Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 15, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 8:35 a.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 the meeting to order. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries.
Today's hearing is being televised and, as such, I give a special welcome to those of you who are watching at home.
We are pleased to have before us the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Minister Anderson studied economics and law at the University of British Columbia.
[Translation]
He was elected to Parliament for the first time in 1968. In 1972, he was elected Leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia and the Member for Victoria at the provincial legislature.
[English]
From 1975 to 1978, Minister Anderson was counsel for the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and a consultant for Environment Canada. He later taught law at the University of Victoria's School of Public Administration.
[Translation]
Mr. Anderson was elected the Member of Parliament for Victoria in the federal election held in October 1993. His first position, upon joining Cabinet, was Minister of National Revenue, before moving to the Transport portfolio. After his re-election in 1997, he was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is also the Minister responsible for British Columbia within the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Anderson was a member of the Rome Olympic and Chicago Pan-American Games silver-medal rowing crews. He was recently awarded the Cal Woods Award by the Steelhead Society of British Columbia for his leadership in the preservation of Pacific salmon in wild rivers.
Before I call on the minister to make his opening statements, I wish to introduce the members of the committee. Starting to my right, Senator Brenda Robertson from New Brunswick; next to her is Senator Robichaud, who is from New Brunswick also; next to him is Senator Mahovlich, who is from Ontario. To my left is Senator Butts from Nova Scotia, Senator Stewart from Nova Scotia, Senator Cook from Newfoundland, and the vice-chairman of this committee, Senator Perrault from British Columbia. Also on my right is Claude Emery, the researcher for the committee; and to my left is Catherine Piccinin, the clerk of the committee. Just arriving is Senator Adams, from Nunavut -- Canada's brand new territory.
Minister, we welcome your comments on the department's policies, programs and new initiatives in support of sustainable fisheries. We also welcome any comments you may have on the committee's report on privatization and quota licensing, which was tabled on December 8, 1998.
Let me just say, in passing, that we are glad to see that you are making a speedy recovery from your mishap at Whistler. You are not walking with a cane, I see.
Mr. Anderson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today, and I apologize for the delay in my appearance due to the accident to which you made reference. I thank you for that reference to those long-ago Olympics. With Senator Mahovlich here, I might have some slight reference with him for what took place 39 years ago.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the hard work of the Senate Committee, and the concern you have demonstrated in reviewing the issues surrounding quota licensing in Canada's fisheries. I would like to emphasize a couple of general points with respect to individual quotas, then proceed with some remarks about our vision for moving towards economically viable and environmentally sustainable fisheries.
[English]
The concerns, senators, that you have raised about individual quotas, or IQs, are very valid and pertinent. They have, in fact, been considered when decisions were made on specific IQ programs. The quota will continue to be a consideration as the department proceeds with policy reviews, especially policy reviews for the East Coast of Canada.
I would also emphasize that, where the interests of conservation are protected, fishermen will continue to have the option of adopting IQ regimes. Under such regimes, they can better concentrate on fishing responsibly while managing their operations, to improve viability and therefore, indirectly or directly, the viability of the communities in which they live.
We must recall that IQs have eliminated most of the problems that affect many competitive fisheries. These problems include the race for the fish; over-capitalization; poor quality, which affects market value; and safety at sea -- which perhaps I should have put first.
[Translation]
Individual quota regimes are not perfect and are not always suitable or necessary for all fisheries. This is well recognized, and fishermen in traditional fisheries are not forced to adopt them. Upon a thorough review of the pros and cons of both IQs and competitive regimes, however, fishermen should be the ones to decide which management regime they wish to adopt. That is the essence of the co-management approach which I will be discussing shortly.
[English]
Conservation has a global imperative. I am pleased to say right at the start that the government fully shares your concerns for Canada's fisheries and for the well-being of the coastal communities who depend, in large part, on the fishery.
Like all of you, we wish to find the best approach to achieve an industry that is environmentally sustainable and economically viable.
I would stress the importance of conservation. It cannot be overstated: If we do not protect the resource, there will be no fish, no fishermen and, obviously, no fishing communities.
This seems like a statement of the obvious, however, I have at times been criticized for spending too much time concerning myself with fish when I should have been spending that time talking only to fisherman. The two are inseparable. Without fish, you cannot have fishermen.
Fish harvesters, processors and fishery workers have all suffered from the effects of declining fish stalks and tough conservation measures.
In Canada, we learned a valuable if very hard lesson following the collapse of our northern cod stocks and also as a result of the low level of certain Pacific salmon species. We learned that, if we fail to take action on conservation, we run the risk, indeed the certainty, of further devastation including the possibility that some species may no longer sustain the fishery.
Canada is not the only country facing this challenge. Around the world today, there are far too many boats chasing too few fish. The size of the fishing fleet in the world today is completely out of proportion with the number of available fish in the world's oceans.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, $7 billion to $14 billion in annual subsidies have created an international fleet that is probably four or five times as large as global fish stocks can support. Global over-fishing harvests 70 per cent of the world species faster than they can reproduce themselves, which means that 70 per cent of the world's species of fish are on the decline. As a result, 11 of the world's 15 major fishing areas are in serious decline at the present time.
[Translation]
Governments, working together with industry, must address unsustainable practices to ensure that fish resources are conserved and allowed to rebuild. And, like it or not, reducing fishing capacity must be a part of that, whether through sponsoring active retirement programs or by promoting industry self-rationalization. But the problems of the world's fisheries are so acute, we cannot stop there. We don't just need fewer boats or fewer licence holders, we need smarter, more selective fishing methods. Estimates are that as much as 25 per cent of all catches are unwanted species or undersized fish.
[English]
Canada intends to play a leading role on the international stage to address global marine conservation issues. However, we must recognize that we must practice what we preach. As we encourage other nations to promote conservation and the cautionary approach, we must ensure that we address those problems in our own backyard, namely, in the 200-mile contiguous zone.
Honourable senators, that is what the department and I am trying to do. We are working to get Canada's house in order and to set an example for others. If we fail globally in the challenge ahead of us, we will essentially be saying to our children that more than half the world's surface will no longer be contributing protein and food to the human race, and that will be a shame.
I shall now speak to the fishery of the future. We are doing all we can to ease the hardship of fisheries workers hurt by fisheries closures. We understand that this cannot be done at the expense of conservation. The assistance measures we put in place focus on restructuring the industry while enabling those who can no longer depend on fishing for their livelihoods to exit the industry in a dignified manner.
