer from one person to another. You almost need to go back to the same community you took it out of, or quite close by.

The province is divided into LFAs, so lots of licences from area 32 cannot go to area 33, etc. That's for lobster. For other fishing licences, there are rules and regulations in place governing those as well.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the other problems with the buybacks is that if the sons or daughters of fishermen wanted to buy that licence, they could end up in a bidding war with the government. That's been perceived as a problem by others, and I imagine you would share that concern.

Ms. Norma Richardson: Yes, but that's there now as well. The licence has a value, and the way things are today, most people have to be quite well-heeled or settled in order to allow a son or daughter to take over without a monetary value passing back and forth. So it's a concern, but it's already there.

Mr. John Cummins: You talk about funding for the negotiation process. It's clear in the terms of reference for Mr. MacKenzie that the natives are going to receive funding for their part in negotiations, and it goes on to say they would have to ratify the terms of any agreement that Mr. MacKenzie may put forward.

But there's no such provision for the non-native fishing community. Again, I would assume you've mentioned the funding aspect, but I imagine that other aspect of MacKenzie's terms of reference would be a concern to you as well.

Ms. Norma Richardson: Yes, it is very much so.

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

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And again, Norma and Nellie, thanks very much for your presentation and for representing the people of the eastern shore so well.

There were a couple of concerns you mentioned, and I can't agree more with my colleague, Mr. Cummins. In the terms of reference, it says “termed as others”. I find that an offensive term and not one of cooperation toward solving the problems that have arisen since the Marshall decision has come down.

After that paragraph, you state that you're disappointed to learn that the native community had approached DFO several months previous to the decision to put in contingency planning. You're absolutely correct. In fact, that happened on March 9—an integration of native and non-native fisheries interests preimposed the Marshall decision. I have a copy of that here.

I've been saying for several months now that it was the DFO that basically told the native people to go away. They weren't going to deal with anything until the decision came down.

I now sit here and I apologize for those remarks, because that was not correct. The DFO was actually more than willing to come up with some sort of an arrangement or a consultative process before the Marshall decision. But we find out now that it was actually Ms. Peg MacInnis of the aboriginal affairs department of the province who indicated that there was no way the province was going to negotiate anything called an aboriginal title negotiation prior to the decision, without prejudice.

This basically means that with the aboriginal communities, there's a tripartite format. The aboriginal community, the federal government, and the province were all going to get together and talk about the effects if the Marshall decision ruled in the perception of the favour of the aboriginal people, or in Donald Marshall's case. It was only the province, through its aboriginal affairs department and Ms. Peg MacInnis, that said no.

The result, after that happened, after the decision, was confusion, and you can see the potential for violence in this regard. So knowing what we know now, it wasn't only the DFO that probably wasn't strong in their efforts to convince the province to come up with at least an agreement in place, so we could negotiate ahead of time; it was the fact that the province said no to it. What would your comments be on that, knowing that information? Were you aware of that?

Ms. Norma Richardson: I wasn't aware of that. But knowing that information...our fisheries are regulated by the federal government, so it was basically affecting the people the federal government made a regulation for. So the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should have been more aggressive in saying yes, this is something we need to have in place if the decision is in favour of Marshall.

• 1110

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Last question. You indicated something about funding, which the alliances proposed, and I can't agree with them more. Have you yourself approached the federal or provincial governments at all for funding in order to hold meetings, for travel and everything else, in order to negotiate the concerns of these agreements?

Ms. Norma Richardson: No, I haven't.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. It really is unusual for Mr. Stoffer to agree with Mr. Cummins and defend DFO at the same time. That is quite unusual. We'll mark that one on the wall.

You want that struck, do you, John?

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: No, I'm fine, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Power.

Mr. Charlie Power: I'm not going to be unanimous with my two colleagues. That would be going just too far.

I have a couple of questions on the licence buyout. I noticed toward the end of your first page you were very concerned that in displacing persons in the fishery through licensed buyouts—persons currently in the fishery who may not buy their own licences yet might not have an opportunity to get in. You see that as counterproductive. Then there's the capital gains problem as well.

I'm still concerned about the number of persons who might want to enter the fishery. From the stories we've heard from the Mi'kmaq status Indians—and we just had a presentation from non-status people—there are a lot of people who are getting into a lot of different fisheries. Just tell us how you see that playing out in your communities, and explain this $500,000 capital gains project to us.

Ms. Norma Richardson: First of all, we have a place in the area I'm from, the core policy, for which you don't buy an individual licence per se. You need to buy a core enterprise—a package of licences, or something along that line—so you wouldn't necessarily be buying into just the lobster fishery. You may have to buy into several different fisheries at the same time.

There are probably a number of lobster licences out there because of the recent buyback under FRRM, under TAGS, that will just be floating around. Our people can't buy them because they're not core fishers. If that stays in place—and that's how the aboriginals enter the fishery, through the core policy—then the other fishermen will have the same opportunity. It's no different from what it is right now. They won't be going out buying individual licences all over the place. They will have to basically buy...say myself, if I am a fisherperson and I have four licences in my package. Then I need to sell them as a package. Otherwise they can't fish.

For the capital gains, it's the same thing with the people who are accepting buybacks right now. They lose half of it at least to taxes, and then they're left with the other licences, which they can't sell and which will basically go back to government and die, with a boat and all those other things. I can see that the same thing could happen, but in the instance with the licence buyback for—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It could be retroactive.

Ms. Norma Richardson: —putting an aboriginal person or another person into the fishery, then the whole thing will go—the package will go as a boat, licence, gear, and all that. That sort of takes care of that.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you be asking, then, in that particular case, that it be retroactive? If what you're saying now is that some people are leaving the industry and they're losing half of it to capital gains, if the government agrees with this $500,000, would you be asking them for retroactivity to...?

