STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 2, 1999

[English]

• 0908

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order.

Today we have with us witnesses by videoconference. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is studying the implications of the September 17, 1999 Supreme Court decision on Regina v. Marshall on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region.

We have two groups with us by videoconference from Halifax: the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, and the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. Welcome. I'll ask you to introduce yourselves. I assume you're going to each make a brief overview of your statement and then we'll go to questions.

We start with the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance. Welcome.

Mr. Denny Morrow (Coordinator, Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance): Yes. I'm Denny Morrow. I'm the coordinator of the alliance.

Just to clarify, we don't have two groups here. We only have representatives from the alliance at this point. The way the alliance plans to proceed is that I would do a presentation and then we would have additional comments from my three colleagues who also represent the alliance.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead and introduce your people then, Denny.

• 0910

Mr. Don Cunningham (Vice-President, Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance): I'm Don Cunningham, and I'm the president of the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition. We're the group that intervened in the Marshall decision, and we're also the group that has asked for a rehearing. We're a member of the alliance.

Mr. Jim Fraelic (Director, Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance): I'm Jim Fraelic. I represent the gill net fishermen on the south shore of Nova Scotia. We're groundfish fishermen and we're also lobster fishermen. We're very concerned with what's happened. We're a member of the alliance.

Ms. Melanie Sonnenberg (President, Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance): Good morning. I'm Melanie Sonnenberg. I represent the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association as well as the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, which is a maritime-based group. I'm also a member of the alliance.

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead, Denny.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I'll read a statement.

The Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance presently represents 29 member organizations from the three provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and P.E.I. I believe my office faxed to you this morning a list of members of the alliance. The membership includes groundfish, swordfish, tuna, herring, lobster, crab, and mackerel harvest organizations. The two major processor associations from Nova Scotia are also members. Another 15 harvest and processor organizations in the region are in the process of consulting with their members about joining the alliance.

The alliance will provide the fishing industry in the Atlantic region with an organization to develop and present consensus positions on issues resulting from the Marshall decision.

The impacts of the decision to date are as follows.

The closed-season aspect of our conservation management regime has been ignored by natives in the lobster fishery. DFO has seemed powerless to enforce the same conservation regulations that apply to the commercial industry. There have been confrontations between native and commercial fishermen.

There have been two interim agreements in Nova Scotia lobster fishing areas that were reached under crisis negotiating circumstances. Precedents are being set with little time to reflect on the effect these precedents might have on other sectors or other geographic areas. Negotiating with a gun to your head is not acceptable.

Federal ministers are meeting with native representatives, but there has been little contact or discussion with the commercial industry. The industry is in the dark. The industry does not know what kind of regulatory regime can be applied to the native fishery. To date we have had little input toward the establishment of a process for dialogue and negotiations with the federal government and the native community.

The industry is being asked by native leaders to meet to begin negotiating increased native participation in the commercial fishing industry. Although DFO has moved in recent weeks to limit non-status native activity in the food fishery and trap limits were imposed on natives fishing lobster in two areas, the major limit on native fishing activity at this point seems to be their capacity to fish.

Native entry into the commercial industry seems open-ended as a result of the Marshall decision. All agreements in such circumstances would seem to be interim agreements.

Fishermen and processors with investments in licences, boats, gear, plants, and export marketing systems are worried that an industry worth $1 billion in Nova Scotia alone is in jeopardy.

The alliance has agreed on some basic principles. These principles have been forwarded to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The alliance has requested a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order to begin a dialogue on how to protect investments and livelihoods in our industry. We want to meet with the ministers to discuss the kind of negotiating process that will take place. Our industry wants to make sure we have an effective role in the negotiating process. There must be respect for our industry and for the economy of our region.

Now I'll go over the basic principles we have all agreed on.

First of all, conservation must be the first priority in the management of the fishery. Fishermen have made and are continuing to make sacrifices to ensure the fishery has a future. The Marshall decision endorses DFO's power to regulate the native fishery for conservation purposes. Closed seasons can be justified on conservation grounds. We call on DFO to state the conservation rationale for its regulations. There should be more enforcement, not less, and the enforcement should be applied equally to native and other Canadian fishermen.

• 0915

Second, conservation is only sustainable if there is one fisheries management authority. That authority has to be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Everyone has to fish under the same conservation rules, with the same enforcement and the same penalties for everyone. Native groups are asserting the right to regulate and enforce their own fisheries. The so-called food fishery was the first step in this direction. Commercial fishermen will not accept a two-tier system. Respect for the current regulatory regime is being undermined.

Third, the alliance does not oppose native participation in the commercial fishery. That participation is nothing new. Two programs already exist that provide for increased native participation in the fishery. There is a voluntary licence buyback program, whereby DFO buys licences and then gives them to natives. Native fishermen are taking advantage of this program. In Scotia Fundy since 1994, approximately $3.6 million has been spent on purchasing some 36 licences. There is also a DFO program that facilitates aboriginal access to new licences in developing fisheries such as shrimp and sea urchins. These programs have allowed native fishermen to enter the commercial fishery without putting added stress on fish stocks and without disruption to the industry.

Four, beyond these existing programs, there is no ability to accommodate further capacity in the fishery. In some sectors, there are ongoing DFO-funded programs to reduce capacity. In many fisheries, the existence of overcapacity is clearly recognized. If there are new native fishermen in the different sectors, there will have to be a compensating reduction among the present body of fishermen. Adding new capacity, even as a temporary measure, in order to satisfy political considerations is risking repetition of the cod crisis with other species.

Fifth, the treaty rights awarded by the Supreme Court were negotiated by the British Crown. It is therefore the federal government, rather than the fishing industry, that must meet the costs associated with the 1760 treaty. The fishermen and processors who have built this industry cannot bear this cost. We call on the federal government to affirm its intention to compensate the fishing industry for losses related to the implementation of the treaty right.

The LFA 34, Acadia, and Bear River Band interim agreement presents the federal government with the first test in regard to these costs. Six licences must be voluntarily retired as soon as possible. There is also the possibility of another four licences for the Bear River Band next season. The cost for six licences may exceed $1.4 million. A reduction of six existing commercial boats will likely result in the loss of about 18 jobs for crew members. In a region where job opportunities are scarce outside the fishery, the prospects for these men will be bleak. Some compensation is in order.

If native fishermen are allowed to continue to fish during the closed summer season, lobster pound operators will be affected, and a significant loss in investments and employment will result.

Six, the implementation of the treaty rights in regard to the fishery must be conducted in such a way that the existing commercial industry is not damaged and investments and livelihoods are protected. Coastal communities depend on this industry. It supports many other industries, such as boat-building.

If fish stocks can be managed in a sustainable way, the seafood industry in Atlantic Canada has a bright future. Our seafood products are in increasing demand in world markets. The industry will be hampered in securing the investment capital it needs if uncertainty and the potential for disruptions in supply are allowed to continue as a result of this decision.

• 0920

The industry alliance has supported the need for a stay of the Supreme Court decision in order to provide time for clarification of major questions related to the decision and for dialogue among the affected parties.

Some of the points that need to be clarified are determination of the beneficiaries of the treaty; more definition of DFO's regulatory powers in relation to the native fishery; an examination of the conservation rationale behind the present fisheries regulations; geographical limitations of the treaty right and the possible application of the adjacency principle in certain fisheries; an estimation of potential native demand to enter the fishery now and in the future; the meaning of “moderate income” for necessaries and communal licences and the connection to moderate income; the identification of potential longer-term solutions to increased native participation in the fishery that will cause the least disruption to the industry; estimated costs associated with the treaty and the federal government's willingness to cover those costs; the rights of the existing commercial industry; and the development of a process for dialogue and negotiation.

Unfortunately, the exercise of the treaty rights was allowed to proceed in a manner that has created a potential for confrontation and violence. Native people have had the opportunity to enter the commercial fishery. A few months allowed for discussion and the implementation of the treaty rights would have allowed all parties to begin discussions in a more cooperative atmosphere.

That's our statement. If it would please the committee, I would ask the other three representatives if there are points they would like to bring up.

The Chair: Thank you, first of all, for an extremely well written, articulate, brief, and to-the-point submission.

Are there any other points the other three people want to add at this time, before we go to the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association?

We will be going to questions following the next presentation.

We turn, then, to either Arthur or Harold of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. Give us your name, make your presentation, and then we'll go to questions.

Mr. Arthur Bull (Coordinator, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association): Good morning. My name is Arthur Bull, and I'm the coordinator of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association.

Let me start off by apologizing for being late. We had a problem with parking. But we're very pleased to be here, and I'll let Harold introduce himself.

Mr. Harold Theriault (President, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association): My name is Harold Theriault. I'm the president of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association and a representative of LFA 34.

The Chair: Thank you, fellows, and welcome. Better late than never. Make your presentation, and then we'll go to questions.

Mr. Arthur Bull: Thank you.

I'll briefly outline a little bit about our association and our position on this issue. Then, hopefully, some of the other aspects of our position will be covered in the question time afterward.

Essentially, our position has been based on two principles that our board and our membership have unanimously supported. The first one is that no livelihoods in the fishery should be lost because of the Marshall decision. The second one is that we've been directed to develop a working relationship with the Mi'kmaq leadership and their representatives. Those two positions are very closely linked. Basically, those are the interests we have been directed to take into any further discussions.