With these measures, we are moving towards a fishery of the future that will be environmentally sustainable, where conservation is the first priority and harvesting and processing capacity are in balance with what the resource can sustain. Second, we will have an economically viable fishery that means that participants can earn a living without government dependency. Third, we will have a self-reliant, resilient and self-adjusting fishery that will support a core of full-time, professional fisherman able to withstand the periodic downturns and operating in cooperation with the government rather than as wards of the government.
We believe that it is possible to have healthy fish stocks that can form the basis of an environmentally sustainable and economically viable fishery, but only if we manage it properly.
A key feature of the adjustment and restructuring measures, therefore, is that we are working to reduce participation in the fishery of the East Coasts and the West Coast and bring harvesting capacity in line with the availability of the resource. These measures will provide greater stability for fishing communities by moving beyond a system where we simply manage, as we have been doing for decades, from short-term crisis to short-term crisis.
[Translation]
Licence buy-backs and other programs on the East Coast have reduced the number of Atlantic groundfish licence holders by more than 30 per cent since 1992. In 1998, the federal government announced almost $350 million to support further significant fleet reductions for both coasts. Within its first two years, the Pacific Salmon Revitalization Plan had reduced the B.C. fleet by 31 per cent -- and I expect that progress to continue as we work towards our goal of a 50 per cent fleet reduction.
We are also introducing selective fishing methods to allow fishermen the opportunity to harvest within mixed stock fisheries where endangered species are present. The 1998 Salmon Management Plan put Canada's fisheries at the forefront of conservation initiatives that address the growing global concern over buy-catch. Elements of more than 65 proposals on selective fishing methods from fishing sectors and environmental groups were incorporated in developing this plan.
[English]
We have made a number of changes to our management programs and to our relationship with the fishing industry, to arrive at a more self-reliant, resilient and self-adjusting fishery, and this includes the co-management approach.
The co-management approach relies on a number of different tools that make it adaptable to different needs. Those tools include, first, introducing integrated fish management plans with mandatory conservation provisions based on the precautionary approach; second, voluntary joint project agreements that allow DFO and the industry to work together on management issues related to the fishery; third, preferred use of individual quotas in fisheries where this management approach makes sense, such as crab, shrimp and scallops on the East Coast and the groundfish troll fishery of the Pacific Coast; fourth, strengthening the use of onboard observers and dockside monitoring; fifth, implementing the Canadian code of conduct for responsible fishing operations; and sixth, working with industry to obtain and review stock assessment informs.
Those tools have been developed in cooperation with the fishing industry and they are applied wherever there is a need and sufficient interest from industry to adopt a co-management regime.
[Translation]
Co-management takes many different forms. For example, a coalition of inshore groups in Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby counties worked with DFO to set up community management boards.
The Fundy Fixed Gear Council has allowed fishers to work through their own association to design systems that work for them.
And, on the West Coast, sablefish is under co-management with the Pacific Black Cod Fishermen's Association.
[English]
This is an interesting translation. "Morue charbonnière" eventually winds up on the restaurant plate as Alaska black cod, for reasons that are beyond me. That is the fishing we are talking about, which I am sure many of you have eaten in the better restaurants of Canada.
[Translation]
There are many arrangements like these across Canada. Co-management is a fundamental change in the way we manage fisheries. Co-management is not a mandatory regime, nor is it necessarily the most appropriate approach for all fisheries.
In many cases, if not most, however, co-management is the basis for building a new relationship between DFO and the industry -- and a new way to ensure that we continue to move cooperatively towards a more environmentally sustainable and economically viable fishery.
[English]
We know that there is keen interest in co-management in virtually all sectors of the fishing industry, and we will continue to work with industry groups to develop that approach. At present, over three dozen of 140 key fisheries in Canada incorporate various aspects of our co-management approach, and the essential feature of these is that fishermen and industry get together and agree to take more responsibility and accountability themselves, and to play a more participatory role in decisions that affect their industry.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about Atlantic fisheries policy. To assist in moving forward to the fishery of the future that I have described, we are forming an internal working group to review Atlantic fisheries policy. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will be kept fully involved. Any information or presentations you may wish by me or members of my department will be gladly acceded to.
Once the focus of this group has been established, we will first go to fishermen and the representatives of fishermen for their ideas. The main objective of the group within the department will be to create a consistent and cohesive framework for the future of Atlantic fisheries.
I mentioned earlier the international aspects of this issue. I would now like to mention the United Nations Fish Agreement.
[Translation]
No single government can stop the destruction of ocean resources -- the problems are far too complex. But the actions we take at home strengthen our position when we engage other nations in the effort to protect ocean resources.
For example, in discussions with the United States regarding Pacific salmon, we can point to strong conservation measures in our own waters to reinforce the Canadian position.
[English]
In the multilateral area, Canada is also working hard to secure the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. This agreement, which is commonly known as the UNFA, or the United Nations Fish Agreement, was adopted by a United Nations conference in December of 1995. Canada and some 59 other states have signed that agreement, but, of course, it has no force and effect until it is ratified by some 30 states. So far, just 19 states have ratified the agreement.
Bill C-27, which is currently before the House for third reading, will provide the domestic authority we require in Canada to fulfil our international obligations under the UNFA. I do hope that the bill will be before this committee shortly. I will be speaking on it in the House of Commons tomorrow. When adopted and proclaimed with its accompanying set of regulations, subject to your committee's examination and approval in the Senate, Canada will then ratify this important United Nations agreement.
I should mention the United Nations food and agriculture ministerial meeting in Rome on March 10-11 last month. Canada put forward a strong call for action to encourage other states to ratify the UNFA, and I will be delivering a similar message in New York when the ministers meet next month at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to discussion oceans issues. That committee followed the Rio conference, and this is the first time that oceans and the seas have been a separate topic of discussion of that commission.
I would like to urge you and your Senate colleagues to assist in expediting Canada's legislation. Obviously, this will assist us very much in our international efforts.
To conclude, we face many challenging problems, but we have taken steps to secure the future of our domestic fisheries. Last year, this fishery contributed the highest export value on record, $3.2 billion, and it points to the importance of ensuring the sustainable future of this industry. Internationally, we have contributed to building a framework that will make effective international cooperation possible.
While I am on the subject of figures, I should point out that an announcement was made in the Speech from the Throne of Newfoundland a few weeks ago regarding a tremendous increase in the value of fisheries landed. In the province of Quebec, if you compare the value of landings in 1997, the last year for which I have full figures, and 1989, some eight years before, the value two years ago was 140 per cent of 1989. Do not forget that 1989 was before the moratorium on cod. The value of landings is up dramatically. The fishery is an industry with a future, which I wish to stress.