Ms. Norma Richardson: That would be nice.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Ms. Norma Richardson: For capital gains to be retroactive to the people who are accepting buybacks now. It would be nice.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If in a few months from now they implement this plan, and people ask why they're not included, I could see a bit of a conflict or problem there.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, you'd have to go back to the TAGS buyout then.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I was just asking.

The Chair: We'll not get into the finance committee. I expect somebody has put that view to the finance committee already.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, it was just a comment. I would still want to follow it with some answers, because the capital gains was a big issue in the post-TAGS licence buyout. They had the same problem: there wasn't enough money going to end up in the pockets of fishermen. So it's not a new problem or a new issue.

• 1115

I think there's one thing we should clarify, which I think is important. For two or three days we've been talking about the lobster licence issue, but we're talking about core licences. You can't just buy a lobster licence. You have to buy the core licence. It's much more widespread than lobster, which for two or three days our whole discussion has centred around.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to comment on that too. With regard to that capital gains business, the way it was applied to the buybacks in British Columbia was that, first, the government drove the price of the licences down with their policies so that the licences had no value, and then they turned around and bought the licences. People got taxed back half of what was paid on the licences. That has been the situation in British Columbia in the last two or three years, and that's the way it's going be with the ongoing buybacks. So that's an important issue, and you should push that as hard as you can.

The Chair: I think we'll likely be making note of that. There's enough evidence on it in the report that it will certainly be made note of.

If there are no further questions, I have one. You don't really mention it here and I don't want to put you on the spot, but you basically agree, I think, with the Marshall decision in terms of allowing native people into the industry. Do you have any position on how you manage those people coming into the industry? You mentioned buyouts. That's certainly one option. Are there any others?

Ms. Norma Richardson: Do you mean to allow them to come in?

The Chair: Yes. How do you manage that? We're maximizing on lobsters in particular at the moment. We're maximizing the resource, so you can't add somebody. You have to keep the balance. Are there any other options as to how you manage that industry?

Ms. Norma Richardson: The only other way would be if they themselves bought out somebody. If I want to get into the fishing industry and the law says I need two years, I need to go to a core fisherman who is willing to sell his licence and pay the price he's asking or negotiate a better price. Then I finance it and get into it that way. Those are the only ways I can see at this point.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Richardson and Ms. Baker, for your presentation.

Ms. Norma Richardson: Thank you.

The Chair: We will now turn to the Ecology Action Centre, Mr. Mark Butler. Welcome, Mark. I think you know the process.

Mr. Mark Butler (Co-ordinator, Marine Issues Committee, Ecology Action Centre): Yes, I have seven minutes.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Mark Butler: Good morning, bonjour. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Mark Butler, and I'm the coordinator of the Marine Issues Committee at the Ecology Action Centre. The centre was founded in 1971, and today it has over 450 members across Nova Scotia. The goal of the Marine Issues Committee is to promote marine conservation and sustainable ocean-based livelihoods. This goal informs what we do, and I hope it informs what I say today.

I would like to note that my ability to speak knowledgeably on native/non-native relations is constrained by my limited understanding of Mi'kmaq culture and history and the history of the relationship between Mi'kmaq and non-natives over the last 400 years. I'm working to change that.

The Marine Issues Committee recognizes and welcomes the Supreme Court judgment of September 17, 1999. We support measures that provide the first nations of Atlantic Canada with economic independence. We also support the entry of first nations into other sectors of the fishery, into wood-cutting, and into the exploitation of non-renewable resources.

The entry of the first nations into the fishery should not be and need not be at the expense of the people who are already in the fishery or of the environment. There are solutions, and natives and non-natives, as a result of talking to each other, have already identified and implemented some of these solutions.

• 1120

We do regret that one of the few fisheries that remains ecologically and socioeconomically sound, the inshore lobster fishery, is taking the brunt of the Supreme Court's decision. One of the reasons we support the entry of the Mi'kmaq into other fisheries and other industries—for example, forestry—is to take some of the pressure off the inshore lobster fishery.

It is not possible to talk about how to respond to the Supreme Court's judgment without first acknowledging the state of the fisheries today in Atlantic Canada. Since the Marshall decision, everybody is talking conservation. I'd like to talk conservation. For example, is it conservative to drag through deep sea corals, some of which are perhaps several thousand years old? Is it conservative to continue to promote a management system, namely, individual transferable quotas, that particularly in the multi-specie fisheries results in dumping and high-grading? We did a study two years ago that documented that. We continue to hear reports this year of the same practices involving millions of pounds of fish, and we hear zip from DFO in terms of dealing with that or acknowledging this crisis. Is it conservative to open up nearly all of the offshore, and now onshore Atlantic Canada, to an industry that dumps oily drill cuttings and oily water over the side?

We're particularly concerned about the bidding process for offshore oil and gas licences. A good example of why it's wrong is what happened off western Cape Breton where fishermen, whale watchers, and the residents there woke up one morning to find that the government had handed out a licence to an oil company to drill off their shores.

I mention these practices because they're going on right now off our coast.

We as a conservation organization with limited resources have to choose what our priorities are. As I mentioned, one of our goals is promoting sustainable ocean-based livelihoods in the fisheries, so we do pay attention to social issues and to fairness in the fisheries. I want to mention how we look at what's going on in the fishery today in that respect. In the wake of the Marshall judgment people have also been talking about fairness in the fisheries. In the last 20 years, DFO, particularly in the Scotia Fundy region, have been promoting policies that have concentrated ownership and wealth in the fisheries in fewer and fewer hands. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it bears repeating.