As a little bit of background, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association represents about 200 inshore fishermen on the Nova Scotia side of the Bay of Fundy who are involved in the groundfish fishery, the lobster fishery, as well as some other fisheries to a lesser extent. Our association has been involved in community-based management for the last four years and are still trying to move forward on that front.

• 0925

In terms of the native issue, because our area has been a kind of flashpoint in the native fishery under the food fishery prior to the Marshall decision, we've been basically working on this issue for some time. We've been talking to the representatives of the Mi'kmaq chiefs—that is, the Mi'kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission—for about two years about native fishing issues. That essentially has provided the foundation and the lines of communication for what we call a cooperative approach. There are a number of issues that we had basically already worked on before Marshall. That would include the opposition to a proposed krill fishery, opposition of the chiefs and representatives to privatization and ITQs, and also support from the chiefs and their representatives of our position on the change in size limits in the lobster fishery, in that we've said DFO should pull back on any new regulatory changes in that fishery.

So we have worked on a number of different fronts. We've also identified common ground on the basis of community-based management. That is to say, when we sat down and started talking to the representatives of some of the chiefs, we found that they were talking about many of the same approaches and values that we were. So having established that common ground, when Marshall came down we then were able to continue that approach. As I say, we went back to our membership and basically had that approach supported again and ratified.

What came next was an agreement that we would work together in our area, specifically on St. Mary's Bay, which has been, as I say, one of the flashpoints in one of the most difficult areas in this issue. Together with the Maritime Fishermen's Union, Local 9, Bear River Band and Acadia Band, we created a St. Mary's Bay working group. I should make it clear that this wasn't a negotiation. We weren't negotiating on behalf of the larger area, or on behalf of anybody, really. This was a joint cooperative project. Essentially what we're looking at is the science that's required to build up a knowledge base about this area and the stocks, looking at the different models for working together, looking at exactly how much effort and when that effort can be happening in St. Mary's Bay, and a whole range of issues.

So essentially you have a pilot project that is taking a kind of bottom-up approach. That is to say, rather than say we're going to have agreements worked out on some macro level, that are legal agreements, we're saying people who live in these communities and fish on these waters together are going to have to sit down and start working out solutions. Hopefully, if we are successful, those solutions will be useful in the larger context. That's not to say we don't think there should be a large context; we're just saying we're taking a kind of modest approach to this, from our own perspective, that we should start right where we are and basically work on some local cooperative approaches, bearing in mind the two principles I mentioned at the beginning.

I think that just about outlines where we are. I would add that I understand that the cooperative approaches and local kind of bottom-up solutions are being worked on in other places as well—for example, Cape Breton and the gulf area, and even in other parts of Canada and in other sectors. People are actually sitting down and looking at how they can work together and take on responsibility and stewardship of the north in a way that protects the livelihoods that are there and allows for the development of new livelihoods.

• 0930

I think I'll stop there. Hopefully some of the other points we have might come up in our discussions.

Harold, do you have anything you want to throw in at this point?

Mr. Harold Theriault: No.

Mr. Arthur Bull: Maybe I'll make one other point about this agreement, from my notes.

One of the interesting things about reaching this agreement was that it was made between elected officials directly involved with the people who are the resource users. In other words, it was made without the media there. It was made without lawyers there. With all due respect, it was made without politicians there. It was made by people who live in these rural coastal communities. They are the ones who will have to live with the solutions we're coming up with now. I think that's the approach we're taking.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bull. On behalf of all committee members, we certainly congratulate you for the good work done to date.

We'll turn to questioning now. John Cummins from the Reform Party will go first.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the witnesses this morning.

A number of issues have been raised by both Denny's presentation and the last presentation we heard today from the Bay of Fundy people, with specific reference to the principles proposed by the alliance. I guess if one were blindfolded and read those principles, they would be the same principles the fishing industry on the west coast has been promoting for the last seven years, without any kind of positive response from the federal government or any support whatsoever at this level.

That little bit of negative aside, I think they're wonderful solutions and a wonderful way of bringing together the concerns the industry has and then trying to seek solutions.

This morning in my questioning I'd like to try to make evident to members of the committee and others who may be following these proceedings some of the problems you may have had to date and some of the background behind some of the solutions proposed.

The first item I'd like to address is the issue of the food fishery. In your second point on the alliance principles, Denny—and others may want to respond to this as well—you say conservation is only sustainable if there's one fisheries management authority, and you suggest that has to be DFO. Everybody has to fish under the same conservation rules. Then you note in your first bullet that the native groups are asserting the right to regulate and enforce their own fisheries. The so-called food fishery was the first step in this direction. Could you give the committee some indication of the concerns you may have about the way this food fishery is operated?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes. Don Cunningham here certainly has more knowledge than myself, but one comment I would make at this point is that last summer there was a federal-provincial task force to monitor and do surveillance on the food fishery. They reached the understanding that a lot of these lobster are winding up in commercial channels.

At one point I was told by somebody inside DFO that there had been agreement with three bands that were involved in the food fishery that...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...475, 475, 130. But the natives were allowed to use their own tags, and according to the known measure, this person in DFO told me that was actually 1,800, 1,400, and 1,200. Those were caught...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. DFO seems powerless, even though...[Technical difficulty—Editor].

• 0935

I know in the processing, we had additional paperwork supposedly to track these lobsters through our operations, which was quite onerous for the buyers, but there was absolutely no enforcement that you could see. We just did more paperwork and nothing really happened.

You can say, in light of the Marshall decision, there wasn't anything illegal going on, because they have the right to fish commercially out there, but it's a contradiction.

So that's one example. I think Don may very well have another.

Mr. Don Cunningham: I assume the committee is aware that the background for the food fishery was the Sparrow decision. That wouldn't have been a problem except that DFO came up with an aboriginal fishing strategy in response to the Sparrow decision. At least for lobsters, they decided that six traps for natives would be the way the natives would access their food fishery rights.

The problem was, there was absolutely no enforcement, and it immediately became a commercial fishery, not a food fishery. There was no way DFO could stop it anyway, because apparently the courts could only accept proof that money had changed hands. So there were lobsters being landed, and the six traps were never obeyed because the tags were supplied by the natives themselves. In fact, they often just made them up.

But that's been a sore point from day one. That was the problem well before the Marshall decision came down. The Marshall decision just...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...work. DFO did take the bull by the horns and declare that the food fishery had been overfished this year, and shut it down until December 31. But that's still there in the wings, and it's going to be a problem in the new year unless somebody takes charge of it and in effect stops the food fishery.

It shouldn't be there, and it's not controllable, at least not in its present form. It's a serious problem, and DFO has to do something about it or we're going to have a problem again next April or May.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I thank you for that. I've heard the same complaints from fishermen in Malpeque Bay and Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick and so on. There's a huge problem with that. In fact, a number of fishermen have said to me that if they could fish six traps during the summer, they'd be happy to turn in their commercial licence. Would anybody care to comment on that?

The Chair: I think you know these questions are open to either group. Fire away.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I think that's obvious. In fact, several fishers have said that. When the season is closed for conservation purposes, especially the LFA 34 season, which is a winter fishery, in the summertime it makes it very accessible to anyone who wants to go in there. It is closed for conservation purposes. For anyone who accesses it at that time of year, it's very easy to catch the lobsters. I think it's been estimated that one trap in the summertime is probably equivalent to 50 to 100 traps in the winter season.

You can see the kind of effort that could be put in there. Six traps doesn't sound like a lot, but it is.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I guess from our perspective, we'd agree with everything said so far. It's accurate. Certainly a lot of this problem has been in St. Mary's Bay, and certainly up until now this has been fully-fledged illegal, the commercial fishery.

I guess our analysis of the problem was that it was largely an enforcement problem but also a management problem. More than a year ago we approached Minister Anderson and pointed out to him that were wasn't any single authority over this fishery in terms of management.

Essentially, DFO was recognizing a couple of groups and then a number of individual bands in terms of these tags. So we formally went forward and said the Mi'kmaq Fish and Wildlife Association should be recognized as being the authority to represent the chiefs.

It's like anything else. If you have several managers, it's not going to be managed. So that's been our position on it.

I guess our position now is that we're going to keep working on this. At the same time, it's important to make a distinction between the commercial fishery that has been allowed under the Marshall decision and the past fishery. You have to deal with those two things. They're closely related, but I think by combining them, it's going to make it hard to deal with either one.

• 0940

The fishery is there and it is going to be an issue we have to deal with soon, but what we have on our plate right now is the commercial fishery, so we're focusing on that now. Hopefully, out of a positive process on that front, we'll be able to deal with the two fisheries.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bull. Could I get that name again? You indicated they represented the Mi'kmaq what?

Mr. Arthur Bull: The Mi'kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission represents the 13 Mi'kmaq chiefs.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: In your discussion of the impact of the decision to date, Denny, you note that native entry into the commercial fishery seems open-ended as a result of the Marshall decision. As well, earlier on in your third bullet you talk about these two interim agreements and you say that precedents are being set with little time to reflect on the effect these precedents might have on other sectors or on other geographic areas.

