Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 22 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 2, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 3:50 p.m. to examine and report upon the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (Report on Priorities and Planning and Departmental Performance Report) and other matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I will call this hearing to order. We have before us this afternoon the Honourable David Anderson and a number of his colleagues, who will be introduced later on.
I have one slight housekeeping duty to go to before we call on the Minister, and I believe Senator Mahovlich has a motion.
Senator Mahovlich: I move that the document "Fisheries and Oceans Response to the Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries: Privatization and Quota Licensing in Canada's Fisheries," dated April 14, 1999, be printed as an appendix to this day's minutes of proceedings.
The Chairman: So moved. Do we have a seconder?
Senator Meighen: I second the motion.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chairman: Carried.
On behalf of the members of the committee, Minister Anderson, thank you again for taking time out of your very busy schedule to appear before us. It is very much appreciated. The meeting this afternoon will concentrate mainly on questions that arose from our December report on quota licensing in Canada's fisheries, and some of the questions will arise from the response to our recommendations. I understand that you have an opening statement, after which we will proceed to questions, Minister.
Mr. David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Mr. Chairman, thank you once more for having me before you. I enjoyed our last meeting and look forward to this one, and if there are questions left over I am always happy to return. It is a pleasure to be back here. As you know, when I met with you in April you had not had sufficient time to study the government's response to your report, so I brought with me today several members of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans management team who are going to assist me in responding to the questions.
If I could, before getting to those questions, perhaps I could just indicate how we got to where we are, and hopefully say a word or two as to where we are going. Obviously, we are all well aware that in Atlantic Canada, and of course the maritime areas of Quebec as well, fishing was the basis of a way of life for generations, for centuries. Then earlier in this decade, we saw the widespread collapse of the Atlantic groundfish stocks. A number of factors contributed to that decline; foreign overfishing, domestic overfishing and changes in ocean conditions, but the causes are numerous and I think we have to accept some responsibility.
I mentioned domestic fishing, wasteful and destructive fishing practices and an excessive expansion of fishing capacity in those optimistic days of the 1970s when we acquired that 200-mile limit. There simply were too many boats chasing too few fish.
Turning quickly to the West Coast, coho and other salmon stocks suffered the effects of overfishing, combined with habitat degradation and changing ocean conditions. I would also add that our inability to make sensible arrangements on conservation with our American friends was another factor.
[Translation]
These events were devastating, but they served as a wake-up call. They showed that the status quo could not be maintained. DF0 has responded to this call, and so has the industry. We are working together to develop a fishery that is environmentally sustainable, economically viable and self-adjusting.
We have fundamentally changed the way we look at resource management. Conservation comes first, and we will not compromise it to achieve other objectives. This means that not everyone who wants to fish will be able to fish. We cannot use the fishery as a tool to create employment, not if we want to have any fishery left.
[English]
Restructuring measures, such as licence policy reform, licence retirement programs and early retirement initiatives have had a positive influence in balancing the harvesting capacity with the resource. Over the long term this will result in more stability and security for those who continue to depend on the fishery.
We are also working with the industry to give those who work in the fishery a role in its management. This will help to ensure that the fishery of the future is self-adjusting, that it has been provided with the capacity to maintain a balance between harvesting and resource availability over the long term.
One way of achieving this is through co-management. About 30 of the 140 key fisheries in Canada operate under some form of co-management approach, and the individual quotas or IQs complement this approach.
IQs are not perfect; they are not a cure-all. They are not necessarily for everyone. In many instances, however, the IQ system has helped eliminate many of the problems that affect competitive fisheries, problems such as the race-for-the-fish mentality, over-capitalization, poor quality control, and the tendency to compromise safety at sea. The co-management approach gives stakeholders more responsibility and involves them in the decision-making process in how the fishing industry is run. That is consistent with the advice of the independent panel that is studying partnering, which I put in place last fall.
In its report, tabled in December, the panel advised that it would be premature at this time to establish a legal framework for partnering under a revised Fisheries Act. At the same time the panel urged the federal government to continue with its co-management initiatives.
I have accepted the panel's recommendations and I will not introduce full-scale revisions to the Fisheries Act at this time. Rather, I will be focusing on the development of a policy framework to support our goal of building a fishery of the future. I made this announcement to the Fisheries Ministers meeting when the provincial and federal ministers met in Quebec City on April 12, and it was generally well received, as it has been by industry as well.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank your committee for your hard work and for the report that you have produced on privatizing and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
[Translation]
We learned a hard lesson from the collapse of Atlantic groundfish and the decline of some Pacific salmon stocks. We understand that we must all it adapt and make changes in the way we operate. To that end, we recognize that we need to continue to work closely with other governments, industry groups, First Nations, coastal communities, fishers, and stakeholders to secure the future of our oceans and fishery resources.
[English]
Your work, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, will assist greatly in policy reviews that we have been initiating to address these imperatives.
The Chairman: I have a number of questions which I will be coming to later on, but I wish to defer to my colleagues first. I would like to ask Senator Adams if he has any opening questions.
Senator Adams: You said that you have too many boats and fishers. Do you think that you will reduce the fishing? How will you approach that?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, certainly, Senator Adams. For example, fishing registrations in Canada in 1988, which was a peak year, numbered 86,367. There has been a drop of 23.3 per cent in 1997, the last year for which I have full figures, to 66,259. As you know, senator, on June 19 last year, I announced further reduction measures for the fleet, so that figure of 23.3 per cent would be greater at this time. There has been a substantial reduction.
Senator Adams: We heard from some of our witnesses that quotas are being reduced because, with the bigger fleets, you want to have more control. Are there too many boats, or do you want to reduce the quotas to keep more stock for the future?
Mr. Anderson: Certainly I should add that the licence holders for groundfish declined from about 17,000 in 1992, when Minister Crosbie first started the measures of groundfish control, to 11,000 this year. Again there was a drop of 6,000. With respect to the reduction in the number of boats and fishers, that does not affect the actual total allowable catch, or TAC. In other words, with fewer fishers there will be a higher level of catch per remaining fishers in the fleet. The quota does not simply disappear. We still remain with our TAC and therefore fewer fishers share in that number. Of course the TAC will vary, but that is related to conservation issues, not to the number of fishers.