I understand the department is so proud of its achievements that recently two DFO officials from the Scotia Fundy region travelled to Australia to give a mini-course to other countries on how to implement property rights or ITQs, and these two officials were from the Scotia Fundy region. Is this a good use of taxpayers' money at the present time, given the crisis in the fisheries?

We believe the government does not have the right to privatize what is considered a public resource. We would say in addition that as an environmental group, in reality we don't think anybody can own the fish in the ocean and trade, buy, and sell them.

How do ITQs and the Marshall decision relate? I think as a result of the Marshall decision, at a minimum the government now has an obligation to consult with the first nations before proceeding with any further privatization schemes. Right now some of the powerful members of the sword fishery, aided by officials in DFO, are trying to push privatization or ITQs into that fishery, where the majority of fishermen oppose the introduction of ITQs.

These criticisms of certain officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the powerful players in the fishery are not new. They have been repeated so many times that most people don't have the energy to repeat them any more.

When so many fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s, there should have been a public inquiry. That would have benefited the fish and the fishing industry, and I truly believe it would have benefited DFO. They should have gone to the confessional, and after confessing they might have felt a little better. There wasn't a public inquiry.

This year for the first time since the closure of so many fisheries, DFO announced an Atlantic fisheries policy review. I think this is something that hasn't got a lot of attention, but it should. However, this review is not about fixing the fisheries. It's about enshrining the status quo, as far as I can tell. I quote from a letter sent out by David Anderson in May 1999:

DFO is not proposing sudden or sweeping change. Our objectives are: to consolidate those objectives already being pursued by the department....

That's not much of a review. Essentially what DFO is saying here is that they are not interested in fixing and improving the fishery. They're not interested in the truth. When the fisheries collapsed, there was no real change in policy, so the policies that brought about the collapse we're more or less following today.

• 1125

I know that people have made sacrifices in the fishery, and I know that fishermen particularly have made a lot of effort, but I still see the big trends in the fishery as anti-conservation and not promoting fair distribution of the wealth from the fishery.

Despite devoting most of my time here this morning to talking about DFO, I think it is largely a waste of time. Powerful people in the department won't pose any real change in DFO policies, and no minister has yet shown any ability to reform the department.

I would like to note that there are people in DFO doing good work, particularly at the ground level. I think change will largely come from without, and in spite of DFO. The Marshall decision is a good example. The reason I have focused on the state of the fishery today and DFO's performance is because when we discuss conservation and fairness in regard to the Marshall decision, let's not forget what has happened in the fishery over the last 40 years and what is happening today.

To answer some of your questions regarding the future management of the fishery in light of the Marshall judgment, in terms of management structures, we would recommend local community-based decision-making where appropriate. This approach would make a lot of sense in the lobster fishery. Indeed, we see it working in a number of places. What will not work is for DFO to say—as I think they said to the Burnt Church Band—you can fish 1,000 traps, and non-native fishermen can keep fishing under existing rules. That top-down approach will not please anyone, and I don't think it did. If people are going to live alongside each other and fish alongside each other, the only realistic solution is that those people must reach agreement amongst themselves.

You're probably going to ask whether we can call first nations true conservationists or the first conservationists. What is their conservation ethic? I probably made the point adequately that we need to have a bit of humility coming into this issue, given our record and our present practices in the fishery.

Secondly, as an individual I want to give the first nations a chance to prove themselves. They haven't really had that chance. If we see bad practices being carried out by anyone, we will not discriminate. We are concerned about what's going on in St. Mary's Bay, and efforts should be made to find out who the culprits are and deal with that.

Again, we are a relatively small organization with limited resources. We had to prioritize where we see the overriding conservation issues. We see that the entry of the first nations into the fishery will actually offer a lot of positive opportunities. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

As a point of clarification or correction, it's my understanding that the Burnt Church Band was given 600 traps and Big Cove was given 800 traps. That was without prejudice and not to set a precedent—just so that's clear and accurate.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: This visit from an environmental group is refreshing. Of course, we might wonder how this is linked to Aboriginal fisheries or the Marshall decision, but the witness demonstrated it very well in his presentation. He presented his point of view very well and I would even say that he was prudent in presenting it.

I would like to ask the witness the following question. In the Marshall decision, one of the key issues is the definition of “a moderate livelihood.” I agree that we do not have all the elements to start this debate this morning, but since the witness mentioned the notion of sustainable fishing, I would like to know if he is aware of the fact that Canada ratified the United Nations Fisheries Agreement this summer. Article 5 of this international treaty specifies that the signatory states agree to maintain or develop sustainable and viable fisheries. Now, as we have a Supreme Court order telling us we must define what a moderate livelihood is, I am not sure whether Fisheries and Oceans currently has a definition of a viable fishery. To help Fisheries and Oceans and the industry define a viable fishery, we must first know the kind of equipment and methods that will be used in fishing.

• 1130

Does the witness have any ideas to suggest to us? If he has none this morning, he can send us a brief later telling us what his environmental vision of a viable fishery is, and then we'll try to see whether it is viable, because if it is not viable, it will be very sustainable since no one will be fishing. I know that this involves a dichotomy that must be considered.

I am ready to accept the challenge. I heard the witness say that the individual quota management system is not working to his satisfaction. I welcome his interest in speaking of a new management system. Any change is welcome at this time; we will agree on the final form later on.

The witness can consider my statements as comments, but if he already has part of the answer regarding sustainable fishing, I would be interested.

The Chair: Mr. Butler.

Mr. Mark Butler: I speak a bit of French, but as this is an important matter, I will speak English.

[English]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: My English is not very good. That's why I raised it in French.

Mr. Mark Butler: That's why I'll answer in English.

I think it's ironic that we talk about a moderate livelihood. Attempting to define that is a very contentious issue.