Certainly one of the concerns one would have to have with these agreements is that they're interim agreements. They almost seem to be agreements designed to allow for entry, but there's no limit discussed. That to me is a concern, and I wonder what level of concern you may have on the fact that this Marshall decision is such an open-ended decision. If carried to its extreme, I wonder if there's room for anybody other than the Mi'kmaq to participate in that lobster fishery. I wonder if you'd care to comment on that.

Mr. Denny Morrow: With all due respect to Arthur's position put forward, certainly I have nothing but admiration for the LMA 34 negotiating committee sitting down with the chiefs to work out the agreement to defuse a very volatile situation in the Yarmouth area. Some of the questions that I said need to be clarified...[Technical difficulties—Editor]...determination of the beneficiaries of the treaty.

If you can negotiate something at the local level and think you have it tied down because you have an agreement from a couple of chiefs in your local area.... We have operated down there on other bands...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...and recently representatives off Newfoundland trying to get into the crab fishery. Right now I don't think there's any assurance regarding who the beneficiary is of the treaty.

We have non-status natives who put a couple of crabs into the water in Yarmouth. They wanted to be charged so that they could have their position clarified. So until you know what you're dealing with here, it's very hard to work out local agreements that have any lasting power. That's the major question. Also, if you don't have non-adjacent.... I think we have 35 bands in the Atlantic region. What is to prevent, for example, a band from one place looking at a very lucrative, well-managed lobster fishery in South West Nova or a tuna fishery or whatever and saying “It's our right to fish that. We want to be part of it. We're going to go down there and fish it.” Right now I don't see that there's anything to prevent that.

Also, you have a good fishery. One of the limitations right now for the native fishery, since Marshall, is their capacity to fish. And I think their capacity to fish is going to improve as they get experience and as they make money in the fishery. So an agreement that is agreed to this year is exactly that, as I see it, in Marshall—it's an interim agreement.

Next year you may have a greater demand; there's nothing to prevent that. You may have bands from other areas coming to your area and saying they want to have a chance at that fishery too. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans demanded the Indian Brook Band pay for some crab to fish...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...and that band is in Truro. I would have thought their traditional fishing area might have been the...[Technical difficulty—Editor].

• 0945

So this undermining...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. Commercial fishermen buy into conservation regulations if they think it's going to lead to benefits for them. But if...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...the fishery well, what that leads to is increased access by somebody outside their area or outside that sector. Then we really have no incentive to back into the...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. Let's take all we can get, because somebody else is going to...[Technical difficulty—Editor].

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.

We're going to move on to Mr. Bernier with the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I`d like to congratulate the authors of this brief. As the Chairman pointed out earlier, it is clear and articulate. Personally, I`d be happy if the Minister of Fisheries and his deputy ministers could act with the same clarity and rigor.

First, you mention in your document that the fishermen and the industry don`t know anything about the regulatory regime to be applied to the natives. You remain in the dark and you don`t know the outcome of the discussion. I think that`s why our fishermen were taken by surprise in each of our communities.

Second, since you represent an alliance of workers who deal with several species of fish, can you tell us whether there has been to date any firm requests from the natives regarding other species beside lobster? And to those of you who might have had to negotiate with the natives, on what basis were they granted from three to six licenses in an LFA?

Did the fact that there was an agreement between the traditional fishermen and the natives lead to the signing of a treaty recognizing that concessions granted for lobster fishing in a region don`t mean that concessions have to be granted for other species in the same region? When an agreement is signed with native communities, what are the guarantees that it won`t go beyond that? Isn`t that a slippery slope? I`d like to have your comments on this issue.

[English]

Ms. Melanie Sonnenberg: I will try to address a couple of points you brought out.

I'll start at the end of your questioning. I think it's a fair assumption on everybody's part in the fishing industry that once we get beyond the lobster fishery, we will see them looking at other fisheries. It has already been discussed. There are those at Passamaquody Bay in the United States who claim they would like to come and fish scallops, and there has been mention of tuna and other such species.

In terms of your first point, that the industry is in the dark, I think the problem that has arisen is the lack of communication we have had with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The leadership we need at this time has not been there for us. We need to get to the table and start talking about the impacts and some of the things Denny raised in the brief he presented this morning. Those questions have to be answered before we can proceed in a logical way. Otherwise, it goes back to what Denny said previously: that as we make agreements, we may end up finding ourselves taking two steps back simply because we haven't taken into account some of the things that have not been clearly defined by the courts and others involved in this.

The Chair: Mr. Bull.

Mr. Arthur Bull: If I can just pick up on a couple of points that have been raised, in terms of the management regime that the native leadership is putting together, I think something we should be paying attention to right now is this issue of whether it is going to go beyond lobster. I think this is a key issue. So far we've focused on lobster. Much of the brunt of this has been borne by the inshore fishermen, so it is obviously a big concern.

• 0950

I think one of the things that's emerging from the management regime the first nations are setting up is that they are looking at multi-species fisheries and even multi-livelihood. In other words, they're not just looking at fisheries, they're looking at other sectors, and they're looking at creating jobs in terms of marketing and such things.

So that's again a common thread or common ground that we've found with them. We think it's very important that they're not seeing themselves as being lobster communities, they're seeing themselves as being communities where they can create a livelihood. It's very much to do with the position we have that a healthy inshore fishery is a multi-species fishery. So that's something to which we should pay attention.

The other thing I think we should pay attention to that's emerging in their approach to management is what Denny brought up, and that is something like the...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. I think this is key. I think he is absolutely right, and it's a key issue. I understand that the alliance policy congress representing all the chiefs of all three nations have basically adopted a district management approach based on the traditional districts; I believe there are seven districts.

Again, this would address this question of people coming from other places where they haven't really done too much harvesting. As I understand it, as this is emerging, what they're saying is maybe somebody will be able to come from another area, but they'll have to fish under the management plan of the local band. And I believe there are three bands, not thirteen.

I just bring this up because I think it's very important to realize that the native community, the fishermen and the representatives, were as unprepared as any of us when this decision came down. They didn't have their management plans in place. They are doing that now. I understand that as of last week in Sydney they are intensely developing a management plan. So again, all we're saying is we want to be talking to them as they do that and to be engaging in the dialogue as that emerges, because it is emerging.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bull.

Mr. Bernier, a very short question and a very short answer, because you are over your time.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I will throw in my question. If there is not enough time for a complete answer, it might be possible during the second round.

The last speaker, I think, mentioned earlier that he would like to see a kind of negotiation being started at the local level using a bottom-up approach. According to his proposal, would negotiations carried out at the basis cover all existing resources and would an inventory be established before going to a higher level?

The question may be very broad, but a principle regarding the management of negotiations has been proposed and I`d like to know whether such negotiations would deal with only one species of fish or with all accessible resources.

[English]

The Chair: Any response?

Mr. Arthur Bull: To be honest, it would be hard to answer that now, because we're just entering into this process. I think it would be premature to say that. I think we'd like to see as integrated an approach as possible, but really it's probably too early to say. You'll have to ask us that some way down the road.

Mr. Don Cunningham: If I could just add to Mr. Bernier's question, I think what this committee has to understand is we're seeing two approaches to this problem here today. We're seeing the local or regional efforts to work out agreements with bands who live in the area, and it's Arthur's group who are doing that. And actually we have another group here now represented by the co-chair of district 44, which has also gone through...our local management agreement. But the alliance is looking at an overall approach to deal with all the natives.

The problem the local approaches are going to meet if they're done first, which is what happened in a couple of cases, is first of all there is no control over natives from other areas. In fact, the problem in St. Mary's Bay today is not the natives who live adjacent to the area where the fishing is today; it's a band that is completely away from the area.

Another problem with those agreements is that they're not written and they're not signed. It's a really difficult situation. And by making those agreements piecemeal, they're putting the problem in the lap of other industry groups. As was mentioned, there's no doubt they're going to be looking for access to other species.

The alliance's position is if you work with groups representing hopefully all the natives.... And it's a difficult thing to find out who actually does represent them all. Arthur mentioned the Mi'kmaq Fisheries and Wildlife Commission, which is one group. There is also the Atlantic Policy Congress. One of those groups includes New Brunswick bands, but the other group doesn't. So it's very difficult to work with some of these groups until we know who they are.

• 0955

The alliance's position is to try to develop a broad framework of agreements that can then be taken to the local areas to work out the details on how they will work. The question of adjacency might be the answer probably right up front, because otherwise you'll never stop the actual thing about lucrative fisheries.

You can see where the problems are developing today. They're not going to areas adjacent to where they live. They're going to areas where there are particularly lucrative fisheries that have been built up by the Canadian industry. That's what they're accessing. It's really unfair to the industry that built up the resources in those areas. So this is the alliance's position.

As I say, the alliance is looking at this top-down approach in working out a broad agreement with natives and then applying it to the local areas. We think that's the best way to approach these problems.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that information.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am also impressed with the presentation that was made.

The Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, I noted, is an alliance made up of 29 member organizations. I guess this is an umbrella organization. If we took the 29 member organizations, what would be the total membership represented by the umbrella group?

Mr. Denny Morrow: You're talking about two major processor associations. The one I represent has 60 companies involved in it. You also have fishermen's organizations, like Jim Fraelic's. Jim, how many members do you have?