Senator Adams: You mentioned salmon on the West Coast. How is the system different between the West Coast and the East Coast with respect to salmon and groundfish?
Mr. Anderson: Many salmon fishers have licences for other species on the West Coast. My first job was in a fish plant when I was 16, so my knowledge of the industry goes way back, and I would think that most salmon fishers only fish salmon. That is my guess. We have again reduced the numbers on the West Coast quite substantially.
We have accepted 746 of the bids that have been put in, for a reduction of 23 per cent. This has been quite general across all areas of the fleet. The same fleet was reduced 27 per cent and the average price of licence was about $450,000. The gillnet fleet was reduced by 20 per cent, I believe that the average price for that licence was about $86,000. The hook and line troll fleet was reduced by 25 per cent. By having a committee of fishers responsible for managing the reduction plan, they have made the decisions as to where the reductions would be. I stress again, it is all voluntary. The fishers themselves decide that they would like to take advantage of the program. They put in a bid, and if their bid is at the appropriate level it may be accepted. If it is too high, obviously it will be rejected.
Senator Mahovlich: You said that about 30 per cent of 140 key fisheries in Canada operate under the co-management approach. Why only 30 per cent?
Mr. Anderson: I will leave that to Mr. Robichaud, but one reason is that we are very gentle in our approach. For example, we insist upon 60 per cent of the fishers in the fleet requesting IQ before we move into that. While IQ has advantages, we make sure that those who do not know agree with the IQ fisheries for ideological or other reasons, and that they do not feel that this is pushed upon them. But perhaps Jacque Robichaud could say a few more words.
Mr. Jacque Robichaud, Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Co-management is a new approach that has evolved in the last three years. The individual IQ program has been around quite a while. Individual quota is not necessarily a prerequisite for co-management.
Co-management is a voluntary approach where the stakeholder, the fisher, wants to participate in setting the objectives of the management plan, in making decisions and assuming some responsibility. It is voluntary and is done only as a pilot project. As the minister indicated, there are approximately 30 or so and we are open. They take time and you can only do so many at once.
Senator Mahovlich: We are going to look for more self-management.
Mr. Robichaud: Yes, there will be more of those. Every few months there are more.
Senator Meighen: When you talk about co-management, does that include community co-management, or is that what co-management is, in essence?
Mr. Robichaud: The way we look at it, there could be co-management. A group of licence holders in the community could decide to regroup two or three different fleets and develop a common approach. For example, you see that in southwest Nova. The fleets are not necessarily under a co-management agreement, but I would see that as a possibility. A true example of co-management is that of the Eastport lobster fishery off the coast of Newfoundland, where the licence holders in that community have regrouped together under a co-management agreement aimed at conserving lobster, and hence their work. That is one example that I know of, but generally it is the fleets or a fleet of licence holders that will sit down and assume responsibility.
Senator Meighen: You are talking about a fleet as opposed to what?
Mr. Robichaud: I am talking about a fleet as opposed to a community.
Senator Meighen: Does the department have a view on community co-management or do you take it on a case-by-case basis, as you just mentioned in Newfoundland?
Mr. Robichaud: It is a voluntary approach, and if a community, or a group of fishers that reside in a community, so wished, certainly we would embark on it. But for now the department must deal principally with the licensed holder because that is whom the minister issues fishing rights to. Licensed holders can regroup within a community and we would be very receptive to that.
Senator Cook: I am looking at the recommendations here, and I am reading the response to recommendations and I cannot seem to get a clear focus on it. For example, look at the second paragraph.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, I understand your dilemma and I share it. One of the difficulties that we face is the variety of fisheries in Canada and the different historical backgrounds. You simply cannot consider some of the aboriginal communities on the West Coast of Canada, on Vancouver Island, in the same light that you can some of the communities not very far away, which are entirely industrially based. There is a distinction. We have the aboriginal fishing strategy and we have variations there.
Similarly, on the East Coast there are some areas where the fishery is very much a social fishery, and it would be extremely difficult to convert it into what a business person might think would be an effective commercial fishery. We are, however, stressing and moving towards a more industrial approach.
By this, I mean that to get the highest level of returns to fishers you have to be able to guarantee the suppliers fish. You have to be able to guarantee quality of fish. You have to be able to guarantee the flow throughout a period of time, and this is why IQ holds such attraction for some fishers, because it dramatically improves their income.
If we wish the fishers to have a higher income, we have to ensure that some of the $2.2 billion that comes into coastal communities, as a value of our exports that is, stays in the coastal communities. There has to be a sensible industrial base. We can no longer simply dry cod and bundle it up and treat it as a commodity like wood chips. That is simply not possible when you are dealing with the restaurant white tablecloth trade.
Mr. Decker, an extremely intelligent and very fine fisher from the north coast of Newfoundland, was telling me that previously they had 60,000 tonnes of cod. He felt if the numbers ever reached 20,000 again they would probably do just as well because of that change of market. That requires some industrial organization. It cannot be simply going out there and doing what we used to do. High-end fisheries can be real money makers. Now Pangnirtung, in Nunavut, has a very effective fishery, but they simply cannot compete. The differential is about 20 to 30 per cent compared with southern fisheries landed in Halifax or some other southern city.
The northern fisheries can compete if they hit the restaurants that advertise "Fish caught north of the Arctic Circle," "Fish from the coldest waters of the world" or "Come to this high-class restaurant," and what might be a $20 main dish goes up to $22, and then you have a market and you have a commercially viable operation.
If those people simply produce low-value fish, which would be the result of a subsistence fishery, it would destroy the economy that they are developing. We are emphasising high-quality fish, but it is not a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" approach. We recognize that there are areas in the country where it is not possible to make that switch.
Senator Cook: Hopefully we would see emerging out of your new policy framework some direction to build this kind of a community and to fish in this manner with all the nuts and bolts in place.
Mr. Anderson: Certainly we are doing that consistently in our various fishery programs. We will find some resistance. For instance, IQs have certain advantages, and I would stress that the issue of safety is a very important one, but there are some people who just simply do not believe in that; they believe in the competitive fishery, and they believe that they are the best fishers. It is a question of ideology, and we are pretty gentle in our efforts to move to a more commercialized approach and to move to an IQ approach. We try hard not to force people, but when you have such large numbers of people who are so poor, the dilemma is finding alternatives.