When somebody has more than somebody else in a small community, because of DFO policies, it creates a lot of friction. But I think a lot of the attention has been on the inshore fishery, and that's understandable, because in terms of gear, equipment, and access, it's the easiest one for the first nations to enter. But we could look at the offshore lobster fishery where we have seven licenses, with six of them owned by Clearwater.

There's been a lot of talk about what a moderate livelihood is and whether that's something you can even enforce. I think it would be extremely difficult to enforce. But I believe the owner of Clearwater Fine Foods has four to six dwellings—I don't know how many are in this province—and I think he has the largest single family dwelling in this province. I think that's interesting.

We're already seeing problems. If we pursue the policies DFO is pursing that tend to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands—and in the fishery, as you well know, there are lots of backroom deals—it will create a lot of problems and friction. They will come out in the end.

DFO's mandate is to reduce capacity. Capacity is the problem. To some extent, it doesn't seem to matter to them how they do it. But I don't think they're dealing with all the other issues in the fishery that have to be dealt with.

The 45-foot to 65-foot fleet is down to less than 100 boats; therefore that's a model fleet. But when we look at what that fleet is doing on the water, in terms of both dumping fish and the bottom, it's far from a model fleet. It is and it isn't related to the Marshall decision, but I don't know how we're going to deal with issues like that in this country, because DFO seems like an impenetrable fortress.

I mentioned in my little presentation that I think the lobster fishery is a pretty good fishery. There are problems now, in terms of the kinds of dollars you need to get into that fishery and who's starting to buy up the licences. I think a lot of the processors are. If you're a young fisherman and you want to get into the fishery, you have to spend $300,000 to $400,000. How are you going to do that? Either the bank has to look on you kindly or perhaps a processor will help you.

They are still largely independent owner-operators. There are essentially a lot of small businessmen and businesswomen operating in that fishery. It's proven itself to be reasonably sustainable in terms of catches.

• 1135

I think one of the reasons we have such high catches right now is that we've knocked out the main predators of the lobsters, such as the codfish, the haddock, the wolffish, and the catfish. So that's why the numbers are high. I would look at it as a model.

As for how you take that into the ground fishery, there are some pointers for how, where, and when to fish, as opposed to so much emphasis on quotas. But it won't be easy. So let's start experimenting, as opposed to going down this highway that certain people in DFO seem to be stuck on.

And I'm interested to hear about article 5. I didn't know that. I will look it up.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Again, Mark, thank you and your organization for another fine presentation.

You mentioned the public inquiry. As you know, I screamed for one for a couple of years, and of course they turned a blind eye.

And you're right about that impenetrable fortress at DFO. It's at 200 Kent Street. Anytime you want a tour, I'll get you to the bottom floor. That's about as far as I can get.

You mentioned a letter by David Anderson from May 1999. If it's possible to get a copy for the committee, we'd appreciate that.

In terms of the decision of the corporate ownership, as you know, right now negotiations are happening between the Province of Newfoundland; the company FPI; the Bill Barry Group; John Risley of Clearwater, the one you mentioned with the big house; and the NEOS Group from Iceland, in order to take over the control of FPI. Whether or not that happens, the scary thing about that is, you're right, the ownership of the public resource is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Just last week in my office, I was speaking to a gentleman who lobbies on behalf of Clearwater. I mentioned that FPI is now, and next will be Polar Foods of P.E.I.; they'll probably be going after them. He said, “Well, things happen in the industry. Amalgamations and mergers happen. It could be a possibility.” Then I mentioned High Liner Foods, formerly National Sea, and asked if he would then go after them. He wouldn't comment on that.

So it's like a steamroller effect. These corporations are getting together. I don't see how Polar or High Liner could compete against the Bill Barry-Clearwater-FPI-NEOS Group. It's just too big.

With that in mind, if that is the direction DFO is going, into corporate ownership, do you think it would actually be the shareholders or the owners of those corporations who would have a lot more say in the fishing industry than, for example, any individual fisherman from Cape St. Mary's or Cape Breton or anywhere else?

Mr. Mark Butler: I know Clearwater presents itself as a small player in the global market, so perhaps they feel compelled by international market forces to make themselves bigger in order to compete. We saw the same rationale with Canadian banks wanting to merge in order to compete on the global market. That's a problem at the global level.

But you can be sure a player like that already has a fair amount of influence on policies within DFO, and the bigger it gets, the more influence it will have. It's unfortunate that the inshore fishermen and the independent fishermen don't have that same influence, partly because of lack of organization and partly because of DFO policies.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

I have a second question, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard the current minister speak about negotiations rather than litigation. Yet prior to his appointment as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the DFO had absolutely no problems at all with taking your group—one of them getting quite well known in the province, Mr. Ronnie Wolkins—to court because of their battle over the ITQ system. So instead of negotiating some sort of compromise with these twelve fishermen and their families, they'd rather take them to court, at great expense to themselves and everyone else.

So again, there goes that negotiation over litigation aspect that the current minister is talking about, when negotiation really would be the key to solve a lot of these concerns. Yet they have no questions at all about taking an independent fisherman to court.

• 1140

You mentioned the dumping on the high seas. We saw your report a couple of years ago, which the committee was presented. You're saying that it's still happening today under the ITQ system. I wonder if you could explain a bit as to why there is dumping on the high seas today under that system. Why does that happen when every one of these fishing groups, in fact every one of the presenters we'll be speaking to—before in P.E.I. and today and tomorrow—will be saying conservation is the number one issue. Yet if they're dumping fish over the side, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Mr. Mark Butler: The fishery is not a homogeneous place. There are a lot of players in it and we have to recognize that. I've done a little fishing. I worked as a deckhand and fished with four different skippers, and never once have I seen them take small lobster, fish extra traps, or take buried females. So I think people are making an effort in that respect.