Mr. Jim Fraelic: There are two associations in our area that are both members of the alliance and who represent approximately 300 people.

Mr. Denny Morrow: Melanie.

Ms. Melanie Sonnenberg: The Eastern Fishermen's Protective Association would encompass Jim's group as well, but we have 23 organizations. The other group I represent, the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association of southern New Brunswick, would have a membership base of about 200, which again would be included under the umbrella of the federation. The federation itself would easily have in excess of 2,000 members.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I have also had inquiries and will be receiving contributions from the task groups in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and also fishermen's groups from Prince Edward Island. They called late last week to say they will be joining as well. So the membership is growing. It's in the thousands.

I would say, as Don was telling us earlier, for example, the local agreement...[Technical difficulty]...assumes the federal government will...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. That's the biggest option at this point. That's a major point. We have to have people leave if we're going to have...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. So that assumes options on the part of the federal government. These are things the alliance wants to get clear with the federal government.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm interested in the part of your answer that indicated the extent of your membership. It's obviously quite large.

As an umbrella organization, does the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance have a specific mandate from its member organizations, with respect to the issues that have been raised by the Marshall decision? Do you have a specific mandate in that regard?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes. We want to stick to those seven points we made and talk to the federal government—the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—to get the position of the federal government clarified, and find out what their regulatory powers will be. Then we will be able to provide assistance and a unified voice for the industry on these platforms.

We also will provide assistance to local groups as needed. For example, if they need help with negotiations, that can be done, but we will leave it to the local fisheries inspectors to work out the specifics of what they want to do, what arrangements they want to make with the native communities in their area.

• 1000

The Chair: But just for a point of clarification, Carmen, that's under a broad framework agreement, is that right?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Carmen.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: One of the things I noted in your presentation was your comment that the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance felt it was left out of the loop in terms of the dialogue over the process that, hopefully, will resolve these issues. If you had the opportunity to be in the loop, what would you be saying about the process? Do you know right now what kind of recommendations you would be making, or would you need to formulate those over a period of time?

Mr. Denny Morrow: As I've said, we would like to clarify with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the principles and issues that I pointed out in my presentation. We think they need to be clarified. We'd like to get the position of the federal government. We would like them to hear our comments on those main points.

We also need to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Sydney talking with natives and making comments to the media about solving the fisheries problem. There have been no discussions with the commercial fisheries by that minister. We've had one meeting with Minister Dhaliwal. It was about an hour and 15 minutes. He realized the crisis situation that we've been dealing with, but we think it's time to step back and have discussions with the commercial industry. There has to be some mechanism for our input if there's going to be.... I'm hearing rumours of nation-to-nation negotiations. Where is the commercial industry going to fit into that? We want to discuss with the federal government where we should fit in.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: In the process of that discussion, can we assume that your umbrella group is empowered, in making these recommendations, to speak for its 29 member organizations, and that those 29 member organizations wouldn't be going in any different direction? We aren't going to be, as I understand it....

Mr. Don Cunningham: No, you're absolutely right. Those 29 member organizations have bought into these principles. In fact, they were developed with those 29 organizations at the table. And as Denny mentioned, there are more coming on side as they have a chance. In fact, we've made it a requirement that funding be brought to the table as well, because we can only do this if we get the funding, or industry does it itself. So those those organizations are all in agreement with these principles, those seven points that Denny made earlier.

So we feel, in fact, we know we have a mandate to speak. And possibly the only reason we weren't at the tables earlier is because, as I'm sure you can appreciate, it's not easy to pull 29 organizations together and get them all to agree to the same thing. The industry traditionally has been fractured in some ways—by region, by species, and so on. I think we've been very successful in pulling a large group of organizations together who traditionally were sometimes opposed to each other, and I think we'll have more on side as we get along here.

And yes, this alliance is the body that will be talking with the government to find out who's representing the government, for example, which federal department is going to represent fisheries; and then secondly, to make note of discussions with natives on these broad guidelines, and hopefully apply these principles to any access that the natives work out.

The Chair: Does Mr. Bull or anyone else have anything to add?

Mr. Jim Fraelic: Yes, thank you. If I might add, I'm a volunteer representative of the fishermen in my area, on the south shore of Nova Scotia. There are two groups in our area. We're a voluntary association and we didn't feel we could handle a problem of this magnitude, so we were very supportive of the alliance. We were there when it first started. And like Don suggested, in other areas, in another time, another place, we had some other difficulties. But at this point in time, we're right on the grassroots of the alliance, and we support the basic principles. When you mentioned the mandate of the alliance, that's as far as it goes in dealing with the Marshall decision—getting answers, and answers to these principles.

• 1005

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go back to Reform. Mr. Cummins has a short one and then we have Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm going to comment on this notion of local initiative or local approach, or local bargaining as opposed to this overall concept. The comment was made that one of these agreements was made without lawyers or politicians but only by the local folks. That may sound nice, but in the end my view is that what you do is you have to get together. I think these local agreements probably are more an illusion of progress rather than the real thing.

In the long term, the department likes to see a breakdown in communication between the groups that are involved—the old divide and conquer rule. They'll cherry-pick the proposals and in the end you'll end up with something you didn't want in the beginning. So I think there's a real danger there.

I want to come back to this open-ended idea that Denny mentioned in the alliance's proposal, that native entry into the commercial industry seems open-ended as a result of the Marshall decision, and then pick up on the third point you mention, that you don't oppose native participation in commercial fishery.

You talk about the voluntary licence buyback program, where DFO buys licences and gives them to natives and so on. We know that this has been ongoing, as you mentioned. The problem presented by Marshall is a peculiar one, in that it is open-ended. There seems to be no limit then on government participation in a buyback. The only limit would be the amount of money the department can get from Mr. Martin.

That government money, the government coming to the table and buying these licences, distorts the marketplace, because it means that the individual who may want to buy a licence that's for sale in his harbour is not going to be able to compete with the government. He's not going to be able to come up with the money. Certainly we've heard indications from the banking industry that they don't have a whole lot of faith in the lobster industry right now when it comes to allowing for other loans.

The question then becomes given the open-ended nature of this Marshall decision, are you concerned at all about this buyback program, given that there seem to be no limits on the involvement the government could take in a buyback? In fact, you could see where they could perhaps buy out 25%, 50%, or 75% of the licences in a harbour, and essentially that local community's economic base would be destroyed. Is this a concern to the alliance and to others?

Mr. Arthur Bull: I wonder if I could respond to the first comment and then go to the questions.

In terms of the local agreements, just to pick up on your comment, maybe I wasn't clear, but the basis for our local discussions is basically at a shift in the way fisheries are done. One of the things we should remember and that we all know is that fisheries have not been well managed here. The fisheries, apart from the first nations issues, are in some trouble. When I went through the list, as I say, there were no media, no politicians, no lawyers, no corporations, and DFO was not at the table either. In fact we were able to do this probably because DFO was not at the table. I find it somewhat ironic that we're saying DFO should be here coming in solving this problem when we know that DFO does not have a good record solving problems, starting with the northern cod and working down from there.

What we have been looking at is developing some different values and new approaches in the fisheries. We actually welcome the values the native leadership would bring into this if they were going to draw on their traditional values on conservation. It's more than negotiations; we actually look to a working alliance with native communities in our area.

• 1010

Mr. Denny Morrow: I'll make a comment and then go back to your question.

First of all, I would say that I particularly represent companies that have worked very hard to get that lobster price to $7 a pound to market to places like Italy, Japan, and so on. Of those companies, some of them are family-owned, some of them are owned by fishermen who have gone to a vertically integrated operation or have just taken over lobster pounds. So definitely part of their reason for being at the table, to get back to your question...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. I put down as one of the things that needs to be clarified here the estimation of potential change in demand to enter the fishery now and in the future.

As far as the industry goes, I don't think there's going to be peace and stability in the industry until we have that tied down and it's not open-ended. I don't think we should go on trying to build a fishery, a lobster fishery that is well managed, with the threat that two years from now or three years from now you're going to have a bunch of people who will have to exit the industry, who will have to mortgage their homes and so on to buy licences and to buy rigs. Pound operators.... And also at risk is investment capital, because they think the industry is going to be structured in a certain way.

So I think that's a crucial question that has to be answered, that this is not an open-ended treaty right that's going to be added to our costs year after year or the treaty right is going to be focused on a particular industry that happens to be very lucrative at the time—perhaps the herring industry. Our herring tax has doubled in our region within the last couple of years. If prices improve and we start making money in the herring industry, the people who have suffered through the low prices and low allowable catch then are going to be faced with new entrants coming and saying they want part of the action. I don't think this kind of situation is going to work.

The Chair: Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I was very interested in your comments on adjacency. You talk about adjacency rights for the Maritimes and you don't want any people who don't live in the area fishing there. My riding is Nunavut, where 27% of the quota is held by the people who live there and the other 73% is held by people who don't live in our area, and it happens that the majority of them are coming from the Maritimes.

How do you justify what you want for adjacency versus what's happening in other parts of the country?

Mr. Don Cunningham: You're exactly right. I think really what we mean by adjacency is the traditional access to the fishery that's been given to the licence holder.