[Translation]
We need to keep encouraging all those who use the oceans and their resources to proceed with caution and put the welfare of the resource first, before all other considerations.
[English]
I obviously look forward to your continued interest in Canada's fisheries and to hearing your views, with the accumulated experience that we have in this room, as we move forward to a new and improved era in fisheries management.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Minister, as I understand it, the purpose of this meeting on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans expenditures proposals is to get the minister's reaction to the report that this committee presented to the Senate in December of 1998.
Just this morning, I found a brown envelope addressed to me. In looking at someone else's copy, I see that this communication is dated April 14, and I just received it this morning. I have not had a chance to read it, so I am anticipating that this meeting will not be entirely satisfactory from my viewpoint. We may well need a second round after we have read the department's views.
The minister has said many important things, and I am thinking especially of what he said about trying to control the international fishing effort. However, I wish to focus especially on concerns that I hear from fishers living in Nova Scotia, particularly eastern Nova Scotia.
The worry that I hear is that the individual transferable quota approach is likely to lead to a concentration of ownership and of the entire operation. It is also said that the result may be that a certain place, or certain places, will be the site of the fishing industry, and the other communities can die on the vine. That is the concern.
It would be very important from the viewpoint of fishers and from the viewpoint of the Parliament of Canada, which is concerned that the people of Canada understand what the government is doing -- if we could know what to expect in the future as a product of the ITQ program.
I am speaking with some feeling on this because I was a member of this committee in the late 1980s when we had concerns about the amount of capital that was being put into the smaller boat fishery, particularly in southwestern Nova Scotia. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans seemed to try to control the effort by measuring the length of the boat. The results is that boats got wider and wider and more and more high tech in nature. Much more capital was required and much more pressure was put on the fish stocks. I do not want that sort of thing to happen again.
Let us see where this ITQ program is going. Will it end up with a concentration of ownership? Will there be an easing of the problem of the department because it will be dealing with fewer and fewer fish corporations? The result might be that the traditional fishing communities will have nothing to do except, perhaps, to watch the boats in their traditional fishing grounds. How can this committee assure the people in places like Canso and Louisbourg that the fears of this committee with regard to individual transferable quotas will not be realized? In what way can we set aside our fears that the committee's work will be in vain, as it has gone unattended in the past?
Mr. Anderson: Thank you very much for those comments. May I apologize for the envelope coming to you late. I will certainly be willing to come back or discuss this with you privately, under any circumstances you wish.
With respect to the ITQs and the problems of limiting by way of length, you are absolutely right. In fact, we recognized the difficulty once we saw what was happening. The vessels you talked about, the classic vessel, are described as a `pregnant 45'. The vessel was limited to a length of 45 feet, but it simply got wider and wider as people attempted to beat the rule. While it has amusing aspects, the real issue is sea-worthiness. The vessels that beat rules end up unseaworthy. A higher rate of accidents occurs and tragedy comes to fishing communities, It is not an appropriate approach. Although there are limitations on length, it is clearly important to look for other methods.
The individual quota and the experience have not led dramatically to corporate concentration. In fact, in British Columbia, we have seen the reverse. The results are uneven. It has not, however, had any direct trend.
What does lead to corporate concentration is fishers who own licences in an IQ fleet that is too big. They have no financial resilience. When a bad year comes, a company with better opportunities to borrow from the bank is able to buy them out. In an IQ fleet of individual fishermen who are making reasonable sums, the problem can be overcome because they realize the importance of keeping the individual quota for themselves. The dilemma is where the attempt has been made to manage the IQ fleet in the same way as the competitive fishery. Far too many licences are present. The result is that everyone is up against the wire. We go back to the old days when they owed money to the local store and the local storekeeper controlled the whole show.
The overall impact of ITQs is not to concentrate the fleet. We watch it closely and we have the opportunity to step in with further regulation when that is the case. One of the purposes is to make the fleet more self-regulating. In some cases, there is the need to reduce the size of the fleet. Where it is self-regulating, we do expect some exchange. Sometimes, there will be a period when a company might be endeavouring to acquire licences. Sometimes, it will be cases where a company is endeavouring to sell licences. During any particular period, you may have some minor shifting around. However, in the long term, we do not believe that the program necessarily leads to concentration. Experience has not indicated that.
Obviously, when there are too many participants, it is desirable to reduce them so that the individual fishermen does have an improved return on his capital and better income for his family. There is an element, perhaps in fleet reduction, which will take place. If one gives out too many IQs, some of them will be making little money and think of selling to other members of the fleet. Some of those other members of the fleet may be companies. The trick is to get the right number early on and to allow the fleet to self-regulate thereafter.
As a final point, fishermen themselves have a strong belief in their own independence and their own ability to make decisions. They ask why should they not be able to sell to whom they want. We do have an ideological issue that affects decisions as well. Fisherman want the freedom that preventing them from selling to a company would reduce. We must take into account that fact.
The Chairman: I might add, in passing, that the wishes of the communities might be considered as well in your decisions.
Senator Robertson: Senator Stewart opened the door on a number of issues with his first question. He spoke about the boats. It brings back an earlier discussion about not increasing the number of lobster licences but increasing the size the traps. However, we will not go into that this morning.
My question really relates to a recent newspaper column. It is rather startling. The headline says that DFO's mandate should include conservation of fishing communities as well as fish stocks. I am sure that would be a grabber for you this morning.
It does draw attention to a sentiment that is widely held in the Atlantic; that is, a cultural gap exists between those living in fishing villages and the fishing bureaucrats and scientists. The latter, for the most part, live in the larger communities -- about as far removed from our fishing villages as you could possibly get.
The question I wish to concentrate on for a moment is how to bridge the cultural gap between those in your department, who are so far removed, and the little fishing villages? The Bay of Fundy fishermen would like DFO to freeze the transfer of the quotas and move to the community-based management system.
Let me quote an editorial in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal entitled "Preventing a Fundy fishing catastrophe."
Community management groups such as the Southwest New Brunswick Fixed Gear Management Board are already turning away from ITQs voluntarily, pooling their quotas, setting their own daily limits and choosing to leave the remainder of their quotas unfished as a conservation measure.
What this means to me is that fishermen do know that they must manage the local fisheries and that they must do it well because, as you suggested, minister, the alternative is disaster.