But at the same time, in other fisheries with other regulations, you're either forced into a situation.... The economic incentives are still there under an ITQ system to dump fish. When you're out there and you have a choice between leaving $11,000 of fish in the water, or $20,000 or $30,000 of fish in the water, or keeping fishing and having to throw away three to four thousand pounds of haddock, what are you going to do? Most people presented with that situation would say rationalize it in some way.

But it's the system that tends to put people in that situation. I think the whole quota system is wrong. The ITQs are a derivation of that. It is wrong because you start off with trying to count how many fish there are in the water. I think we've shown that we don't have the capacity to do this. It all starts there.

As DFO's science budgets are getting cut back, they have even less capacity to do that. You're trying to set a quota, and this whole ITQ is “Well, if I don't have enough of this, then I'll go and buy some more.” But you can't manufacture more haddock quota like you can manufacture more shoes if there's a high demand. Everybody doesn't have enough haddock quota and they have too much cod quota. So they're put in the situation of dumping.

When we did that report, we had meetings, one-to-one conversations, and fishermen came to us with those stories. That's not the actual individual doing it, but somebody's brother who was out there fishing said, “Gee, something has to be done about this.” Today, nothing has been done about it, and people aren't talking about it so much because they're probably exhausted.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Butler, for coming with your presentation.

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I'd like to make a couple of comments based on Mr. Butler's and Mr. Stoffer's statements.

First, to you, Mr. Stoffer, to link the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to an NEOS bid to take over Fishery Products International is completely erroneous. This is a bid by three successful entrepreneurs, a takeover bid of a company. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in no way is connected with that. I fail to sense your logic.

To Mr. Butler and his reference to Mr. Risley—who I know only by reading about him—what would you be saying today about Mr. Risley if he was still selling lobsters out of the back of a truck? Would that be okay? But because he's been successful and made money and has a home, there's some problem with that?

Mr. Mark Butler: He has homes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I fail to see, to be very honest with you, where you're coming from on some of your statements. You talk about fishermen and wealth and income. I have fishermen in my part of Newfoundland and Labrador who have the same size boats, who have the same fishing licences or fish the same fishing grounds, and some make $250,000 and some make $50,000. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or anything else.

Mr. Mark Butler: I have no problem with people making money on their ability to catch fish and if they're good fishermen. That's what fishing is all about. But that's not the case any more. It's access to capital. There's a fellow I know down in Shelburne. His father fished; he fished. He has a lobster licence, a swordfish harpoon licence, and a groundfish licence. Prior to the introduction of ITQs in that area, he fished lobster in the winter and swordfish in the summer, and he made a good living off both and he didn't need to go groundfish long-lining, in part because the stocks were down and you had to go quite far offshore to get the good catches. What happens is DFO comes along and introduces personal history into that fishery, meaning that those who caught a lot in the last six years were the ones who got the biggest percentage of the quota. So bang, he no longer has access to the groundfish fishery. And that's something DFO came along and did.

• 1145

DFO says that particularly individuals prefer a free market system, but to set up an ITQ system requires a whole lot of state intervention, and monitoring and processing of the leasing and the buying and selling.

I think if it was solely based on...if somebody is a real go-getter and wants to make $200,000 as opposed to $100,000 or $80,000, that's where you have.... The person I fish with in the lobster fishery, yes, in that harbour would come in with two or three crates when other people had one crate. I don't want to take two crates away from him. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about state intervention to support a particular system like the ITQ system, which took that guy out of the ground fishery completely. Now if he wants to catch a cod he has to buy it from somebody else. That's not fair.

Mr. Bill Matthews: My comment—

The Chair: Bill, if I could, I'll cut discussion there. I think the points have been made on the record, your points and Mr. Butler's. We're straying a little from the Marshall decision and its implications, but DFO has overall responsibility for the industry.

Is there one further question for Mr. Butler?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead, one quick question, and then we have to move on.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a reaction to Mr. Matthews' statement. The fact is FPI was set up by who? It was by the Government of Canada with a lot of government money. So to say that DFO or the Government of Canada is not part of this arrangement, DFO—

The Chair: Peter, I have to cut you off, because we're going to have to deal with the implications of Marshall here. We can go into the corporate fishery at some point in the future when we're not holding witnesses up.

Thank you, Mr. Butler. You've opened up an interesting discussion.

Mr. Mark Butler: As one last comment, I would direct the committee to this review process and how it's going to recognize the Marshall decision. I think here's an example of perhaps where certain players in the fishing industry are better able to take advantage of this kind of process.

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

We will call now on the Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, Percy Hayne and Mr. Herman Deveau. Welcome, gentlemen. You're on.

Mr. Percy Hayne (President, Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board): I apologize for not being here yesterday afternoon, but there was a mix-up in faxes and I got two faxes—

The Chair: It's not the worst communication problem we've ever had on our side either, Mr. Hayne, so fire away. And could you be fairly short on your opening remarks? Then we could go to questions.

Mr. Percy Hayne: I'm not going to read this whole thing to you. I might shorten it up. The first two pages are mostly an explanation of what we're about and what we're doing, and I think you fellows can read it after.

The Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board was a group formed out of necessity in the Gulf of Nova Scotia. We felt that our incomes were declining steadily and we were being threatened as inshore fishermen, so we had to try to work together to try to make things better within the fishery. Two things we wanted to do were to collect and develop policy that will stabilize and advance Gulf of Nova Scotia multi-licensed core fishermen, less than 45 feet, and our second mission was to raise funds to do so. We were successful in buying some groundfish quota from midshore fleets and moving it into the inshore sector fishery where it could be fished by inshore fishermen to help stabilize their incomes.