The Chairman: In your opening comments, you said that we all remember that Atlantic Canada fishing was the basis of a way of life for generations, and I stress the word "was." The comments you have just made indicate that your emphasis now is to move to high-end value, rather than salt cod, for example, which is kind of a commodity. Obviously, somewhere in Ottawa the decision has been made that this way of life is no longer applicable and that you will impose your values on coastal communities, come hell or high water, whether it is appropriate for those communities or not. That seems to be the case. I may be overstating it a little bit.
Let me give you an example. Many of the communities in Atlantic Canada depend on forestry, fishing, tourism, mining and agriculture. Every one of these sectors of the economy is important, but Atlantic Canada does not have an unlimited economy like you would find in a large urban centre. For generations, when one of the sectors seems to not be working as well as the other, people kind of shift around between being a forester, to being a fisher, to being a tourism operator, and you are removing one of the principal sectors of these coastal communities. You are saying, "That is no longer a part of the way of life in this community. We have made the decision here in Ottawa and you are going to have to accept it."
Are you really sure that this how it should be done? Let me give you an example of what we do when we send social workers to a country like Africa, for example. The very first thing we say is, "Do not impose your Canadian values on people, on a way of life. Be mindful of the social and cultural and historical fabric of that community." However, you are doing exactly what we tell people not to do in other countries. Why are we doing it in Canada when we do not allow ourselves to do it in other countries? I would like you to comment. I think it goes to the heart of what this committee has been trying to look at, and judging from some of the comments in your response to Senator Cook, I think we are on two opposite extremes of opinion here.
Mr. Anderson: I think that the driver for change has been the change in the resource, not any departmental decision taken by Mr. Crosbie, any subsequent ministers or myself. You have given an interesting example of a community with a mixed economy, which we in no way would want to alter to its detriment.
I think, however, that the concept of maximizing income for that community is something that most of the people within that community accept wholeheartedly. It is not a question of trying to destroy their approach; it is a question, perhaps, of making them more able to satisfy a lifestyle that has been hard hit by stock declines, so it is not a question of us forcing this on to people.
For example, the northern cod stocks, which were at 70,000 tonnes, are now down this year to 7,500, and people are quite cheerful that it is so high. It is just about a tenth of what it was. The southern gulf is down again, it was just announced yesterday. It too is at one-tenth of what it used to be.
The department has not been forcing changes on these people. If we had continued to fish as we had done in the past, with the same numbers of people, we could guarantee that fishers would all have less than a tenth of the income they previously earned. For of course the costs remain the same, yet there is only a tenth of the fish to catch. The changes have been forced by circumstances beyond my control, and our job now is to try to make sure that, in cooperation with other government departments and in particular with regional economic expansion, that we try to support these communities by making this sector at least viable, and hopefully by providing a reasonable income to those people that you have described. If we do not make some changes, we know that it will provide no income of any amount to those people and they will essentially be paupers, at least with respect to their fishing income.
That is the hard reality that we face. There are some limits. I am speaking with experienced politicians so I know that I do not have to point out that government hierarchies in different departments have different roles. Ours relates to fisheries, nevertheless we cooperate closely with human resources, and in particular with the regional economic development agencies to assist in shifting to things like tourism.
In one part of British Columbia, for example, people come to do nothing but look at fish. They do not even catch them. The recreational fishery expansions bring more revenue to the community with fewer fish killed than in the commercial fisheries. We tried hard to expand.
I do not pretend that we have solved these communities' problem. It is a very tough one. It is very important for Canadians to understand that when revenue is so reduced, the Government of Canada must play a role in assisting.
In France, for example, the government decided that it was going to have to pay very heavy subsidies to keep at least some people on the land. They have done this at vast expense, but it is a legitimate social objective. We have never really had such a clear articulation of what we are trying to do for these coastal communities. I can tell you, though, that they cannot go back to what they were before on the basis of the fisheries resource without essentially destroying that resource.
The Chairman: I do not think that you actually got my point, but we will come back to this later on.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am happy with how you answered the chairman's question. I will come back to that later. However, I am not so happy about something else and I would like to discuss that with you. I am referring to the ninth recommendation in our report where we call upon DFO to distribute the resource equitably to allow small-scale fishers a better opportunity of participating in the fisheries.
The resource is rather limited in my region. Most likely you will tell me that snow crab stocks are not as plentiful as we imagine they are. It all depends on who you listen to. If we talk about $500,000 per year to sustain the large-scale fishers, then I don't agree. Inshore fishers, on the other hand, share the lobster fishery.
This year, herring stocks are not as plentiful as they have been in years past. You have just announced the shutdown of the scallop fishery in our zone because stocks are dangerously low. We do not really know what has caused this, although overfishing is a likely culprit. However, the repercussions of the building of the Confederation Bridge are also now being felt.
Getting back to the highly lucrative snow crab fishery, in the past, temporary licences were issued, which certainly benefited inshore fishermen. We cannot seem to find a formula which would allow these fishers to participate on a more permanent basis in this fishery.
Moreover, I have no desire to exclude those who already fish this resource, because it has provided them with substantial revenues. However, I firmly believe that there is room for small-scale fishers to increase their participation in this fishery. In its response to recommendation 9, DFO said it would consider the history of this particular fishery, but we know for a fact that 130 licences were issued to individuals who fish this resource exclusively and that they earned a very decent living at it. There is no indication that anything is likely to change. I would like us to consider an alternative, one that would allow more fishers to share in this fishery, instead of some continuing to have exclusive rights.
Mr. Anderson: The Auditor General has been very critical of the department for getting involved too often in social policy instead of confining itself to fishery issues. As far as the crab fishery and zone 12 are concerned, the issue is rather technical. It is possible to introduce some changes affecting small-scale fishers. It is always possible to share the resource and to allocate fishing licences and quotas differently, but the crab fishery is somewhat unique because we are currently in the third year of a five-year agreement.
Mr. Robichaud: First of all, when the Atlantic fishery licence policy was reviewed, it was agreed that wherever possible, emphasis should be placed on sharing the resource to ensure more diversified fishing activities. When stocks of one species drop, fishers can then turn to another species. Licence holders in the southern area of the Gulf, that is the bona fide fishers, own a variety of licences which enable them to diversify their operations to some extent. Only 6,000 metric tons of ground fish can be taken, for example. Different licences allow fishers to diversify and to catch something other than lobster and herring, stocks of which have been less plentiful this spring, despite the fact that TACs have been increased slightly.