What I am coming to is this: Is community management the way to bridge this cultural gap that I described and should not a DFO policy on communities fisheries management in a sense be a policy for conserving the fishing communities?
Perhaps, minister, you would comment on how you feel about community-based fisheries management as both a way to bridge this cultural gap and a means for DFO to strengthen its relationships with the residents of our fishing and coastal communities. There does seem to be an animosity between the departmental people and the small fishing communities.
Mr. Anderson: Senator, you have raised a very difficult question. The responsibility of the department is not really to the communities. As you know, a decision of the Privy Council in 1929 said that as soon as the fish hits the dock it becomes a provincial responsibility. Obviously, the federal government is heavily involved with human resource programs in coastal communities as well. However, we do have a difficulty, from the department's point of view, of taking the responsibility for the entire fish as it moves through the process. The plants onshore are provincially regulated. That is one of the problems we face.
I am not trying to hide behind the Constitution. If the question is put as to whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a responsibility for both the fish conservation and the community conservation, we would say that the Constitution gives that priority to the fish.
There are other governments and government departments that have the responsibilities for the community. That being said, the licence holders live in these communities. When we do things to help the licence holders, as we did in British Columbia and the East Coast, we are giving people who live in those communities hundreds of millions of dollars.
It may be that members of these small coastal communities choose to move to Florida or Hawaii. They could. I do not know. I am not suggesting that. Unless you think they will act irresponsibly towards their own communities, which I do not think, most people would agree that the additional money that we are providing for assistance and the programs we have to assist the individuals in a community will similarly help the community as a whole.
To not put in place community programs -- some members of that community get large cheques, hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some instances, averaging on the East Coast $84,000 and on the West Coast approximately that for troll and gill net and approximately $450,000 for seine. That is what we give the individuals and they spend it primarily in their local communities.
In addition, the other people living in the coastal communities are enjoying much better incomes because the number of fishermen is fewer. It is always the same number of fish -- that is controlled by biology and the total allowable catch.
It is not as if the program of reducing the number of fishermen simply is draining wealth or vitality from the community. The programs do not do that. They provide some members of the community with large amounts of cash and other members of the community with larger incomes.
Some of those people with the cash may simply leave, in which case the community may be worse off. That I do not know. You would have to look at that case by case. I do not think these people are irresponsible. That is the direct DFO part and the impact on the community in a very brief way.
I would like to make another point. Of the $750 million for the East Coast fishery announced last June, less than a year ago, there was $250 million for licence retirement. The other money announced in that program goes into human resource and economic development programs for coastal communities.
At the risk of being accused of contradicting my constitutional analysis a moment ago, when we looked at this in British Columbia, in addition to having programs for diversification of fisheries, for having new fisheries, for the selective fisheries, we also said for that coastal communities we will put a fund aside of $18 million. The mayors of the coastal communities will manage the fund, which will be for economic development, outside of fishing, within a coastal community.
We have tried to address the problem despite the constitutional limitation. The point I wish to get across is that licence limitation is not, per se, damaging to the coastal community. What is damaging the coastal community is an increasing number of fishermen becoming poorer. That led Mr. Smallwood to his famous concentration on the coast of Newfoundland. It is a well-recognized problem over the decades. That cannot continue to happen, or our fishermen, their families, and our coastal communities will simply wither and die.
Senator Cook: In your presentation on conservation, you spoke about too many boats chasing too few fish. In Newfoundland, we have a different phenomenon. We have too many seals chasing all the fish. It is crisis. There is a concern. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I do come from an outport community. I can imagine what it is like for a fisherman this morning, having suffered through the moratorium, yet with aid from Ottawa, but not being allowed to fish, to see fish by the thousands being corralled by seals at their feet on the beaches.
My question is: What will we do about this situation? How can we say to those fishermen that we care, that this is not any ordinary circumstance? What are we saying to them this morning as a government?
Mr. Anderson: To give some background, we have a total allowable catch of 275,000 animals this year, the same as last year. Last year, we were slightly over; we took 282,000. The Greenland fishermen take approximately 70,000 to 100,000.
The sealing population as we understand it is not increasing and has not for the last two years. It is more or less level. We are doing a very expensive survey of seal numbers this year involving aerial photography to compare with the numbers from six years ago.
The numbers six years ago were calculated at approximately 4.8 million seals. We had 75 fishermen and scientists meet together in St. John's last month as part of an ongoing program to analyze seal activity. These 75 people, who are sealers, fishers and scientists, came up with a calculation. They came to a guess before they received the results of a new survey of 5.4 million seals.
If the numbers have gone up by 600,000 seals over that six-year period, that is not an explosion of population. It has been looked at quite carefully. We have invested some $9 million in analyzing seal population and their predation.
Why I am concerned about the calls for a quick kill is, first, that the sealers of Newfoundland are objecting to that; second, the Natural History Society of Newfoundland has pointed out that there are many other factors involved; and third, Memorial University of Newfoundland is clearly split down the middle on this issue.
I would add that every previous attempt that I know of to eliminate a predator or to reduce dramatically a predator's numbers has led to ecological problems down the road. It is true that most of the experience is on land and is with large carnivores such as wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, bobcats and coyote. However, the experience has been that quite often another problem is created.
In addition to eating cod, we must remember that seals are an opportunistic feeder; they eat whatever looks good at the time. They do not eat the same diet every day. It is difficult to calculate precisely what they eat, at what times of the year, and what the impact is of that. As well, we think they have a major impact on some other fish species, which, in turn, are predators of small baby cod. Squid is an example. We are not sure whether removing the seal population would make any dramatic improvement to cod populations.
There are other factors involved. It is not a single link; it is part of a food chain web. That is why it is important to do the study of the populations, the aerial photography, to spend $2 million on that and on the studies we are currently undertaking. We want to work with the sealers and the fishermen.
When I announced 275,000 as the number for the total allowable kill this year, members of the media in Newfoundland were extremely positive. Modesty prevents me from talking about headlines such as "Anderson Gets it Right," but that was the tenor of one headline. Newfoundland's Minister of Fisheries said he was "delighted" and "very excited" about my good decision. The Canadian Sealers Association said that the minister got it about right. They did not want an increase in the numbers because the market impact would be devastating.
I fully understand the frustration of fisherman. I have the same frustration in not being able to give them categorical information. However, to proceed directly would be a mistake.