One of the things we're also involved with is the licensing and the overall aspects of the fishery.

• 1150

The group was formed by the eight smaller organizations along the gulf shore—North of Smokey Fishermen's Association, Cheticamp and Area Fishermen's Association, Inverness North, Inverness South. Inverness North is Herman Deveau. This my partner here. Also Gulf Nova Scotia Bonafide, Maritime Fishermen's Union Local 4, Northumberland Fishermen's Association, and Cumberland North. We represent about 80% of the people on the gulf shore of Nova Scotia.

We have spent a considerable amount of time over the last few years trying to find ways to stabilize our fishermen in our area and trying to stabilize their incomes. We were part of the fishermen who suffered a great deal from the downturn of the ground fishery. What happened when the ground fishery collapsed is that people who did fish groundfish moved to other fisheries like herring and scallops and increased effort there. So in those fisheries, incomes of the fishermen who did traditionally fish there declined below what they had averaged for years.

We are on record as trying to find ways to reduce the number of people depending on the fishery, and on the lobster fishery too. We have actually done proposals and had meetings over the last number of years to look at that directly.

If you want to look back at the lobster fishery and where it came from, the entry into the lobster fishery and the natives' claim that for 200 years they've been deprived—up until 1967 there was unlimited entry into the lobster fishery. Anybody could go and buy a licence up until that time. In fact, I had one originally myself for 25¢, but I gave it up because I went to school or something. I had to in turn go and buy another one, which cost me a lot more.

With the introduction of limited entry, we saw the recognition that there was too much dependency on the fishery, and there were a couple of moves made in the early seventies. One was the full-time, part-time categorization of fishermen, and there was the A, B, C categorization. Those with A licences are the fishermen you see there today. The B licences died with the fishermen when they died. Those that were category C had one or two years to fish and they were taken out of the fishery.

What they were doing was lowering the dependency on the fishery. After that there was a buyback—it took place in the later seventies—which also recognized there was too much dependency on the lobster fishery. They bought back licences all through the Maritimes, and that's what brought the fishery to the level where it's at today. The number of licences basically has not increased since then.

After the buyback went through, there was another initiative that came through in the gulf area with the bona fide licensing policy, which was put in place basically to limit the number of fishermen, to stop the numbers from increasing. It was because what was happening prior to that was fishermen, if they had two or three licences, would sell one to one newcomer, another to another newcomer, and another one to another, and instead of one fisherman you'd have three.

There has been a whole bunch of objectives that took place over the last 25 to 30 years to stabilize the lobster fishery. I think if you look at the initiatives alone in the lobster fishery, with trap limits, limited entry, carapace sizes, escape mechanisms, the seasons—there have been huge efforts to make the lobster fishery what it is today. The lobster fishery is what it is today not by accident. There has been sacrifice for years by fishermen.

To some fishermen, probably to native fishermen, it looks attractive because it's easy access, and if you look at the newspapers you hear the terrific amount of money people are making in the lobster fishery. Unfortunately everybody compares the lobster fishery to what happens in Southwest Nova—$80,000 a year. That's not what happens in the rest of the Maritimes. In the rest of the Maritimes you're probably looking at half of that, on average.

In our area last year, which was considered a good year, in the Gulf of Nova Scotia I think the average was around 10,000 pounds per person. If you multiply that by $4.50 a pound, you get $45,000 in income. What a lot of people don't mention is the fact that with that $45,000 income you've got to pay for a boat, licences, gear, wages for other men, bait, and all the equipment that's needed, plus all the downloading the government has done through wharfinger fees, licensing fees, monitoring costs and stuff over the last few years. That has terrifically decreased the amount of money that is actually available to the fisherman at the end of the day. The fishery is not as lucrative as the press and a lot of people would like to think it is.

• 1155

As the fleet planning board, when the Marshall decision came out, we had a number of meetings and figured out how we were going to address the new decision. One of the things we decided—the list of things is in this paper, on page 3—is that conservation would be the first thing. Also, we fish as equals, we fish in commercial seasons, and there is direct district management. By that, we meant the natives in an area would only be able to fish in that area, where they traditionally had been accessed on the shore. We wanted no increase in the fishing effort. We asked the federal government to reintroduce the effort replacement buyback policy to a level acceptable to aboriginal fishers and traditional inshore fishers, and we asked that the cost of negotiations and buybacks be paid by the federal government.

Just to elaborate on the last statement, which is not very important in the overall picture, our organization to date has probably spent over $10,000 on meetings just to address the Marshall situation. We had no idea this was coming and never budgeted anything for it. If the government expects the inshore fishermen to have input, to be at meetings, and be able to meet with other people, there's going to have to be some help if you want a speedy solution to this problem.

As I said before, the lobster fishery isn't there by accident. It's part of a design that it has taken years to put in place. We hope the design and the time spent and effort made will be respected, and that everything will not be upset by introducing extra effort into that fishery. What we've asked the federal government is if it believes the natives should be coming into the fishery, that it be done on a replacement policy, that they replace fishermen who would be leaving the fishery. However they want to do it is up to them, but the federal government should shoulder that responsibility of buying the licences.

This problem is not the responsibility of the fishermen alone. It's not the responsibility of the inshore fishermen alone and it's not the responsibility of lobster fishermen alone. We have a whole, complete fishery out there that should be accessed if there's going to be a solution.

When we talk about midshore or offshore quotas, I hear that a number of the bigger companies are saying this doesn't affect them because they're out over three miles. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, every fish that migrates out of the gulf into the Sydney Bight area—that's where the big companies have the quotas—migrates along the shores within sight. They are protected inside, and if the natives want to fish those stocks, they can fish those stocks. It's just a matter of who has the quota in their name. They can fish them within a mile of their own harbours or their own ports. They don't have to go out to the 200-mile limit to fish them. All those fish should be accessible in one way or another. Every place should carry the equal load.