In some cases, you're right, the licence holders from the Maritimes access waters off Newfoundland or Nova Scotian fishermen access the gulf waters. That's been worked out over the years by the tradition of fishing in those areas, not because they suddenly said there's an area they want to go and fish because it's lucrative. That's what's happening here in this case.

In the case of lobster, for example, district 34 runs from Digby to part of Shelburne County. The only people who fish in those waters are people who live generally in the area. First of all, you have to live there to be able to get to your rig. There are fishermen, yes, who fish outside of those areas, but those areas have been determined by traditional fishing access over the years. If there's fishing in your area by maritime fishermen, for example, that's because they went there, they saw a resource, and they started exploiting it under the conservation rules that were established in that kind of a fishery. Hopefully the local people in the area will eventually buy in to that fishery or buy some of those licences back if they see it being a value to them.

That's really what determines access, the traditional fishing effort that's been expended and the investment that's been put into those fisheries. It's not because somebody suddenly said let's go there and fish. They went there because they saw the possibility of making a profit, yes.

The Chair: Nancy, any further questions?

• 1015

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Because we don't even have one groundfish licence for our area, it makes it a little hard for me to understand the situation.

I just want to go back to the last paragraph of the written statement that we have here. It says:

Native people have had the opportunity to enter the commercial fishery. A few months allowed...would have allowed the parties to begin discussions in a more cooperative atmosphere.

Do you think that if it weren't for the Marshall decision, these discussions would never have been started to the extent that they have? Or would people just keep waiting and waiting for someone to start the discussions on the same level playing field?

Mr. Don Cunningham: I'd like to answer that, because I'm starting to have a real problem. I hear the natives saying over and over in the media that they've been excluded from the fishery for 250 years. That is absolutely untrue. Up until the sixties—and I can really only speak for the lobster industry and the groundfish industry around our area—you could go into any DFO office and buy a lobster licence for 25 cents. You needed no background, nothing to do that. Then, when the scientists found the resource was being threatened, yes, they put a restriction on it. They bought back a lot of the existing licences, capped the number of licences, and then the value of the licences naturally went up due to supply and demand.

Natives then still had the same access as any other Canadian. In fact, in my view, natives today probably have better access to licences because they have the financing to buy them. A Canadian fisherman today has a very difficult time buying a lobster licence in our end of the province because of the high cost. Natives have no such problem. They can go to the government and get the funding to buy those licences. There's no law that I know of that says natives can't buy commercial fishing licences. I've never seen that law.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm just going to make one comment. When you say “natives”, I know we all tend to get put under the same umbrella. I can tell you right now that it's impossible for people of Nunavut to buy a groundfish licence in the industry today. I just want that to go on record.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.

Mr. Stoffer, from the NDP.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the presenters this morning.

Melanie, you're absolutely right, there has been no leadership at all by this government in this very important decision. It is most unfortunate, because what is needed now is leadership. Fortunately, it's groups like yours that are showing that leadership in the maritime region right now by calling for calm and discussions and continual negotiations.

Arthur, there's one thing I wanted to just briefly touch upon, and that's the aspect of community-based management. In the Chronicle-Herald last Sunday, you may have all read the article by the six people who said we now have an opportunity to change the way we manage the fisheries once and for all, and that's by incorporating the aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishing communities into a sort of community-based management for the entire maritime region. I'd like your comments on that.

Denny, you had said you didn't want to operate under a two-tiered system. Right now, the lobster industry is under a two-tiered system. Past the three-mile limit in the offshore, they have an ITQ on lobsters. Within the inshore, under three miles, there is no ITQ on lobsters in that regard. I'd like your comments on that, as well as on the enforcement aspects of the illegal fishing that was happening before the Marshall decision.

We all know there are natives and non-natives alike who have been poaching various species of fish for an awfully long time, doing great damage to the resource. We know that, because of its cuts from 1995 and the merger with the coast guard, DFO has gotten into the situation in which it cannot even effectively enforce its own management policies today. I would like your comments on that and what damage that is in fact doing to the fisheries—and this is before the Marshall decision.

And the last thing is on the adjacency principle for certain fisheries. As you know, off Canso and off Sambro, a lot of boats from P.E.I. and New Brunswick are fishing tuna. The last time I was there, nobody in Sambro had a tuna licence. So if you're going to exclude the aboriginal people of New Brunswick from entering the tuna fishery off Sambro, and if you're using the adjacency principle, as my colleague from Nunavut had said—and in our east coast report we had strongly recommended the adjacency principle—then wouldn't that adjacency principle apply to all fishermen of all aspects and all fisheries?

I thank you for your comments.

The Chair: Can you be fairly brief in your answers? Peter tries to get sixteen questions in here, but we'll run out of time.

• 1020

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I only get five minutes.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I'll lead off with a response to Peter's question about community-based management.

The article I'm speaking about is by John Kearney of St. Francis Xavier University. Basically, it reflects a lot of the same approaches we have taken, and that is basically that there need to be some fundamental changes to the fishery situation. The status quo is not fine.

In fact, many people in coastal communities and inshore fisheries believe DFO has been managing the fisheries with the interests of the large players at the forefront for some time, and the results haven't been very positive for either the resources or coastal communities. This is not to say that there aren't a lot of concerns and that we don't share a lot of concerns with the alliance. But we do see this as an opportunity to re-evaluate what's going on and to reorient it in terms of the coastal communities and community-based management and local stewardship of resources, which is essentially what we are hearing from the first nations as well.

The Chair: Does anyone from the alliance wish to comment?

Mr. Denny Morrow: I can't remember all the questions Peter asked, but I'll try to answer a few.

The Chair: Neither can he, but that's okay.

Mr. Denny Morrow: With regard to adjacency, in some fisheries obviously adjacency has a long history. [Technical difficulty—Editor]...I don't think that making comparisons to tuna, swordfish, or migratory species, for example, makes any sense. You can't expect migratory species to be managed the way you would manage lobster, for example, which has a long history of adjacency.

With regard to two tiers, Jim, Don, and I attend different consultative groups DFO has. We have community management work groups, and Jim certainly is involved in some of those. There is a system for dealing with the problems. For example, in lobster area 41 you have a system that those companies that fish that resource have worked out with DFO. That's their system. I'm not going to say whether it's the right system or the wrong system. I think that's a discussion people have to carry out both there and in other areas.

In our inshore lobster fishing, such as in LFA 34 and sometimes 33, those representatives get together and discuss with DFO what the regulations are going to be, and they work like that. That's the kind of system that works. Granted, there are difficulties. We pointed out that when you start managing the fishery based on political concerns, political considerations, that's where you get into trouble.

The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Power of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): I have three brief questions.

Melanie, can you just tell me why you haven't extended your alliance out to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Did you ask and they refused, or have you not asked?

Ms. Melanie Sonnenberg: At this point no, we haven't asked. We started out in a very small manner, and we've been growing consistently. In the last meeting we had, we just started to reach out to some of the organizations in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. We're just evolving, so at this point in time the answer to your question is no, we haven't asked. But as they find events unfolding in their own backyard, perhaps they might find our group to be of some assistance.

Mr. Charlie Power: They probably will.

My second question is on the idea of enforcement and particularly the area of violence, as we saw some in the maritimes in the early stages after the Marshall decision and as we saw last week on the south coast of Newfoundland. My thought is that someone has to enforce the law as it's presently written. I think both the RCMP and federal fisheries officers are unsure of laying a charge against a native fisherman who decides to go fishing in Newfoundland with or without a licence.

My thought is that until we get some clarification of the Marshall decision and its implications for everyone, the Fisheries Act has to be enforced as it's presently written. In your first two principles on conservation you say that we need more enforcement, not less and that respect for our current regulatory regime is being undermined. Do you agree that the Fisheries Act has to be the law of the land until something else is clarified?

• 1025

Mr. Denny Morrow: No argument on that front...just keep buying into that. And I would say in regard to the current regulatory regime being undermined, fishermen have to believe that when they abide by conservation rules they will have a share of the benefits in the future, that if there are rewards coming from a well-managed fishery, they're going to have a share in that.

Out-of-season fishing, for example, undermines this. The open-ended nature of the treaty rights seems to lead to the conclusion that well-managed fisheries will only lead to greater native demand further down the road. There is just no question that to do that DFO has to clarify its regulatory power, and I think the Marshall decision was an important decision to support that conservation rationale. But those kinds of regulations were never really presented, unfortunately. If that is clarified, if that is the basis for the regulation, they could go ahead and regulate it; it is clearly stated. So I think that scenario would cause the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to move quickly, and I think they have to move forcefully.

Mr. Charlie Power: My third question applies directly to that regulation. In your principle 7, you're asking the Supreme Court to stay their decision so that certain things can be clarified. In particular, you asked about the beneficiaries of the treaty, the definition of DFO's regulatory powers, geographical limitations of the treaty and so on. Don't you think that under the ruling of the Supreme Court, if our federal department of fisheries showed some leadership and some control in this situation, most of what you want in principle 7 could be clarified by regulation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

The Chair: Any responses?

Mr. Don Cunningham: Certainly if the department wanted to take charge here, I'd say yes, they could do exactly this. I guess if it was up to me I would do that and wait for the force to come back later and say sorry, you can't do that.