The final point on that issue is that, years ago, the federal Minister of Fisheries, representing a Newfoundland constituency, virtually ended the seal hunt because of the boycott threat overseas. Eighty per cent of our fish products are exported -- roughly $2.2 billion worth. This is true on the West Coast, the East Coast and in the North. We know that a seal kill of two million animals -- as was said by the Newfoundland media -- would be a disaster for the Canadian industry from a public relations point of view.
This is obviously a very hypothetical area. I would remind you that, as a politician, the single largest donation to the British Labour Party prior to the last election was made by the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Boston is our major seafood market. Boston is in the state of Massachusetts. The most powerful senator in that state is Senator Edward Kennedy, and he supports an abolition of the seal hunt. We have problems that we should think about very carefully on the marketing side, as well as the other sides of the issue.
Senator Cook: I am not talking about a cull; I am not talking about the quota for this year. I am talking about the phenomenon that the fishers on the northeast coast are looking at that they have never seen before -- that is, cod on the beaches in the middle of winter, like capelin in the months of May and June. That is my concern. If it is not seals, why? It is a concern because we are talking about a species under a moratorium. They are coming ashore with their bellies pulled out of them and their livers gone. We are told that seals are doing this.
My question was not about a cull, and my question was not about your quota. What is this ecological phenomena happening on my shores?
Mr. Anderson: At this point, we do not know. The Natural History Society of Newfoundland pointed out that the same phenomena has occurred in the past. They mentioned the year 1920. In Newfoundland, there is this debate.
We all know that fish get killed and have been killed in the bays of Newfoundland by cold water in past years. We know that fish initially will float because air is in them, but they will then sink. We also know there are crabs on the bottom and that they will go for the softest part of the body, which is the belly. That is where we see the damage.
That is not to say that this is all done by crab. Seals eat cod. We have known that for a long time, since before John Cabot arrived on the shores of Newfoundland 501 years ago. However, we do not have a definitive scientific answer for you.
I will give you the results of the meeting of 75 scientists, fishermen and sealers who got together in Newfoundland last month. I will also give you the full information from the meeting we are having next month, which was the followup regarding where conclusions and analysis will be drawn. It is a matter of scientific dispute, debate, and the debate is legitimate.
I am not here to say that it is one side or the other. Honest people differ on this subject. The Minister of Newfoundland came to the House of Commons Fisheries Committee yesterday. Today we will be hearing from Tina Fagan, the executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association, who has a totally different viewpoint.
This is a matter about which I wish I were able to answer more definitively. I will provide you with the information I receive. Perhaps we can discuss it, because there is no clear position presently.
Senator Butts: Mr. Minister, I appreciate your replies about the coastal communities. However, the image you have given us is not the image down there. You talked about numbers. In the communities where I have worked, HRDC deals with those numbers, not DFO. There is no image of DFO. That may be part of the problem.
This committee had a statement from a mayor of one of the municipalities who said that Canada was trying to exclude section 618 from the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. That section of the code talks about the rights of fishers and fish workers in the small-scale fisheries. That image was in that municipality. Are you able to tell us that that is not so?
Mr. Anderson: Senator, in no way do I wish to suggest that there is not a great deal of distress and suffering in coastal communities. I did refer to the licence retirement money as something that should be considered as a way of improving the situation in these communities. However, I would also point out that approximately two-thirds of the moneys that came through the program announced last June for Atlantic Canada went to departments other than our own. We dealt with the licence side. Human Resources and others dealt with expenditures for diversification, economic development, or other programs. I will support the government's position in that regard.
There is no question that there is a lot of unhappiness. The reason for the unhappiness is that we failed to take steps previously to fit the number of fishermen to the number of fish or, more correctly, to the value of fish. The result was that fishermen simply got poorer and poorer; the numbers remained high. In fact, with the 200-mile limit back in the 1970s, we increased dramatically in Newfoundland, for example, as well as elsewhere, the numbers of fishermen and plant workers as each community tried to get a plant and then found themselves without enough of the resource to go around. Two of the problems were over-optimism and over-expansion.
Within our lifetimes -- the people in this room -- we have expanded our fisheries quite dramatically on the East Coast. We are now in the position of trying to contract it. It is extremely difficult to do so, and it does lead to hardship. We try to mitigate the hardship, but there is no way I could say that we could manage to do it without difficulty to some individuals.
I fully understand the position of community mayors. That is why we have incorporated mayors into the process of delivering our programs. Nevertheless, no mayor and no community is well off if there is a large population of impoverished people because the municipal government must provide services to a large number of people who cannot support the tax base municipally.
It is a real dilemma. Any period of transition is wrenching. There is always a chorus, which is quite understandable and forgivable, saying not to make a change and to leave it, thinking that perhaps things will turn for the better in the future. However, we have decided to make that change. We will continue.
Certainly foreign fleets are not dominating our fisheries. Large companies are not dominating it. Our fisheries in Atlantic Canada are essentially individual fishermen. However, the resources are not sufficient to make all communities wealthy. It is just not there. It will have to be some other economic activities; it cannot be fisheries. Unless something unanticipated happens in terms of volume, the volume will not be there and we just cannot do it.
Senator Butts: In your estimates for the department, for the year coming, you mention priority for the establishment of co-operative management boards for the aboriginal fishers. Is there an assumption that everyone else already has them?
Mr. Robichaud: We have communal licences that are issued to aboriginals. They manage the licences issued to the community. They choose the fisher to harvest the resource under this licence. That is one form of licence management.
Another form of management is the one in Nunavut, where there is a board established for the land claim activities. That board manages and reviews the established levels for the various species. They give notification to the minister of the harvesting plan and the level of take. The minister has so many days to indicate acceptability. He can say no only on the basis of conservation, and must explain why.
These boards are established as land claims are put into place. The negotiations on land claims for the Labrador Inuit are advancing. If the land claim were settled, they would establish a management board to manage fisheries within a certain area of lands -- a certain distance. Those are the types of boards.
Senator Butts: Is it possible that to establish that for non-aboriginal communities?
Mr. Robichaud: At this time, I could give an example. There are communities, for example Shelburne, where the licence holders group together as a board and manage their fishery.
Mr. Anderson: I would add that we try to be flexible. We believe it is tremendously important for the local communities themselves to show the initiative. We do not try to impose. What works best is for the local communities to come up with the initiative. The example given by Mr. Robichaud is an example of a local initiative to which we respond.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Minister, I want you to know how disappointed I am with the decision you made regarding snow crab. This will come as no surprise to you, since you are well aware of my position on that particular fishery.