One of the things we felt strongly about is that the buyback would allow a lot of the natives to come into the fishery as equals. They were not going to be in the core enterprise situation in the inshore fishery. They would be buying complete enterprises and would not only be putting all their hopes on lobsters alone. They would fish herring, tuna, and groundfish, and they would become complete fishermen.

• 1200

We feel that as long as the natives are going to be confined to making a moderate living—if that is the statement the government wants to believe in—and if they're only going to be given enough to make a moderate living, they will always be looking up and they'll never be satisfied. As long as they're not satisfied, the problem will never be solved. We feel that if they come into the fisheries as equals and can fish as equals, in the same seasons and under the same regulations, there'll be no problem in the fishery. But we think that if they're going to be put in the fishery as add-ons, the incomes of fishermen are going to be depleted.

Maybe the add-ons could also lead to a depletion of the stock. Even if they're not responsible for depletion of the stock, if the stock falls down or if the biomass falls and the fishery falls apart, the natives' entry will be blamed. If they come in as replacements, there will never be anybody to blame.

The stock will go down. There's no doubt in my mind. We're at a high level in the lobster fishery, but the stock will go down. It's a situation that we have to deal with carefully.

When we looked at the news this year, we heard about Burnt Church and we heard about Yarmouth, right? We heard about the places where the action was actually taking place. There were lots of areas where there was potential action. I went to Pictou one day, and 150 fishermen just gathered there. They were willing to go out to burn...well, not burn, but cut or do whatever they had to do. We talked them out of it and tried to say there's a better way of doing things, that we'd negotiate. Our idea is that if something happens, if we get into big fights with the natives, those wounds are going to be there for a long period of time and are not going to go away. What has happened in Burnt Church is not going to go away tomorrow.

The federal government has to realize there's only one way to solve this problem, and that's through a buyback. You hear of all these other little ideas that are going to bring them in. I heard the chief talking about the extra traps that were fished, and the poaching. There again you're singling out what happens in certain areas. In the Gulf of Nova Scotia there was no poaching going on, at least not by the commercial fishermen. If commercial fishermen go out there and see that traps have been put in the water by cottagers or somebody, they're not there long. The fishermen look after the problem. There are a few areas in eastern Canada where there is poaching, but it doesn't happen everywhere. We shouldn't all be painted by that same brush.

The Chair: Thank you for a very heartfelt presentation, Mr. Hayne.

In your principle 4, you say:

No increase in fishing effort - the Federal Government must re-introduce effort replacement buy-back policy to a level acceptable to Aboriginal fishers and traditional inshore fishers.

Do you have any suggestions on what that level might be? We're hearing about buybacks everywhere, too. How do you do it?

Mr. Percy Hayne: There are a couple of ways to do it. You can enter into a buyback, as was traditionally done when the government got involved. The other way you can do it is to give the natives a certain amount of money and let them decide where they want to fish themselves, where they want to spend the money. That seems to be what's happened in some of the other settlements with natives across the country. There have been large money deals made, along with land and stuff.

One thing we've realized is that not all reserves throughout Nova Scotia have the same needs or all the same wants. Some are not interested in fishing, but others are very interested in fishing. It just depends on where they're located and what their history was.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hayne.

Mr. Cummins.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting the final paragraph on the first page of Mr. Hayne's presentation, where he says “there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish”. He goes on to detail how the fishermen themselves have taken a hand in ensuring that they have a viable fishery, that they in fact borrowed money from the Nova Scotia government to buy up some licences in order to ensure that they had an adequate opportunity to harvest enough fish to make their fishery viable.

• 1205

When the Supreme Court decision was made, the Supreme Court, and I think it's fair to say the government, somehow seemed to think this kind of effort hadn't been made, that this horn of plenty just dropped on these fellows and they're there picking the plums and whatnot.

I think this presentation makes it very clear that an awful lot of effort has gone into making the fishery what it is today, that the fishermen made a lot of sacrifices. I don't know whether you want to comment any further on that, Percy, but I know that as individuals, people have worked outside the industry to support themselves as they got going and so on. I don't think that point was made at the court when these decisions were coming down, and I think it's an important one.

Mr. Percy Hayne: One thing is that the fishery ministers, time after time over the last number of years, have stated that there are problems. As late as last year, the fisheries minister was talking about the problems in the lobster fishery, talking about how the lobster fishery has to be stabilized. The FRCC report said the same thing prior to the Marshall decision. The Auditor General has said the same thing. We can't forget that. We can't forget where it came from and where we're at today.

The only thing that held the east coast fishery together in the cod crisis was the lobster fishery. If the lobster fishery hadn't been there to back up the ground fishery, the cod crisis would have been five or ten times as bad. In the areas where there were lobster fisheries and people could exist in both fisheries, the fishermen, the people that may have fished lobsters, did not qualify for TAGS or any part of the groundfish subsidy.

All my life I have made a great part of my living fishing groundfish and a great part fishing lobsters. I've never received one penny of groundfish subsidy or TAGS money or anything. It was the lobster fishery that made the difference. In Newfoundland, where there was no great lobster fishery, the crisis was twice as bad.

Mr. John Cummins: The other question I wanted to ask you is regarding your brief. When I look at it, I see that the points you make in it reflect the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance's principles. Are you working with those people at all or are you within that group?

Mr. Percy Hayne: No, we're not affiliated with those groups. We have a lot of the same thoughts, I think, but being from the Gulf of Nova Scotia, we have a southern gulf advisory board. That's the group we'll be working with. It's much the same as the alliance, but we're dealing with P.E.I., New Brunswick, and some Quebec inshore fishermen.