Moreover, when the policy of resource sharing was introduced, three goals were identified: conservation must be practised, the viability of permanent fishers must be maintained and measures must be taken to share the resource temporarily. The minister noted that the Auditor General has been critical of our wanting to share the resource a little too often. We have pointed out that what we are advocating is a temporary measure, based on a certain income scale. In this instance, pursuant to the agreement, the level agreed-upon was an income of $500,000. This agreement, which was approved by the minister, is slated to come up for review this fall, and the income scale will be reassessed at this time. As Senator Robichaud pointed out, this will enable us to share the resource over a three-year period. Admittedly, during the past two years, there has been no sharing of crab stocks in zone 12. Now that stocks have apparently increased, the outlook is more promising.
As the Auditor General stated, when we have permanent groundfish licence holders, we run the risk of finding ourselves with 17,000 license holders, as was the case in 1992. When fishers become dependent on a particular species, this dependency remains after stocks have been depleted. That is what the AG is concerned about. We pointed out at a recent meeting that the sharing of stocks is only a temporary solution, provided stock levels are sufficient to sustain this practice.
Senator Robichaud: You have given us the same answer several times. This year, inshore fishers had asked to be allowed to fish in a zone where a particular species of crab is found. It is of inferior quality because it requires more processing, which should please processing plant workers. This species of crab dies off. It is a natural phenomenon.
DFO did not feel that it was advisable, even for 100 fishers, to go into this zone. I would like to see them given a permanent share of the overall quota, that is 30 or 35 per cent divided among 700 or 800 fishers, or maybe more, from New Brunswick. As was done in the past, a draw could be held. Fishers were happy with that approach.
We appear to be stuck in the mindset that nothing must change. I will admit that in the past, some rather violent demonstrations were staged. We must not get caught in the trap that has been set for us by licence holders. That is what I see happening right now. I would like us to keep an open mind and to find a solution that does not put the fishery on the critical list. The crab fishery is healthy and undergoing a normal cycle. Under the circumstances, we could be doing better.
I want to come back to something you said earlier. Stocks are declining. There are still some people in the communities who depend on the fishery. You are working with other departments to find ways of helping these communities weather the hard times and I am very happy to hear that. Lastly, scallop farming operations have begun in the Straight of Northumberland and along the New Brunswick coast. Similar operations are already up and running in the Magdalen Islands. However, there is a problem. Apart from their boats, fishers do not have the necessary funds to run these types of operations. The departments of Human Resources Development and Fisheries and Oceans have put up some money, but more needs to be done. You said that you were open to new ideas. However, no one has any money to fund seawater farming. Are you telling us that money is available from some other source to give these communities an opportunity to develop this resource?
Mr. Anderson: Any time resources can be developed, we are prepared to encourage that. We even have special funds set aside for the development of new fisheries. We do what we can with the funds available to us, but our budget is nevertheless limited.
If opportunities present themselves for fishers to exploit new species, then by all means we encourage this. Problems do occasionally surface initially. Sometimes the market becomes closed to others and that is where problems arise.
Regarding the crab fishery, particularly in your region, our hands are tied because of this five-year agreement. As you suggested, we considered a coastal zone. Unfortunately, there is not enough support for this initiative in other sectors. Those who stood to benefit supported the idea, whereas those who saw it as a challenge rejected it, and therefore, we decided not to go forward.
Senator Robichaud: If someone asked me to dip into my own bank account, I would have to say no. That is what these fishers were being asked to do, namely share the resource and therefore their income. They rejected this idea.
Mr. Anderson: It is always possible to introduce some changes in the case of a particular group. Some groups are at a disadvantage, but there are few fishery resources that are not exploited by a particular group. It is not easy to modify quotas.
Senator Robichaud: I am not saying that it is easy. Nothing is easy in the fishery. If someone is allocated a quota, then someone else's quota is reduced accordingly. What we are trying to do is achieve some kind of balance within the industry.
Mr. Anderson: I appreciate your expertise in this area. When this portfolio was held by Mr. Mifflin and before that, by Mr. Tobin, you were Secretary of State and you were involved in decisions respecting the crab fishery. Perhaps you have a greater understanding of why certain decisions were made. My hands are tied for the next two years because of the agreement signed three years ago.
Senator Robichaud: Are you referring to the McKenna agreement?
Mr. Anderson: You were the minister responsible at the time. I do not know.
Senator Robichaud: No.
Mr. Anderson: But you were close to the minister who made the decision. It is extremely difficult to amend a five-year agreement in mid-course. There is insufficient consensus among the various sectors and provinces to proceed with the desired changes.
Senator Robichaud: The agreement that you are referring to was signed under difficult conditions when the threat of violence was imminent.
Mr. Anderson: That was different. Sometimes, certain groups stand to gain by resorting to illegal or, at the very least, unacceptable actions.
Senator Robichaud: I agree.
Mr. Anderson: Consider, for example, the illegal 11-day occupation by fishers of a boat in the Gaspé, and the one-week occupation of all fishery offices on Newfoundland's west coast. Certain groups benefited from these incidents.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Robichaud brought up the question of being criticized by the Auditor General for making social decisions. I reviewed the most recent Auditor General's report and my impression was that the department did not provide itself with any kind of mandate to look at social considerations. That is why the Auditor General criticized the department, because it was making social policy decisions which the department had said it would not do. I will refer to a few comments in the Auditor General's report.
It said that the overall department objective was economic, ecological and scientific. It said that at the beginning of their audit, the department informed us that conservation as used here means the biological aspect of sustainability, that it does not include broader economic or social issues. Further on, it also says that the department reports neither to Parliament nor to the fishery concerning the implications of fishery management decisions. This was confirmed by a department official before the public accounts committee. The department confirmed that it does not support the consideration of social factors. The criticism from the Auditor General is that you are, in fact, making social decisions but that you do not wish to do that. Is that the criticism you are getting?