Inshore fishers in New Brunswick and the Gaspé had made perfectly valid requests for inshore zones that would allow them to access certain snow crab stocks. Indeed, I want to take this opportunity to mention that New Brunswick is the only province that has no inshore crab fishing zone. Inshore fishers are thus excluded, with the exception of a couple of years where they received a quota and had a very positive experience. Fishers still talk about that. In fact, when you ask inshore fishers how they liked having the chance to fish for snow crab, they immediately pull out a card and they look pretty pleased. They tell you that it got them and their family a health care plan that was put in place because of the fishery they were able to benefit from.
I am that much more disappointed since the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not found a way to include these people in a fishery, now that it has been decided not to give them their own inshore zone. I realize that this could cause a lot of problems, and it certainly would not be my preferred option. I believe it would be preferable to give them a percentage of the total standing quota for all inshore fishers in both good years and bad.
It is no secret that the crab fishery has been extremely lucrative. Crab fishers have been able to buy processing plants and are now in a position where they control the fishery, at least in that sector.
How is it the Department could find no way to include these inshore fishers? You say that we are moving towards a core of full-time fishers. I agree with that but in our area, lobster fishing only lasts for ten weeks. People who have other licences can complement that for two or three weeks at a time by fishing for scallops or possibly herring. In fact, one fisherman told me that he was no longer going to set his mackerel nets because the seals come along and eat all the fish. So, that is also a problem in our area.
Can you give me some hope that inshore fishers will eventually be able to access that fishery and that some means will be found to provide them that access? The quota was increased this year, but it is the same fishers who benefitted. The Department said it would be increased so that the people making all the money would be in a position to pay into the workers' fund. That is a noble goal, but I would be willing to bet that the people who will make the most money will be the ones doing the processing. I am not trying to blame you, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about.
The inshore fishers would have fished primarily in a zone where there is mossy crab that requires a great deal more processing when it is landed, which would have helped people working in the processing plants. Can you give me any hope that a way will be found to include these people?
[English]
Mr. Anderson: I appreciate your question. It points out the complexity of the management issues. No particular species can be taken in isolation, and no region can be taken in isolation.
The fundamental question posed is why are there no exclusive inshore zones. I asked last year that this be reviewed. I wanted to have the views of all participants heard and then we would give it a careful analysis. After doing that, we decided, and ultimately the decision was mine, that it would not be helpful to institute a separate zone. The reasons were simple. There was no consensus whatsoever. There were stakeholders all over the place on it. Other than the people along the coast, most of the other stakeholders -- that is, the people closest to it -- opposed the zone. The provinces also opposed the creation of the zone. When you create an exclusive zone, inevitably someone is excluded. Some people were doing nothing but fishing in that zone and they were to be excluded because they did not actually live adjacent to it. Historically, we have that problem of people losing because of the creation of a zone.
The other real difficulty was that the mid-shore crab and the gulf shrimp fishery was under a five-year co-management agreement, and we were in year three. I came in as minister two years ago. It was already in place and I looked at it to see if we should abandon it. I decided that that would lead to ramifications elsewhere, which was not desirable. Fishermen should be able to count on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to honour an agreement over five years.
There were other aspects to this. The fund has been mentioned. The Auditor General is after me for getting outside of my legislative mandate on the fund. I will be discussing that with him. Nevertheless, I am still a strong believer in the fund, regardless of whatever criticism he may have.
I will turn the remainder of the question over to Mr. Robichaud with respect to other species, but I want you to know that I looked closely at creating an inshore zone. It was not possible under the circumstances of the variety of interests that opposed it and the fact that it would mean abandoning commitments made by my predecessor to fishermen, and I did not feel that that was a great idea.
Mr. Robichaud: I wish to comment on one issue. There was a question about whether or not there will be sharing. This is the third year, which means that there has not been sharing for two years in a row. In the first year, however, there was sharing. The outlook on the resource from next year onward -- that is, because it is cyclical -- is that it is on the way up. There is hope that there will be opportunity to share in the coming years.
There was also an issue regarding harvesting older crab. It is not possible to harvest only older crab. You must harvest younger ones also so that you will have a mix. It is not feasible to have a fishery based only on the harvesting of older crab. Effective this year, this crab will not be available beyond 1999. We are increasing the monitoring at sea and on land, and strong action will be taken if someone is landing only good crab and next door there is a good mix of crab of various ages.
Senator Adams: In the past, Canada has had an agreement with other countries for the protection of marine mammals. However, lately, Canada's position has been directed toward settling land claims for Nunavut. Yesterday, I attended the Fisheries Committee of the House of Commons. We heard from people representing Nunavut and the Labradorian association. The hearing yesterday was mostly concerned with how they were able to have a better economy by promoting seal pelts and meat for export to other countries.
Canada has had an agreement with other countries, the United States and countries in Europe, but it is difficult to negotiate the export of sealskin and ivory. We cannot export them to the states or to other countries.
How can Canada negotiate or change its policy, especially with the native people? According to the information given yesterday, people earn about $20,000 annually from the sale of sealskins. It is not the same case in Newfoundland. Sometimes, seals are caught and the family would like to be able to sell those skins. However, they must be sold to people in North Bay and B.C. For those who go to the auction sales every year, approximately 7,000 sealskins are sold. They sell for approximately $30 each. How can this problem be addressed so that it will be economically viable for those people who are living in the community and are living off the land and trying to make a living on the sale of sealskins?
Mr. Anderson: Nunavut took part in the meeting of Atlantic ministers in Quebec City two days ago and the national meeting three days ago. We were very pleased to have them as an individual participant.
With respect to the sale of seal pelts, I am a strong believer in the intelligent utilization of marine mammals, including seals. I see it as a proper right and, in some cases, a necessary thing to do. Therefore, markets are tremendously important. I will not repeat about what I said about risk to markets. It is tremendously important to people of the North and it should not be forgotten by people elsewhere on this particular issue.
How do we get about going on that American embargo on both ivory and pelts? The only way is by constant pressure. The Americans are firm on this. Our opponents are vigorous. They want to reduce the market. They want to make sealing unprofitable. They do not want to have anyone working towards building up a healthy industry, which is, perhaps, limited in over all size but, nevertheless, important to individuals who live on the coasts of Atlantic Canada and the North. We wish to make sure that continues. We have done the marketing promotion that we can elsewhere in the world, but the Americans are particularly difficult.