Mr. John Cummins: The last thing I'd like to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Hayne mentioned that they talked people out of taking direct action when this decision came down. Many of us did the same in British Columbia in 1992, and we still have the problem. I hope that seven years from now this issue will have been settled on this coast, that we won't still be going through the throes of trying to integrate a fishery that is already fairly open, in my view.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I have to follow along with what Mr. Cummins has said. Your organization should be congratulated for defusing what could have been a very volatile situation. On behalf of all of us, thank you for those efforts.

In your principles, though, in number 3 you mentioned district management. We've heard Mr. Brownstein from the MFU, who was here earlier, talking about a Cape Breton management system for the fisheries. We also heard from the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, who have ITQ systems within their groups as well. I asked Mr. Brownstein if he is conversing at all with the crab fishermen—for example, Area 19—and reaching a sort of dual relationship so that they could work together. Are you working at all with the Area 19 crab fishermen, in any regard, in order to come up with a sort of district management proposal to DFO?

Mr. Percy Hayne: Yes, we're working with them. Herman is a district 19 crab fishermen.

Mr. Herman Deveau (Director, Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board): We have members in our association who are crab fishermen now with Area 19.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Great. Obviously one of the concerns you would have in district management is the conservation and the habitat protection of the areas where you fish. Would that be correct?

Mr. Percy Hayne: Yes.

• 1210

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So obviously you have grave concerns over any kind of oil and gas leases that may happen in, for example, phase one of the Cabot project in your area.

Mr. Percy Hayne: Well, we're certainly concerned about the oil and gas exploration, about what's happening, about the role the Department of Fisheries is playing, which seems to be nil, and about the role the Department of the Environment is playing, which seems to be nil. We were hoping that both departments would pull up their socks a little and stand up to their responsibilities.

We feel very threatened by oil and gas, and we've had a number of meetings with the people in the native community who feel the same way. We are wondering what the government is doing in giving the natives this great entry into the fishery when the fishery is so threatened at the same time. We and the natives fully agree on that; we've been to several meetings together. I just don't understand why the fisheries department, the Department of the Environment, and the Government of Canada are letting this situation on the east coast of Canada just get out of hand.

They talk about consultation with the fishermen, but there's been no consultation with the fishermen. They come to a meeting, tell us what they're doing, and it's “see you later”. We'll say what we think our opinion is. Nobody pays any attention to us.

We're saying the same thing here with the Donald Marshall thing: nobody has any respect for the fishermen. We have been talked about in the documents as a third party. We are not there as a first party or in a negotiating position. At the end of the day—I'll make this statement—the fishermen will have to be satisfied because, if not, there will be twice as much trouble in the spring. This has to come to some solution here, to get at it...the fishermen are not simply going to roll over and die.

We talked about people in the fishing industry today paying $200,000 and $300,000 for gear. Some other people talked about it, as you know. In our area it's more like $200,000. If young people get into the fishery, they don't have only their boat against that loan any more; it's their house, their car...everything they own is against that fishing gear.

If they lose that income, they'll be out on the streets, and I'll guarantee you that they'll fight that. There's no doubt about it in my mind. Those are the hard facts about it. I'm just being honest with you. Those are the hard facts about it: what happened last fall will be repeated. If this is not settled, it will be far worse in the spring.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hayne, for being so direct. That's what we want to hear in terms of your feelings on the issue. We appreciate that very much.

I have just a couple of questions. We've heard a lot about the food fishery creating an illegal black market commercial fishery. Do you have any points? Secondly, tied into that, we've heard about a problem of enforcement. Do you have any points you want to add in that area?

Mr. Percy Hayne: There's no doubt that the food fishery has become a commercial fishery. It was even before the Marshall decision, but now it is basically a wide open commercial fishery. I think it's going to be a problem in the overall picture. If it could be brought into same fishing season as the commercial fishery and if it could all be done at one time, it could alleviate that problem. But if it's going to be used as a black market...unfortunately, there's money that can be made at that time of year, other than in season. There are easy markets and easy access to fish. It's easy money.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Deveau, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Herman Deveau: Mr. Stoffer, about the oil and gas you brought up, the fleet planning board are the ones who started an organization and got it going in our area. We started the gulf advisory board, which three of our members from the fleet planning board are sitting on, along with people from other areas on the coast. We are pushing to try to get the oil and gas stopped. At our last meeting, we were trying to get natives to come on side with us. I just wanted to bring that up.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Have there been any consultations with the province at all?

Mr. Herman Deveau: With the province?

Mr. Percy Hayne: Everybody is turning their heads to the big dollar. Everybody thinks the big dollars come with oil and gas, and they're turning their heads. They have their minds in their pockets.

• 1215

The Chair: Thank you. That's a good way of putting it. I'll leave it at that.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation and the directness of it. For your information, we do intend to report to Parliament prior to Christmas. I think I can say for all members of this committee that we certainly believe there has to be rapid action on this issue so that everything is in place and all people know where they stand, whether native or non-native, or DFO officials and officers, by the time April rolls around, although I know there are some fisheries involved right now.

Anyway, that's our intent, to have a report from this committee to Parliament prior to the Christmas break.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Percy Hayne: We have no problems fishing as equals with the natives. There's no problem whatsoever. If they come in through the front door, as we've said before, to buy back as equals in the fishery, there will be no problem.

A number of natives fish commercially in our area right now, and they fish the same as everybody else. They can make a moderate living, but that is up to the individuals themselves, what they take out of the fishery.

The Chair: Once again, thank you very much.

For members' information, if we could, we'll try to be back here by 1 p.m. instead of 1.15 p.m. so that we can get started a little early.

We are adjourned until 1 p.m.