That's one of the reasons we thought we had to ask for this stay and for a rehearing. We would certainly hope that your committee would strongly suggest to DFO that they support our response for these hearings. As you know, DFO was the original agency to charge Mr. Marshall, and to us it seems obvious that they would want another chance to make their point. We haven't heard yet what their decision is going to be on a rehearing.

You're right, regarding the rehearing, if DFO wanted to take charge here they could in fact use the conservation rules that are in place now to manage and regulate the fishery, and the natives could still have access to the fishery under the existing programs that are out there for them. Obviously, they can be accelerated, but DFO isn't so inclined. The industry is in turmoil.

Mr. Arthur Bull: Maybe I can add a point of information as background on that as well.

The Mi'kmaq leadership approached DFO last February requesting some sort of interim process in the event that Marshall would come down on their side, and DFO didn't act then either. So it's not just that they're not acting now, but the fact that they have abdicated responsibility right down the line. If they had done that last February, we might have a much more orderly situation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bull. That point was made by the witnesses last week as well.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start by thanking the delegation for their excellent presentations. I certainly read through the prepared one that was done initially, which had some very fine points.

There are a couple of things I'd like to address. First of all, as you know, Mr. MacKenzie has been appointed to work with the aboriginal parties, and I'd like to get your perspective on that as it relates to the time of initiation up until now. I've heard your many comments related to DFO and I know your frustrations. I certainly hear some of them myself, and I think my colleague put some of my personal points across.

• 1030

I'm from Labrador, and I know what adjacency means and what historical attachment means. I know what a greater percentage of my own fishers being people coming from afar to fish adjacent to our shores means. I know what it means not having processing facilities and having an inadequate amount to cover off the people that need it, and so on. So I know what it's like to be on the end of trying to get things and trying to deal with it.

I'm also in the capacity right now as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As part of that capacity, my role is, where possible, of course, to try to find a means to an end to this particular situation as well as many others we have pending.

I would really like to get your views on Mr. MacKenzie and any other suggestions you would have possibly along a parallel line or anything else you might find out. I've heard a whole lot of concerns, and you have some very good points, like I say, in the prepared text. But I'd like to focus it down, because that's the one initiative we took since the Marshall decision. We have our views on it, and we think we're moving along on it, but I would certainly like to get your views on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Witnesses, whoever wants to start.

Mr. Denny Morrow: I have read that last week Minister Dhaliwal was asking for the agencies...[Technical difficulty]...including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to discuss developments...[Technical difficulty]...and how the commercial industry could be represented. We read in the newspaper that a process is being developed and that discussions are taking place at the highest levels of the native community. So we think it's very important that discussions with representatives of the commercial industry take place equally and that we have input into the development of a process. We think that prior to a process...[Technical difficulty]...because if you have a general framework in place it's just much easier to negotiate. We're looking at...[Technical difficulty]...and we would like to know what the limitations...[Technical difficulty]...and what kind of compensation would be there for us.

As far as Mr. MacKenzie is concerned, I was involved in one meeting, as was Harold and as was Ashton Spinney, who has joined us here. I think there are unfair expectations with Mr. MacKenzie being dropped into that job...[Technical difficulty]...and to come to South West Nova to solve the problems of...[Technical difficulty]. It really wasn't something that I think he had the possibility of doing. So I wouldn't make any judgment on his ability or his appropriateness at this point.

Our main point is that we would like to meet with the minister, Mr. MacKenzie, or whatever negotiators they're going to be using in the native community to talk about process. We're not grinding any axes. There has been too much time...[Technical difficulty]...in the last month. What we're really interested in is...[Technical difficulty].

The Chair: I'd like to get a point of clarification, Mr. O'Brien. Are you saying that the development of the process by the various ministries, including Indian and Northern Affairs and DFO, and the government in general is not balanced in terms of seeing that the commercial fishermen are involved in those discussions leading to a process?

Mr. Denny Morrow: Mr. Nault himself said last week in Sydney that this problem is going to be solved by the federal government, the provincial government, and the Indians. There was no mention made of the industry. This is the whole point of the alliance here, to be the representatives of the industry in talks essentially with the natives. We feel we have to sit down and talk with them and work out how they'll get access. But we want to know what framework they're going to get access under and how far we can go and how far it's necessary for us to go.

That's why initially we need some guidelines from DFO. Really, we need to know who's representing the fishing industry, because the minister is there in Ottawa making statements on behalf of the fishing industry, and we're not sure who we're supposed to be talking with, first of all, to get to these guidelines.

The Chair: Thank you. I think you've answered my question.

Mr. O'Brien.

• 1035

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I want to thank you for your comments.

I take it you're suggesting parallel discussions with a representative of the minister or something along these lines, with the existing fleet, similar to MacKenzie with the aboriginal people. Am I correct in that? Would that be a fair recommendation or a fair assessment for me to suggest to the minister?

Mr. Denny Morrow: If there is an individual who is to be appointed to represent the commercial fishing industry, if that is to be the mechanism, we would like to discuss it first. If it is agreed, then we would like input into who that person will be and how they would represent the commercial industry.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, I think. Mr. Duncan and then Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Let John go first, because his question is very much along the line we've just been discussing.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I was following the comments about the statements by the Minister of Indian Affairs. The mandate of the Minister of Indian Affairs is a primary duty to the aboriginal population. Historically, DIAND purported to balance all interests and stakeholders. This changed in the 1980s with the Musqueam golf course lease decision and accelerated in the 1990s. So it's really not in the alliance's interest to have DIAND managing the fishery. And I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know, but I want to clarify and put that on the record.

My two questions relate to this process and any legal challenges or interventions that will be required. This is obviously time-consuming and is costing considerable money, and I'm wondering, where are the funds? Is the association able to generate the funds in order to accomplish all of this? And number two, is the province being helpful? Are they trying to be honest brokers? Are they trying to offset the federal decision-making that's completely out of touch?

Those are my two questions.

The Chair: Witnesses?

Ms. Melanie Sonnenberg: I'll respond to the first question, in terms of funding.

The alliance has had a great deal of support, as best we can muster under the circumstances, for financial contributions to try to get this thing up and running.

One thing we have discussed and feel very strongly about—as we again hear rumours and speculation that the natives will receive help in terms of unfolding this situation—is that we too, as industry, can't be expected to bear the cost, and need some kind of assistance from the government, through whatever process we do decide is going to work for us. We need to have the Government of Canada step up to the plate and say yes, we realize this is a very tremendous burden to be placed on you.

Small organizations like the ones I represent are not in a position to be running to meetings every day, which is what we've been faced with in the last six weeks. And if we're to continue on—and it doesn't seem like it will end any time soon—certainly we have to have some help. But at the present time the alliance members have been very generous and forthcoming in trying to get us up and started on a shoestring budget.

The Chair: Anyone else? Mr. Bull.

Mr. Arthur Bull: Essentially, we would probably take a similar kind of position. In terms of the government being responsible fiscally in this whole issue, we simply cannot put this burden on the fisheries, and particularly the inshore fishery, and walk away. So we definitely see a responsibility there and look to the federal government to help us to work through this situation, whether it's on the local level or on a broader level.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1040

Mr. Denny Morrow: Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question about the province?

The Chair: Mr. Morrow.

Mr. Denny Morrow: We've had discussions with the provincial government in Nova Scotia, with Minister Ernie Fage. Premier John Hamm has intervened on our behalf with the federal minister and has had discussions, I understand, with the Prime Minister. We've been very satisfied with the hearing that we're getting from the provincial government. The provincial government is in a very complicated situation, I guess, in that it has to represent all of its citizens.

The number one export industry in Nova Scotia is seafood. It's a billion-dollar industry. We exported about $850 million worth of seafood last year. The province is very concerned about the impact this could have on the provincial economy. We will be making contact with governments in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick, and, as the member has previously said, perhaps in Newfoundland. I see that Premier Tobin is getting involved in this issue as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I just have a comment. We've been hearing people say that they have to get assistance from the federal government in order to deal with this issue. The only thing I'll say is that it's unlikely. That's not going to happen. But if they're the ones providing the money, they're going to control the agenda, and that's not what you want.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, you've been waiting for two rounds. We'll give you a quick question and then we have to go to Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Don, your group had intervener status during the Marshall decision. You're asking for a stay. Can you clarify that? What kind of support do you have? For example, do you have the province's support? What timeframe are you looking at before you get an answer and what exactly are you asking for in that stay?

Mr. Don Cunningham: Apparently only those who intervened or who were participants in the original case can now, in effect, ask for a rehearing or a stay. We are the only group, as far as I know, that has done that. Our lawyer tells us the process is that the other participants in that original case have two weeks to respond. To date, we've only received the thoughts of one of the other interveners, the Native Council of Nova Scotia. After those two weeks are up, we understand, the courts can take as long as one to two months to make a decision on whether it will rehear or stay...[Technical Difficulty—Editor].