Mr. Anderson: The Auditor General was sharply critical, and tended to believe that we should take a more limited role. On the other hand, without criticizing the report, we are finding, first, that we spend a lot of time working with another government department that had that other mandate, and sometimes delivery mechanisms are not clearly in one department or in another. I do not think that that aspect was adequately explored in the report. That was our fault for not making it obvious, that we do, in fact, work hand in glove with government departments regarding more than social and economic orientation. I am afraid that here there is a word of criticism, but I think that it is extremely difficult for us to simply wash our hands and say that we are only concerned with fish, with science, with total limits, and with the economics of fleet, and that we are not concerned with social and economic issues. It is more than political flesh and blood can bear, as I am sure most of the people around this table understand. It would be impossible to put aside the concerns of the communities, in politics and administration.
The Chairman: We agree entirely with you, Minister, and I agree with the Auditor General as well, that if you are going to do it, articulate it. This is one of the recommendations in our report. Start articulating it. We are not saying that you should not do it at all, but please do it in a way that we know where you are going. Do not let one of your officials go before the public accounts committee and say, "The department confirmed that it does not support consideration of social factors." That is what Auditor General was referring to, and we are saying please do concern yourself with social factors; do concern yourself with the decisions and their impact on coastal communities. I think this is what the Auditor General is saying as well. If I thought for a minute that the Auditor General was telling your department not to concern itself with social considerations, we would criticize the Auditor General ourselves, and we would be very glad to do it, but I do not think this is what the Auditor General is saying.
Mr. Anderson: I accept the suggestion and criticism that we should do more in articulating that. I think that is probably true. We tend to speak more about science or conservation than about the socio-economics of a small community.
For example, when we make decisions on the temporary allocation of shrimp, we take into account such issues as adjacency, which clearly has a social impact. We did not simply allocate shrimp to the 17 large vessels with the major licences. We considered the historic situation. In other words, where there was dependence and reliance, we tended to continue that rather than opening it up for grabs and saying that any community can proceed. We tried hard to make sure that the temporary process was there and clearly understood, so that there was not excess capitalization. We also talked about not disturbing existing economic relationships; in other words, plants that already had a flow of product would continue to receive it. In that decision we took many considerations into account, which could be considered to be economic, but which were also social. The communities were not going to be subjected to the full rough and tumble of pure economics. We made sure that the social aspects were taken into account.
The Chairman: We do not dispute your right to do this. As a matter of fact, we encourage you to take social considerations into account. Just to make my point I am going to read you what I have here, "The department is pursuing social objectives that it has not articulated to Parliament, and economic objectives for which it has not identified expected results."
I just want to make the point that I do not think that the Auditor General was telling you not to get involved; he was just sending the message that if you do get involved, please bring it forth to Parliament. I think it meshes very well with what we, as a committee, proposed in our December report.
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely, senator. I think it is very important to have the exchanges and the discussions that we have here. I would entirely agree that it is most important, and again, may I thank you for your willingness to engage in this discussion. I regard this as a very valuable forum for this analysis and exchange of views. The House committee sometimes focuses elsewhere. This committee has taken a much more in-depth approach on this issue and I appreciate it very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
Senator Meighen: Minister, I wanted to go back to the area of IQs, ITQs, IVQs and their role and nature. Either you or one of your officials indicated that IQs are complementary to your basic approach and that they are not necessary for everyone. With my tongue in my cheek a little bit, this sounds vaguely like IQs are necessary but not necessarily IQs. I am trying to get a handle myself on where your department is aiming with respect to IQs, ITQs and IVQs. Is it to institute them wherever possible? I heard somebody say that there are a lot of people who are not in favour, and if they really are not in favour, we are not going to cram it down their throat.
Are there any other reasons not to institute them in a particular area, geographic or stock wise, in terms of the fish, and what are they? What would cause you to say that this is clearly inapplicable here, that we should not do this, other than opposition by those most directly affected. I am just trying to get a handle on where the department would like to end up in the near future, if you were to wave a magic wand. Would you like to have individual quotas right across the country and just about everywhere you could get it accepted, or not?
Mr. Anderson: Where the fishers themselves express a desire to get involved, which many do, to the tune of 60 per cent, we are happy to proceed. I will turn over to members of the department here examples where it may not be possible to have an IQ system. I am not sure where that might be. I do think, however, that we have to watch for some of the concerns raised in both Iceland and New Zealand with respect to ITQs. There, it was felt that ultimately those fishers with the deepest pockets and the best ability to last out downturns in the cycle would inevitably be buying up the licences of smaller folk, and thus communities might be dramatically affected. There certainly has been a lot of criticism within Iceland, which is one of the very few countries that still maintains substantial benefits in excessive internal trade from the fishery. Also, in New Zealand there have been many criticisms of the system put in place. We think that they hold many advantages, not the least of which is safety. The Alaskan halibut fishery eventually became a 24- or 36-hour rodeo, I forget which. Everybody went out there.
Senator Meighen: What about the herring roe fishery in B.C.?
Mr. Anderson: It is now on licences.
Senator Meighen: What happened before your arrival?
Mr. Anderson: The fleet went out and everything that could float for the 36 hours did so. However, some did not float and three or four vessels went down, and a number of widows on shore were wondering what it was all about.
That persuaded them to switch to our halibut system, which provides fish over a much longer period of time and allows people to stay in port in bad weather. For the fishers themselves, the thought of going back to the old open system is almost inconceivable.
We think that IQs provide a substantial number of advantages, but there are people with straight, heavy ideological objections to it. They believe that it is not fair, that the fisheries are a common resource and we should all be able to go out and take a crack at them. I might add that those people also have concerns about licensing.
Others feel personally limited. They say, "What is the point of being a good fisher if any fool can have the same quota as me? I feel I should be able to compete and do better, as in other areas of business. Why is it that in fisheries we are all limited? One guy goes out and fishes for 100 days, but I feel that I could take the same amount in 20 days. Why is it that we are on the same basis in income when I am obviously five times more effective and efficient as a fisher than he is?"
Jacque may have some examples of where it would probably not be appropriate to have an IQ fishery.
Senator Meighen: If I understand, your view is that you just have to wait until people realize that the IQ system is perhaps the lesser of two evils. It may limit a good fisher to get only "X" tonnes while poor fishers can get the same, but time will show these people that the lesser of two evils is an IQ system. Does that extend everywhere?