With respect ivory, it is not possible for our carvers in Nunavut and the rest of the Arctic to export to the United States carvings made by the bones of whales that were killed centuries ago and have been beachcombed and then carved. They are saying, "No. It is a threat to the existing population to send bones out which are 100 years old." If anything is more ridiculous than that approach, I do not know what it is. There are many ridiculous things that one discovers in fisheries and marine mammal management, but that is ludicrous. It is all part of the whole concept of ensuring that we do not do well on the marine mammal side so that, somehow or other, we will become discouraged and give up.
There are not many other opportunities in many parts of the country. When you combine both the natural resource and the artistic ability of Nunavut and Arctic people, I get hot under the collar at this limitation. I meet frequently with American officials because of other issues with them. I meet them at every level and I constantly reiterate the discriminatory nature of their policies with respect to the northern people of Canada and how unfair and resented this is. I hope that one day reason will prevail. These views that are held and these restriction that are placed on us are inconsistent when you consider what is happening in Alaska.
I will go no further than to say that I will be happy to carry the flag and fight the fight, but I am not offering the hope that we will see cracks in the armour of the United States on this one.
Senator Adams: What about your involvement?
Mr. Anderson: Senator, the same comment really does apply. The frustrations of dealing with the Europeans on the processed shrimp issue for Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada, as well as for shrimp landed further north, is a matter of considerable frustration. When I was in London the time before last, I had every ambassador from the European countries come to discuss the issue of the marine mammal boycott and prohibition. It was not an encouraging meeting. The Europeans were very firm and, if I may say so without offending anyone, very irrational on this point.
Senator Perrault: I appreciate the fact the minister has come here this morning and has, as usual, been very candid and forthcoming. It indicates the minister is on top of his portfolio and doing his job.
I am interested in the situation of our West Coast. Can the minister provide any prognosis as to how our Pacific resources are developed? We have talked about the problems of the Atlantic Region, but are there any encouraging signs in the West?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, senator there are encouraging signs. We had better returns in the Upper Thompson River coho stocks and the Skeena River stocks than we would have had had measures not been taken. The kill of fish through fisheries action, which is essentially the mortality of fish that are put back in the water after being caught, was reduced on the upper Thompson stock to about 2 per cent. Compare that to 80 per cent of the fish being killed four years ago. That was coho; sockeye was different.
Last year, the sockeye did very well, mainly because of our agreement with Washington State, which so many people criticized. Things turned out to work extraordinarily well given that natural conditions were very adverse. The waters in the Fraser were low; the temperatures in those waters exceeded 20 degrees Celsius, well above 16 to 18 degrees Celsius, which is considered to be the maximum range. We had 40 per cent mortality in the river, compared to the previous year when we had only 4 to 6 per cent mortality. The fish could not get up to the spawning beds or, if they did, they were so exhausted from the struggle that they died before spawning. Despite that, thanks to the agreement with the Americans, we did get adequate numbers on most of the sockeye stocks.
Fishing for this year will be poor. I have not yet issued the detailed fishing plans and analysis, but I can assure you in general terms that they it not be good. We will have to have restrictions on commercial fishing in some parts of the coast, because of a lack of abundance of chinook and coho. There will have to be restrictions with respect to sockeye in some part of the coast.
However, there are some bright spots. The picture is not gloomy everywhere, but it will be another tough year with respect to salmon. Other fisheries are doing well, although we have a tendency to focus on salmon. I can only repeat, as I did during the last meeting, that the rebuilding on the West Coast is a six to eight year game. We cannot do it in less time, because we need two full coho life-cycles, and the equivalent for other species, to rebuild. Once we rebuild those weak stocks, we will be in a very comfortable position.
Furthermore, it is critical, if we are to rebuild those stocks, that we work with our American fellow citizens of the Pacific. We cannot do it otherwise. The border, although an artificial line, has become another cause of the decline of fish stocks. I wish to reach, with my American counterparts, the point where that line, which is invisible in the water, becomes invisible in terms of conservation. We are moving well. The technical discussions on the Pacific salmon treaty that have taken place over the last two months have been productive.
The governors of Oregon, Washington and Alaska and the chairman of the American Council of Environmental Quality are meeting in Seattle today. I spoke to those four gentlemen over the last three days and they are optimistic as well. These talks will mean an agreement that some West Coast Canadians will criticize as inadequate.
People who wish everything, who interpret things in terms of absolutes, will discover that compromises are needed to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we do reach an agreement, it will be a compromise, but there will be voices raised to say that the effort is inadequate. The last six years of fishing without agreements, other than the one last year, has eroded our position and weakened our ability. Those who say, "Have no agreement unless you have the perfect agreement," are living in a fools' paradise. You cannot get intelligent conservation without an intelligent agreement with the Americans. It cannot be done.
Senator Perrault: As you know, every year we have meetings with American politicians. Last year we met in Nantucket and had a very frank discussion about fisheries. This year we will meet in Quebec City. The subject of salmon and other Canadian species' conservation should be on the agenda for those meetings. It would be a useful initiative, I believe, to send a group of well-briefed Canadian members of the House of Commons and the Senate to those meetings.
Mr. Anderson: I would be remiss if I did not congratulate you for the work you did in Nantucket. Senator Stevens of Alaska, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is an important player. He is the man who decides whether the American civil service and military will be paid. He also determines expenditures in the American system through the Appropriations Committee. We need his help and that of other senators from Alaska, Oregon, Washington and other states. This is not just a local problem; it affects the whole gamut of U.S.-Canadian relations.
Senator Perrault: The last suggestion by the American senators, just before we left, was to sit down and work out political problems in the next few months. I would like to see that achieved.
Mr. Anderson: That is happening now. Ultimately you have your technical people, who work as hard as they can, but there will remain a gap. It is rare for technical people to come to an agreement. You need the political willpower of the United States Senate. It cannot be done by the President, cabinet ministers, the Council of Environmental Quality or the National Fisheries Service. It must be done by American politicians, particularly those senators representing Washington, D.C.
Senator Stewart: I have two questions, one of which is specifically for the minister. I will proceed to ask that question for clarification.
In the minister's earlier response to me, he referred to further regulations regarding quotas. I wish to get back to the subject of our meeting. He said that there might be, as I said, further regulations. It has been suggested to me that in assigning quotas the past fishing record of corporations and individuals has been taken into account, with the result that those who have abused the fishery in the past are those who get the big quotas because they have the historical record of involvement.
In your further regulations, do you intend to deal with this problem effectively?