We kept our request fairly restrictive. We weren't contesting Mr. Marshall's right to sell fish. What we were requesting clarification on is DFO's power to remove licensing...and the seasons...to control the existing commercial fishery, the same as they do for Canadians. We understand that it's probably going to be one to two months before we hear from the courts. If they decide no, that they're not going to rehear or stay, that finishes it; it ends right there. If they decide to rehear, we understand we'll get a chance to make submissions again. Mr. Marshall and his lawyer and the other interveners, if they so wish, can make submissions at that time to the court.

We're certainly hopeful that the court will take this opportunity to take another look at it. We're hopeful that the federal government will support our request for a rehearing. It would actually seem kind of odd if the federal government did not support us because they are the ones who charged Mr. Marshall in the first place. You would assume that they would want another opportunity here, and we're hopeful that the court will give it to us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Assadourian, then Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I have a short question. Maybe you answered it when I was away, at another committee.

Have you had a chance to meet with Mr. MacKenzie? If so, what was the outcome? If you haven't, when do you expect to meet with Mr. MacKenzie as a mediator?

The Chair: That question was asked earlier, Sarkis, but if anybody has anything else they want to add on Mr. MacKenzie, fire away.

Mr. Arthur Bull: I'm glad someone asked us, because from our perspective...[Technical difficulty]...more working on local initiatives. We weren't invited to meet with Mr. MacKenzie and haven't really been part of that process, so it doesn't really affect us. We're going to go ahead and try to work out solutions on the ground. We're not looking for DFO to send professional mediators or anybody else. We're going to sit down face to face with the people who live in our communities and work it out.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If there is agreement between Mr. MacKenzie and the fishers, are you going to stay away from that agreement? Are you going to back out? Is that what you're saying?

• 1045

Mr. Don Cunningham: Well, there was no agreement between Mr. MacKenzie and the fishermen. Mr. MacKenzie came to Nova Scotia. It is our understanding that his original mandate was to solve the broader, long-term problems associated with the Marshall decision. But by the time DFO had acted and appointed Mr. MacKenzie, things had just flared up in New Brunswick, as you know, and in Yarmouth there was potential for a serious problem. Mr. MacKenzie was sent to Nova Scotia to try to solve that problem. I wasn't party to that meeting, although there are two or three gentlemen here who were. It is my understanding that nothing at all was accomplished with Mr. MacKenzie at that meeting. He went back to Ottawa and clearly we've never heard from him since.

The Chair: Thank you.

Earlier, Sarkis, it was indicated that there was a feeling in the group that Mr. MacKenzie's terms of reference weren't spelled out broadly enough so that people could really understand what his position is. I think that was the earlier discussion.

Do you have any other questions?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Cunningham, I say the following with all due respect. Twice in your presentation you said “Canadians” and “natives”; you really separated them. I know you know this: I just wanted to let you know that we're all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, so there shouldn't be a separation when it comes to a presentation on that.

I have a question for Mr. Theriault or Mr. Spinney, the two who haven't said much this morning.

As you know, about a month ago, there was a meeting of DFO in Halifax with what I call a corporate elite. From my understanding of that meeting, the corporations basically advised the DFO that the aboriginal people will not, under any circumstances, I assume—that's just an alleged statement there—be allowed to head out to the offshore to go fishing, whether it be for scallops, lobsters or whatever. Otherwise, there may be legal action towards the DFO from the major corporations.

Again, it gives me the impression that the inshore is bearing the brunt of not only the Marshall decision but all management decisions by DFO. I would just like your comments, gentlemen, on that particular issue, because I feel that the DFO is severely mismanaging the entire industry, offshore and inshore. Also, if the major corporations are issuing that kind of statement to DFO, what does that say about the process that you are all trying to follow in open negotiations, with not only the government but with aboriginal people as well?

The Chair: Mr. Theriault.

Mr. Harold Theriault: I'll give you my version. My personal belief is that we're not going to have a great impact on the native fishermen...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]. You don't become a fisherman overnight. I'm a thirteenth-generation fisherman. If you're not born into or brought up in a fishery, you just don't say out of the blue that you're a fisher.

I really don't know what the big fear is here. I have no real big fear myself. I believe we can set home and deal with the two or three local chiefs that we have to deal with and not see a big impact on the inshore fishery or the offshore fishery—from fishermen. There could be a big impact from lawyers, like you speak of.

Corporations, I believe, are worried about a big impact from the lawyers' side for the Mi'kmaq people, going after the same quota or whatever, but as inshore fishermen, we feel the natives have the right to have a few people work into the fishery—and we may even have to train them to become some kind of fishermen.

It's a hard thing to do to train a person to become a fisherman, unless you're born and brought up into it, and I'm not sure...I'm sure there's not one in the room that is a commercial fisherman; I mean, there are only two in this room that can speak to that. I'm sure Mr. Spinney will back up my words on that.

That's pretty well all I can speak of as a commercial fisherman. Those are my personal views.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Theriault. Thirteenth generation...that's pretty good.

Are there any other comments from witnesses?

Mr. Ashton Spinney (Representative, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association): If I may, there are a couple of comments I'd like to address.

• 1050

One that we've been discussing is adjacency. I heard it tonight. I was late coming in, so I was unable to be here early. I'd like to portray to you the understanding that we have on adjacency, or the way we approached adjacency when we looked at sitting down with the native bands with whom we have a verbal agreement to this day.

We have used adjacency in the perspective of the bands themselves. We looked at it traditionally, historically, and geographically. That is why we stayed with just the two bands that were geographically and historically in our area. That's why, as I heard Mr. Morrow mention here earlier, we never got involved with Shubenacadie, because we would have been sending a message that we agreed with what the Minister of Fisheries did in issuing Shubenacadie 800 tags to fish in St. Mary's Bay, or it would have implied that, any how.

In that respect, that's how we approached the adjacency question. We never looked at adjacency in respect to the commercial fishermen. We looked at adjacency of the native bands. That's the way we were dealing there. So if you're looking at adjacency of commercial fishermen, that's a different perspective altogether. We never approached it from that perspective because of the diversity in our fisheries, and as was pointed out by some gentleman, we have offshore fisheries and we have mobile fleets. That's the reason we never approached adjacency from the commercial perspective. We see the complexity that's in there when you go into the other species.

We have a problem in lobster too. Last year we had area 41, which was really a political decision that was put in place some years ago, when they took out the swordfish longline and they put in offshore lobster. It has developed so that now we have eight licence holders, and they have an enterprise allocation. Their approach is that they own this. We do not see that any one individual has the right to own the stock. They have the right to fish the stock, and to that amount, but not to be able to determine that no one else can have access because they own it. That seems to be the attitude that we hear, and we're concerned about that.

Our concern also is that these people are fishing the same stocks we fish, so they should follow under the same umbrella that we do.

The Chair: Mr. Spinney, can you wrap up? We do have to have ten minutes at the end of the meeting here for another piece of business. Is that it?

Mr. Ashton Spinney: That will be fine for now.

The Chair: I would just point out to you that in terms of the traps that have been issued by the minister, the minister made it very clear to this committee when we met, or in discussions, that these traps were issued without prejudice and they were not to set a precedent. I think that's correct. Is it, Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That's my understanding. It was a one-time situation to deal with the emergency situation at hand at the time.

The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for the excellent presentations and discussions. This committee will continue to hold hearings on this issue. We hope to make some recommendations in terms of how the situation can be managed relative to the Supreme Court decision. Thank you very much for your input.

Now, committee, we have several items to deal with that have been hanging for a couple of meetings. One is the steering committee report. It needs to be adopted. The minutes have been sent around by the clerk. Is there any discussion on those?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: This business on Thursday is a timing problem.

The Chair: On the steering committee?

Mr. John Cummins: [Technical difficulty—Editor].

• 1055

The Chair: That's from B.C. It's a problem now, because when did come from Reform, we agreed to it as a kind of special circumstance.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When we're talking about an official strategy and catch issues, we're talking about both the east coast and west coast, not just the east coast, am I right?

The Chair: Absolutely. In fact, it's really both, but probably more so the west coast. We've been trying to deal with the AFS for some time. It was a request by Mr. Cummins last year. We didn't get around to dealing with it, but we said we'd try to do it.

Okay, could somebody move adoption of the steering committee reports?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I so move.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll second it.

(Motion agreed to)

A voice: I prefer Robert's rules.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Especially when they work.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: I recommended last week that...[Technical difficulty—Editor].

The Chair: We do have it on another list. I do have it down as my third item of business, John. Are these your witnesses?

Mr. John Cummins: [Technical difficulty—Editor].

The Chair: Okay, I should mention this as well: Is it possible for the subcommittee or the steering committee to meet on Thursday, following the main committee meeting? That would be the subcommittee chaired by Carmen. The issue will be just to begin preliminary planning on the review of the Oceans Act and the continuing study in aquaculture. What we decided to do there, based on the minutes, is to have the chairman chair a subcommittee to do planning on how we review the Oceans Act and aquaculture, so that this subcommittee could present basically a strategy or plan to the full committee. It's to save time, actually.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to do it, but I'm away for...[Technical difficulty—Editor]. I'd prefer to do it at another time.

The Chair: Is it possible to do it maybe sometime prior to when you are out?

Mr. John Cummins: I can tell you tomorrow.

The Chair: Is it possible for the members to work it out and find out tomorrow, Carmen?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'd be willing to wait.