Mr. Anderson: I can take it a step further: The person who gets all their fish in 20 days will eventually buy up the licence of the person who does it in 100 days, and pretty soon there will be fishers who have quite an effective corporation and who may have virtually all the licence quota in that area if the licences are transferable.
Senator Meighen: Yes, and that person will become as popular as a skunk at a garden party. People will come to your department and say that you must do something about this, because one guy catches all the fish. Then we go back to square one.
Mr. Anderson: I have heard that call.
Mr. Robichaud: Regarding the latter point, we provided to the committee a list of the different IQs and ITQs that applied throughout Canada. As the minister indicated, you need a strong majority, and I have never seen any one of these IQs wanting to go back to the previous regime. If some 40 IQs or ITQs across Canada seem to be pleased and are not interested in moving back to the previous regime, obviously there is some specific advantage.
As to the fisheries where we may not be able to apply this, I would think that the salmon fishery on the West Coast would be an example. You have your estimate, goal and target. It is readjusted, so if you were to use the original estimate for a fishery that would usually operate outside, such as the troll fishery, and the forecast keeps dropping, the other one will receive nothing down river, where some fisheries are more practised. This one was never perceived as being one that could move to an IQ fishery.
On the other hand, there is the herring fishery. You mentioned, senator, the roe fishery. We used to overshoot the allocation most of the time, and we used to have overrun. Over the last two years we have adopted an approach. A group of people pool and a certain number work out of the quota. This has substantially decreased the overrun to a minimal amount, and it is a quasi-form of IQ regime; it is a pooling system.
The lobster fishery is another one where I have never had too many requests for IQ. It has always operated over a period of seasons with limitations. There is a limited number of fishers and a limited number of traps. It is a big fishery, but I have never had many requests for IQ. Obviously, there is interest in certain fisheries and not in others. People see others experimenting with it and they talk about it, but as the minister indicated, there needs to be a strong majority for us to consider implementing the IQ system.
Senator Meighen: As you said earlier, gentlemen, we could go on for hours on the subject. I guess it is the lawyer in me that goes back to the question of what is an IQ, in law. As I understand it, the department takes the view that it is a quasi property right, is that correct? The people directly affected take the view that it is a full property right. They can sell it; they can lease it; they can divide it up in a divorce settlement; they can do all those things with it. It is starting to quack very much like a duck, but is it a duck? What do you think it is, and would you not reconsider, even though it is not binding, at least a clarifying statement, however clear, however equivocal? It is what we recommended you put out to give those affected an idea of the state of your thinking.
Mr. Anderson: I certainly accept that it would be very unwise for me, a non-lawyer, to provide a legal definition to a lawyer with the abilities of Senator Meighen, so I will pass on that kind offer. I think part of the problem is that it is not so much the duck, it is a bit like the story of the elephant and the blind men; everybody sees it somewhat differently.
We have legal definitions for it, but I really hesitate to go any further with the answer. The fact is that we keep getting surprises from the courts on what our powers might be and where the limits happen to be.
I should add that we are having a policy review of the entire Atlantic fishery because each of the fisheries histories is so different. There are of course, five provinces involved, plus the complication of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, the American boundary, and now Nunavut. I say this in the positive sense; I do not wish to suggest that is a negative, but nevertheless we have enormous jurisdictional difficulties in sorting this out. We are telling the industry, the fisher, that the exercise is simply to try and work on principle. What principles should we apply when we get into the allocation of fish? That will provide an opportunity to discuss IQs once again, and I am sure it will be a hotly debated topic by fishers.
We do not wish to say this as a threat to fishers, because obviously it is not. You know, all bets are off. We are going to start from square one and reinvent the wheel. However, we think it is important, as we make our incremental decisions year after year, to be at least working on some principles which the fishers understand. In that process, senator, I believe you put your finger on something that we are going to have to make more clear.
Senator Meighen: Just for my own clarification, when an IQ or ITQ or IVQ is granted, in the granting document is there is or is there not a restriction or some statement about transferability?
Mr. Robichaud: In most cases there is, and it usually goes up to a limit of about 2 per cent of the overall allocation that one could have obtained. That is what we see. It is about 1.7 something per cent in crab zone 19. The percentage is set on the licence every year as it is renewed. All fishers must renew their licence every year, other than natives, who have the right to fish for food and substance without a licence.
A privilege to fish is issued on a yearly basis, whether it is IQ or not, and attached to the condition you would have your limit and your allocation, and you defray the cost of those.
Senator Meighen: Do I understand you correctly that I could transfer more than 2 per cent?
Mr. Robichaud: It depends on the fishery, but generally it is about 2 per cent of the overall allocation that exists for all fishers.
Senator Meighen: In principle, if I die, does it revert to the department or does it go to my estate?
Mr. Robichaud: The estate has a period of time as per the various policies within the Atlantic licensing policy to be able to find a suitable person to transfer the licence.
The Chairman: On the question of IQs, Minister, I have rarely met fishers who have expressed any disfavour, especially in the groundfish area, with the concept of individual quotas. I have rarely met anybody who was dead set against them. I found, though, that many people are very much opposed to the transferability, the 'T' in the ITQ. I was listening very carefully to Mr. Robichaud's comments about the maximum 2 per cent ceiling. We know that this is not the case at all. In fact, the department has readily turned a blind eye, as has even said so publicly, in writing, that it does not concern itself with the transferability. I can give you the quote if you want. The department has not dedicated any of its limited resources to the investigation or analysis of such arrangements, which are called under-the-table arrangements. Therefore, in many of these fisheries there has been a concentration, or an accumulation, of quotas. There are people who sit at home and rent their quotas to the highest bidder every year.
The owners then hire former owner-operators to work the vessels. The minister referred to the safety considerations of IQ. In fact, a current study by Professor Bonnie McCay of Rutgers, in the U.S., suggests that IQs and ITQs may, in fact, be causing safety problems because the employees are being told by the absentee owners to produce because they are looking for a good return on their investment. Where formerly the owner of the vessel might have had more safety consideration for his crew, the absentee owner now is saying, "You go out there and fish, and do not come back to me with excuses."
The results are not all in yet, but there is cause for concern that this may be happening. The study is to be published in the coming months and I will be looking forward to it, of course. My main point is that concentration is happening. It is one of the major concerns that we have heard as a committee, and one of the cornerstone concerns that we want to express to the minister. It lies in the concept of the ITQ, not the IQ. Would you care to comment?