Mr. Anderson: Senator, we do impose other regulations, such things as having the quota restricted to the individual, restricted to family sometimes. There are other methods of making sure the quota is not transferable. That is why we have individual quotas and individual transferable quotas. You do not need to have a transferable quota when you have an individual quota. There are methods of that type to deal with the problem as it appears.
With respect to historical shares, I have just spent with two days with provincial ministers arguing the issue. Quebec and New Brunswick insist that this should be the basis of every fishery. I keep pointing out to Quebec that, if I had done that and if my predecessors had done that in the period of 1989 to 1997, Quebec would have had less of an increase because in many species they are well beyond the historic share. One increase regards herring, where 100 tonnes has gone to 1,500 tonnes. Kept at historic share, they would have had one-fifteenth of the amount they caught last year.
Historic shares are the mantra to some but not to others. In particular, Nunavut, whose representatives arrived on the scene 10 days after having established a new territory, said historic shares are rubbish.That is a most ironic thing, in a way, because no one is more historic, in terms of being around that table as a resident of Canada's coastal communities, than our Inuit people. They, however, said that historic shares would limit them.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Minister, I was not talking about shares as between provinces, but between fishing persons, including corporations under the term "persons."
Mr. Anderson: There are examples then, such as the Scotia-Fundy ITQ fleet or the Zone 19 crab fishery, where the transfer changes were limited to 2 per cent of the groundfish quota of the 1991 groundfish quota in the Scotia-Fundy ITQ fleet or 1.75 per cent in the Zone 19 crab fishery. In other words, limitations were put in at that time.
We do try to prohibit the offender, who you have described as someone who fished improperly. The dilemma is that the courts keep coming back at us saying that if the courts approve a sanction we cannot add to the penalty imposed by the judge by an administrative sanction. If we do not have a court case, of course, it is a question of discriminatory treatment because we are not treating them appropriately.
We do, however, work in, in addition to historic shares, many other factors; viability of the enterprise, accessibility or adjacency. We add in rights, of course, for native peoples as well, whether Constitutional rights or section 35 rights. There are many other factors in addition to historical background. It does not always work and it is rough justice.
The Chairman: We have run out of time. On behalf of the committee members, I wish to thank the minister for making his time available. He has a busy schedule, and to date we have not had problems getting him to appear before us. I noted this morning that he has expressed his willingness to return after we have had an opportunity to digest the department's response to our December 8 report.
I wish to ask you one brief question just before you leave, Mr. Minister.
In the last year, there were reports that as a result of the Swiss Air disaster, where Canada responded as it should have with Coast Guard resources, however, the budget normally earmarked for patrol activities was reduced; that, in fact, the planned patrolled activities were reduced and this might have caused some problems to our fishing industry.
Is it true that the patrol activities were reduced? And if so, are any of the budget overruns to be implemented in this current year's budget? Are we, in other words, causing those patrols not to be done?
Mr. Anderson: You are correct that there was a reduction in patrol activity and many other activities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because of personnel going to Peggy's Cove. We simply did not have them in the Scotia-Fundy region, or New Brunswick or wherever. From the straight lack of trained personnel to do the job, we transferred people. That, of course, is essentially over now.
On the aspect of financing, the answer is essentially no. We expect to get the full return of our costs, but ministers who believe central agencies who say they will give you the full amount of money generally forget that there will be argument as to what would have been done by the department, and so I expect to be battling to make sure that we do get what we regard as the full return for the cost of what we did. I may call on you for assistance in that regard.
The Chairman: By all means.
Thank you very much on behalf; we hope to see you again in the near future.
Senator Stewart: I had thought that we would use this opportunity to hear the minister's reaction to our report. However, we did get into many other areas. The situation is not hopeless though because the minister has indicated that he is willing to return.
Can we have assurance from members of the committee that we will use our time and the minister's time on that occasion to concentrate on our agreed-upon focus, namely, the government's reaction to the report of the committee. Otherwise, there is no point in having the minister come here, on the estimates, unless we deal with the designated purpose of his appearance.
Senator Robichaud: Do you want to deal exclusively with the report? My question about crab had to do with the allocation of quota to fishermen. I thought it was in line with what we are saying in there; there is a recommendation to the effect of the distribution of quota. How concentrated should our questions be on this?
Senator Stewart: I suspect that in fisheries, if you start with quotas as the centre of your focus, because of the complexity of the fisheries, you can bring in almost anything and say that it is relevant. It is a matter of judgment.
We have produced, I believe, a very good report and I mentioned to the minister earlier that I am very anxious that we do not have the same experience with this report that we had with reports prepared by this committee under the leadership of Senator Marshall. The report was prepared, it was filled, it was forgotten and, in the meantime, the fishery was going down the drain, or wherever the fisheries have gone.
We have concerns. Our concerns may not have been perfectly enunciated. Our concerns may be off the mark. However, this is our opportunity to register our concerns with the minister and to make sure the minister is cognizant of those concerns. Otherwise, we are just wasting the people's money.
Senator Robertson: I agree with you, Senator Stewart, that we must have an opportunity of responding to his response of our report.
Senator Stewart: We received the document this morning.
Senator Robertson: We received the document at 5:06 last night in the office. That is when it was delivered.
I was trying to get into the issues that Senator Butts, Senator Stewart, and others of us were very concerned about and expressed in our report. I did not expect to get a lecture on government programs, which anyone sitting at this table would know anyway.
Our small fishing communities certainly are not feeling very secure. There are many in New Brunswick who wonder about their future viability if some change in policy is not given. We know that HRDC other government departments are delivering different programs, however, the way given the end result I do not think money will fix the problem. There must be some cooperation between departments. It almost seems as if one department does not know what the other department is doing.
These are some of the things, Senator Stewart, we must deal with. Do not tell me about the grants and the programs available to fishers in Atlantic Canada. We know them. We have been around this table as long as Senator Stewart has. It is insulting.
The Chairman: The comments have been noted. Unless there are any other comments, I shall, prior to the minister's next appearance, make sure we are reminded that we do wish to keep on focus. We did produce, as Senator Stewart said, what we feel is an extremely important report, a valuable contribution to the future of licensing and quota policies in Canada. We would like the department to be mindful of what we have said and if they do not understand the way we made the recommendations we wish to make sure that they do understand.
Senator Perrault: The minister said that he is quite willing to come back. Let us bring him back after we have studied the departmental report. That would help the exercise.
The Chairman: Very good. Unless there is anything further, we are adjourned until the call of the chair to the next meeting.
The committee adjourned.