The Chair: We'll leave it in Carmen's hands.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: If we can meet after this meeting, we can pick a time.

The Chair: Okay.

The second item is the motion on the witnesses. The clerk has a list of about seven witnesses who wish to appear. Do you want to go through them?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, with the witnesses we have here who wish to appear, I have attached the other ones, Mr. Wayne Eddy and Mr. Mark Butler. Also, in this particular testimony that we just heard, they had mentioned the corporate sector. I would like to invite Mr. John Risley, of Clearwater.

The Chair: Peter, can we deal with the list we have before us? Send additions in to the clerk, and we'll deal with them at the steering committee meeting or at the next meeting.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: [Technical difficulty—Editor].

The Chair: What's happening with the list of witnesses? Has it gone around? Yes? Are you satisfied with that list?

Mr. John Cummins: [Technical difficulty—Editor].... The name at the bottom of the list is David Bell, of the University of New Brunswick. Another interesting addition to that would be recently retired Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest. He's an expert on these issues.

The Chair: Could you do something similar to what I asked of Peter? Just give the clerk a list, and then we can bring them forward.

Is it agreed that the clerk book these people?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. The next item of business is the motion by Mr. Bernier—and I apologize for not getting to this sooner, Yvan.

There's a motion before you for which Mr. Bernier has given 48 hours' notice, and it is relative to the rotation of questioning witnesses. In terms of the way this would have to be done, Mr. Bernier would have to move that the motion adopted by the committee on October 20, 1999, regarding questioning of witnesses, be rescinded, with the following substituted therefor.

• 1100

Mr. Bernier, it's your motion, your discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We had some questions on how we interact with witnesses because it was specific to this committee. Reform had ten minutes, the Bloc had five, then the Liberal party had ten and Reform again five minutes. I feel such a format did not allow sufficient time to the other parties.

I found out how they do it in other committees. Since I had to make a proposal for the debate to start, I proposed the format the Finance Committee used last year: Reform and the Bloc had the floor first and received equal time, the Liberal party came after them, then the two other opposition parties had their turn. The goal of my motion is to enable the other parties to be heard.

Last week, I also asked that we could have here this morning, for the discussion on this motion, an illustration of what happened during the last meeting of this committee. If I remember correctly, I represented the Bloc and I was allowed five minutes, to which 30 seconds were added at the end of a two-hour discussion. There were perhaps five or six Liberals who could participate in the discussion, and Reform probably had enough time to speak on four occasions.

I feel that this process doesn`t allow us to know what comments or questions might be advanced by the different parties.

What I am proposing now is a somewhat equal time for all so that the five parties can have their say, and then, at the discretion of the Chairman, there could be an intervention from each side in order to feed the debate.

I think such a procedure is a bit difficult. It was used last year, and I wouldn`t say that it was the best year the committee has had. What I wish is that we choose a process while the committee works very well and that we are able to keep cooperating as we do now.

One of the best years we had was when George Baker established the time allocated to each member. I think that it was possible then to find out quickly what each party thought. Mr. Baker even went as far as asking the first questions if some witnesses came from a specific riding.

I wanted to launch the discussion. I invite the committee to look at a formula enabling us to cooperate better, but I must insist again, Mr. Chairman, that such cooperation is also required regarding the documentation we receive. I cannot understand how I fight so that nobody has to wait too long and the time is shared somewhat equally to the extent it can be done, with even a little more time for Reform as the Official Opposition, while, at the same time, we are still receiving documents which are entirely and solely in English.

I want to remind the Chair that I am a nice fellow and I do my best to be cooperative. However, I expect people to show they cooperate with me on the first proposal. Otherwise, I`ll have to turn nasty., or even impolite with the witnesses. I shall request the withdrawal of all documents submitted in one language only. I`d like to see some of you trying to listen to everything the witnesses are saying and to take notes with no documentation in their own language.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, did you want to comment on the motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I like where Yvan is coming from, but I've always thought the official opposition should get the first ten minutes. The Bloc could then get ten minutes, then it should go to the Liberals for ten minutes, then it would come to us for five, followed by the Conservatives for five. We would then go back around the rotation again.

• 1105

I've been to other committees where the official opposition always got the first ten minutes of questions, then the Bloc got ten minutes of questions. Then you went over to the government side for ten minutes. Charlie and I should be getting twenty minutes each, but we'll go with five each, and then it would just rotate from there.

I believe the government should be able to be in the third questioning, at least. If it goes all through opposition, the witnesses could get beat up by the time we get to them.

Just for the debate, I think the official opposition should have ten minutes, the Bloc should have ten minutes, the Liberals should have ten minutes, the NDP should have five minutes, the Conservatives should have five minutes, and then it should rotate again.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Same format.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Right now it's going Reform—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, no.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —Bloc, Liberal, Reform.

The Chair: You're correct on that point.

[Translation]

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I`d just like some clarification, because what Mr. Bernier is saying and what is written seem to be two different things. He is saying that, according to the proposal, the Liberals come after Reform or the Bloc. However, in what I read here, the Liberal Party comes last. Therefore, it is not the same thing at all. That`s why I ask for a clarification.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Drouin, the motion before us is as you just read it. Since I have a feeling that it will probably be defeated, I am already suggesting some alternatives.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Yes. Otherwise, we`ll keep the status quo.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I delight in the questioning of the opposition parties, but I think Mr. Stoffer has touched on a very reasonable approach to this issue this morning. If we can withdraw the original process, I am prepared to support Mr. Stoffer's motion.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It's not a motion.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Make an amendment to Mr. Bernier's....

The Chair: We now have ten for Reform, five for the Bloc, ten for the Liberals, back to five for Reform, then to the Liberals, and down the line.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm just recollecting some of the comments I heard around the table the last time. Basically I think there are more members who regard the current procedure as not being broken; that it's working very well. Although I understand where Mr. Bernier is coming from, because he's responsible for these representations, I don't really see anything broken here.

There's some attitude, maybe in the representations, that this committee is some kind of extended question period. Well, that isn't it. I think we come here to honestly hear the representations that are made by the witnesses who speak to the issues that are before this committee. There has to be some reflection in the procedures we set out of the manner in which we're represented in the House. I don't particularly care to disenfranchise my constituents by waiting 25 minutes to have the opportunity to ask a question, if I sit on the government's side.

The Chair: Okay. On the motion, I would just point out that today, for example, Yvan, I didn't stick entirely to it. You had eight and a half minutes today because I thought the questions were leading. I think it's a guideline, and you can challenge me if I don't stick absolutely to it, but I think in fairness you were leading questions.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again, I think it's a fair balance. The official opposition should always get the first crack at ten minutes. The Bloc should be allowed to have ten minutes. Then it should go right away to the government side for ten minutes, over to us for five, to the Conservatives for five, back to the Liberals, and then it should rotate again.

The Chair: Unless there's consent on this kind of stuff, we can't have an amendment.

• 1110

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll put a motion.

The Chair: Mr. Powers.

Mr. Charlie Power: That's “Power”.

The Chair: Mr. Power.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: He's full of power.

Mr. Charlie Power: I wish...some day.

I agree with Peter's because I think it's more reasonable.

Carmen, I have to disagree with your process, because, really, question period isn't based on equal representation in the House. In that case, the Liberals would get pretty well all the questions and we in opposition would get none. These things tend to be an opposition-led kind of process when it comes to witnesses and therefore we have a chance to question all the people who are government employees and deputy ministers and that kind of thing.

I think what Peter suggested is reasonable and clear. If we try the process and it doesn't work, we can always come back to what we're doing now.

The Chair: We have a motion before us.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Can we change it?

The Chair: Unless there is unanimous consent to change it to what Peter's saying, we'll have to deal with this motion as written or go with the 48-hour notice. Is there unanimous consent to change it?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: No, there isn't unanimous consent, so we're voting on the motion of Mr. Bernier. We have before us, based on the 48-hour rule, a motion by Mr. Bernier. We can't change that motion unless there's unanimous consent.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? If Mr. Bernier chooses the route that Mr. Stoffer suggested this morning, can we then act?

The Chair: No. The Reform Party has opposed the unanimous consent.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So we can't amend this motion?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Not without notice.

The Chair: Not without notice, Bill. That's the rule we established. We have to go by the rules.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: I don't want to deal with this procedure forever, but you have the option of presenting another motion—anyone who wants to do it.

Second, Mr. Bernier, you didn't give us a motion but you brought up the concern over the 48 hours; you wanted to change that to 24 hours. We don't have a written request to that effect, but I think I had indicated to you that if there were unanimous consent, we could move a motion. The 48 hours is a notice to give all parties and their members a safeguard so they can have their members here to vote on a specific issue. Do you have any other concerns on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Personally, I think the 48 hour notice is too long because the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries are often called upon to work like firemen. A 48 hour notice is a long time. I know there is much cooperation among us and I wish that we`d make the rule more flexible and require 24 hour instead of 48 hour. With a 48 hour notice, if the opposition parties and the government didn`t come to an agreement, we would have to put off our examination of some topics to the following week.

[English]

The Chair: I don't want to cut you off, Yvan, but if there isn't a notice to change it to that effect, we really can't deal with it...but we can move a motion by unanimous consent.

We are over our time. The meeting is adjourned.