Mr. Anderson: Certainly, that is a major concern because it can have impact. There is an element of the ideological here, which I guess we can put aside. I will simply mention it quickly by saying that there are some who believe that a transferable quota is appropriate because it sorts out the more efficient from the less efficient. Those people would believe that if you have a quota of that type it would be advantageous to be able to accumulate or to get rid of it at will. I think that the issue of safety may not be all that different from that of the individual IQ owner going out there. However, I suppose that the absentee owner is even more likely to tell the fisher to go out there regardless of what the weather may be, because the fisher can go above any hypothetical IQ limit and catch as much as he can. Therefore, the longer he is out on the banks, the better off he will be.
It seems to me that there may be an appropriate comparison, and I look forward to seeing that study you mentioned.
There is no question that there is a difficulty with the IQ. For instance, older people and people with various problems might wish to send somebody else out in rough weather, in the cold. Fishing is not always the easiest of work.
Second, you have the family complication. What do you do with the young son or daughter who wishes to fish with you? The quota quite often slides into another generation without any clear decision one way or the other. That is an aspect.
I will ask Jacque to give you the numbers on the IQs that are transferable and those that are not. The interesting point is, as I think I mentioned earlier, both in Iceland and New Zealand the transferable aspect has resulted in very substantial concentration, and that has led to a bit of a backlash among communities within those countries.
Mr. Robichaud: Minister, Mr. Chairman, out of the list that we provided showing the mix of IQ and ITQ, about eight out of approximately 30 are transferable. Second, regarding the monitoring of them, we have an updated list and I will take the one we indicated. We provided the maximum percentage a fleet can use and it varied, because it is 2.28 in one fleet and so on. These are closely monitored by the department, and transfers must be reported when they happen. Those limits are also closely monitored. However, the department cannot invest energy and time in trying to follow who is bankrolling the financing for the buys; it does not have the resources to determine what kind of bankrolling is going on and where the source of funds come from. It is the same for each fishery. We do not follow that and we cannot invest time in this form of potential concentration, which a lot of people may be into. Where there is a set limit, they must report the transfer and where it is going, and that is monitored, whether it is a seasonal or a permanent transfer.
The Chairman: You say that 2 per cent is the limit. I cannot speak for the communities, but if the community felt that there was such a limit, and it believed that you were going to impose that limit, I think you would have much more support within those communities for the program that you are implementing. By saying "Look, we cannot stop under-the-table arrangements" you are losing whatever kind of support that you could be getting by suggesting that things can be done. Your policies are being circumvented, not necessarily illegally, and by allowing them to be, you are losing whatever valuable support you might be getting out in the communities for the concept of the ITQ, which many people would suggest is a very valuable tool that should not be lost.
Mr. Anderson: I think that is an important observation and caution, and I will bear it in mind. There are certain practical limits as to how one can penetrate corporate bales, and again, I am in with lawyers here so I should be extremely careful. We have had difficulties where people have been financed and where the result has an out-of-province transfer, which we do not wish to see. We had one crab licence transferred from one province to another. We attempted to prevent that, or at least impede it, but generally speaking we failed. That creates problems because we have certain policy concerns with respect to provincial shares and historic shares, and in this case there is one way around it. Those who fund, and those who use the persons who fund, display enormous ingenuity in avoiding our restrictions.
Senator Cook: Please be patient with my simplicity, but I cannot let go of that coastal community, of that inshore fisher. Is there a place for a person to live the way that he wants? Putting all the things in place, like conservation, your policy framework, can he just be an individual? Or are the coastal communities going to go the same way they went in Iceland, and to some degree in New Zealand?
Mr. Anderson: I really think that there is a place for the small coastal community fisher that you have described. I hope it is not just romanticism on my part. I hope that there generally will be a place, but in large parts of Canada, in various fisheries, the resource upon which small inshore fishers depend has been so severely hit by a number of factors that there is no revenue to speak of for them. In parts of the country, such as the North, there is a great reliance upon marine resources, mainly for subsistence, but people are developing quite successful coastal fisheries in northern Canada. Pangnirtung is one, which I visited last November.
I think that the opportunity will be there, but it will probably be in different fisheries. As the chairman mentioned, there are fishers who are involved in a variety of occupations as well as fishing.
As minister, I personally would like to see that. However, I cannot direct or control it. It is impossible. The resource is the basis of those coastal communities' survival. The resource is in large part not there, and that has changed everything.
In addition there are certain technological changes. My great-grandfather owned tugs to take the fishing boats out to the fishing grounds. These were 17- and 18-foot double ended boats, built on the beach. There was a mast, and generally one or two men on board. A tug would take them out and bring them back. Maybe they stayed overnight. That technology is gone. The diesel engine and the fish packer killed community after community in British Columbia. There are now only the stumps of the pilings on which the canneries used to be. Here, in my great-grandfather's day, there were 105 canneries, of which he owned five. There are now three, and I think one is just a custom cannery. The fishing industry is now so altered in nature. The coastal communities have been totally taken over.
I will mention a third point that has worked against the survival of the coastal community, and that is the expectations derived from television. People are no longer interested in living in the coastal community in the way that they did. I experienced that in Labrador three years ago, when I took the first trip of the Northern Ranger, up the Labrador coast, and in each community the kids came aboard just to play with the machines and to go on to the next community. They all had television. They had this picture of the world outside and they were not that satisfied with living in their communities.
I hesitate to go further because I am sure that Senator Adams could tell us many stories in this regard because this cultural impact which is changing attitudes is true in the North. I hope that there is room for the coastal community and the small fishers of that coastal community, but I in no way can give you a confident assurance.
Senator Cook: Our people seem to think that they are being denied an opportunity, that they have been cheated out of something in some way, shape or form, and that is a mindset. To people at home, lobster, lumpfish and crab are doing very well. It is just a mindset that someone has said that there is no longer an opportunity. They say, "Let me fall down. Do not put the restrictions on me. Let me find out for myself." From a social aspect, let the healing take place. That will not take place, Mr. Minister, when DFO stands on a dock with a holster on its hip.
Mr. Anderson: We try hard not to. Again, I do not mean to sound defeatist on this, but I come from Western Canada. There has been quite the change on the coast in the 120 years since my grandfather started in the fishing business. In the 1950s, I did my flying training over the Prairies. We flew over deserted quarter-acre farms, three-quarters of which were deserted. They had been abandoned in the 1930s but are now consolidated into much larger units. I am not in the farming business, but you are now looking at farms that have seven or eight sections. Thus, there have been dramatic changes in rural Canada elsewhere.
All I can say to you is that we do not wish to eliminate the coastal communities. We have no agenda in that regard, but we believe it is important, from the point of view of protecting the resource, and also from the point of view of ensuring an adequate income to the people who make a living from the resource, to reduce the overall number of fishers. We just do not believe it can be done.
Senator Cook: Then I think we have to say it. If we have said it, they have not heard it. We have to be clear that this is what is possible; this is the resource; this is the framework. This is reality.
Mr. Anderson: In the last two days I have announced fishing quotas for most of Atlantic Canada with respect to groundfish, and it has been described as a limited or severely limited resumption of the commercial fishery. I hope that year by year I will be able to see an increase in that and a return to something, but my staff cannot tell me whether we are into a period of recovery. This is true for many stocks, such as groundfish. Salmon is another indicator stock. There is no end of puzzlement as to why there has been such a dramatic decline in numbers. What are the conditions that have led to this? I hope the resource will be there for people to live on, but it is hard to guarantee.
Senator Cook: Then I think we have to say it.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You talked about a partnership and you also stated that the committee which you established was pressing the government to pursue co-management initiatives. I fully support you on this. However, there is something that I would like to bring to your attention.
In southeastern New Brunswick, an exploratory small crab fishery was opened. Exploratory licenses were issued to allow people to catch a certain quota of this resource. The community asked to be allowed to participate in this fishery. Fishers had presented a plan to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Moncton, and initially, DFO had rejected it. It subsequently reversed its position and issued the licenses. This would have meant approximately $500 per fisher for a 10-week period. The fishers renewed their demands, armed with the support of the Association of Professional Fishers of Abbotsford, and the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the two organizations representing all of these fishers. Officials in Moncton nevertheless disregarded these two associations and stood by their decision. Moreover, the fishers had agreed to give up secondary fishing during the lobster season to allow a directed fishery in which the entire community could participate.
We had a very pleasant experience several years ago. I would like us to find some way of experiencing this once again and to give these people an opportunity to speak with DFO about the co-management option. Right now, they are being led to believe that a co-management system is in place, but when the time comes to make decisions, they are not consulted.
Mr. Anderson: Plans for zone 25 were drawn up for a three-year period. Once this period is up, we will look again at whether we should extend these plans or modify them.
Mr. Robichaud: Three-year plans for your sector in southeastern New Brunswick were launched last year.
Senator Robichaud: Let me clarify the co-management issue. In order to have a directed fishery, fishers agreed to give up secondary fishing in order to better take advantage of resource sharing. Moncton nixed the idea. This certainly did not reassure fishers that DFO was willing to co-manage the industry. I would just like someone to look at this more closely to see why this decision was made. The fishers would also like an answer.
[English]
The Chairman: Mulgrave and Canso are quite different than the community I was referring to earlier, the one with the more diverse economy. They are almost completely dependent on the fishery. My understanding is that some time ago Sea Breeze asked for a shrimp licence in the Davis Strait area. I am not asking for an answer this afternoon, I just wish to bring it to your attention. It might cross your desk, or you might have seen it cross your desk. I would like you to look at it. It is not for my home community, but it is something that you might wish to look at, given the circumstances of Mulgrave and Canso.
Another issue is the seismographic testing that is being done in the Northumberland Strait area, and the worry that it has caused to many of the coastal communities in that area. Given the lack of response by DFO to this, the residents are concerned that DFO is not protecting the vital interest in that area. Minister, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Anderson: Certainly, the Canso and Mulgrave situation is a very difficult one. We made exceptions on the Canadianization of vessels to accommodate foreign vessels fishing for the plant of Canso to try and increase their volume. The company was given an extra year. They received quota for the Scotian shelf, but when it came to the northern shrimp we applied the principles of adjacency, and it clearly was not adjacent. Had we altered it we would have had to alter it for literally the whole gulf region once we had altered it for Canso and Mulgrave.
On the issue of the northern quota, I am hesitant, with Senator Adams sitting here looking me, to suggest that we would not put Nunavut's request very high on the list of whatever decision we might make. That is our dilemma. The Nunavut fishers naturally believe that is their adjacent region, and of course they really have not been taken into account before. There are always comments about those northern shrimp fisheries and how somehow or another quotas are in the hands of people who are not even really fishers. Again, we go back to those early years when it was considered to be an absolutely hair-brained scheme to take fishing vessels, which cost up to $15 million, each to a northern area. The people who did that felt that they should be entitled to the return that flowed from their exploratory efforts. There is a sharp contrast in intellectual approaches to the problem of northern shrimp.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you again for taking your time this afternoon, as you have done graciously over the last number of times.
We have spent a lot of time looking at the questions of licensing, allocation and quota distribution. We would like to have a session in the future sometime, not to talk about day-to-day routine, but to look at where we want the fishery to be 50 years from now, and what can we do, how can we make it happen. I know that this is one of the areas that you would like to have more time to pursue yourself, and we would as well. It would be worthwhile to have that kind of a session. It is fine and dandy to allocate the fish today, but it would be nice to look at how to make it happen 50 years from now.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, senator, I would appreciate that very much. I would like that. You have put your finger on one of the great virtues of the Senate; the ability to take a long-term view of Canadian issues which are of future importance.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I would like to draw the committee's attention to an error in the transcripts of the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, specifically the meeting of April 15 last when Minister Anderson appeared and at which time I made a statement.
I said at the time that I would be willing to bet that the people who will make the most money will be the ones doing the processing. Fishers were to receive an additional allowance. What I meant to say was that those who stood to benefit the most were the fishers themselves, not the processing workers. I would like that to be corrected.
The Chairman: It will be duly noted in the minutes.
Senator Robichaud: Good, because what I stated initially makes no sense. I move that the appropriate correction be made.
The Chairman: Shall the motion carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried unanimously.
The meeting is adjourned.