STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Saturday, November 27, 1999

• 0914

[English]

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

This will be an interesting meeting due to the video conferencing. I'll turn the chair over to the local member, Yvan Bernier, who will chair today's session.

• 0915

I might say as chair that we're very pleased to be in the Gaspé region to hear from the fishermen in this area.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)): Thank you, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter, the chairman of the committee, has asked me to preside this morning's meeting since French will mainly be spoken.

The Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans is meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) to study the implications of the September 17 Supreme Court decision on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic Region.

Our first witness is Mr. François Poulin, executive director of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec. As usual, we can give you half an hour. Please begin with a brief presentation after which members will ask you questions. You may speak in French if you wish since there is simultaneous interpretation for the English-speaking members. When we go to questions, the interpreter on my left will translate the members' questions for everyone in the audience and for yourself, if need be. The lady on my right is responsible for turning on the microphones and operating the camera.

Mr. François Poulin (Executive Director, Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me are Ms. Diane Brière and Mr. Marcel Rancourt who represent the Maliseet of Rivière-du-Loup.

I would like to thank the committee for having undertaken this trip. I think it's the first time we see the government reaching out in response to the huge crisis we are currently going through.

The Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec represents approximately 75% of the fishermen of Quebec, most of whom are offshore fishermen.

In short, we want the Canadian government to respect the Court's ruling. There is a climate of uncertainty which is corroding and polluting the fishery. It has become impossible to hold serious discussions regarding the implementation of fishery plans, since we have to live with the Damocles sword of uncertainty regarding the future transfer of resources towards Native groups over our heads.

In our view, current government inaction is a form of contempt of court. It is hard to get serious about preparing the upcoming fishing season. I don't think the answer lies in appointing a kind of omnipotent ambassador. I think our approach must be more all-encompassing. Faced with a similar situation, New Zealand created a commission with far more powers than those given to Mr. MacKenzie.

From the start, it was clear to us that the government should have implemented a quota and licence buy-back program to transfer more permits and quotas to Native communities. In the days following the Supreme Court judgment, which was handed down on September 23, we wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to create such a program as soon as possible. We made the same request in a letter sent to Minister Dhaliwal on November 19.

In our view, it is clear that the Marshall judgment will result in a significant transfer of various resource species to Native communities.

• 0920

This morning, we would like to propose a package of measures and principles which should top the list of priorities.

First, we believe that the Government of Canada should announce as soon as possible a package of principles and measures to clarify the situation and set a framework for discussions and negotiations which must be held over the coming weeks, before we begin travelling and organizing meetings to prepare the upcoming fishing season.

The first principle which should be respected is that the costs resulting from the Supreme Court decision should be paid for by all Canadians and not only by the fishing community. It goes without saying that we must immediately create a licence and quota buy-back program in order to create a licence and quota bank which Native communities will be able to access come next spring. Spring is not far off, since the crab and lobster fisheries begin in April.

The buy-back price for licences must be the market rate. Buy-backs should happen slowly, as licences become available, and on a voluntary basis, that is, on the part of fishermen who want to exchange their right to fish for fair compensation based on the going market rate. We all know that the market price corresponds to three or four times the value of annual landings for a fishing enterprise.

According to certain recent estimates, approximately 50% of Canadian fishermen believe they will leave the fishery over the next ten years because of their age. It is therefore realistic to think that the government will be able to buy back enough licences and quotas to transfer them to native communities. We are also willing to take part in a native fishermen training program to help them in the fishery.

The second principle we are proposing is based on the first. We must not tax fishermen by skimming off 10% or 15% of their income. Over the last few weeks, certain officials came forward with this type of plan, which resembles the tithe which existed in the middle ages, and whereby everyone would give 10% of their income towards Native communities.

A study done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans economists on lobster fishing around the Magdalen Islands in 1998 revealed that the net income of fishermen—don't forget that the lobster fishery is considered as being a prosperous one—was on average $12,000. Take away 10% of the gross income, which was about $60,000, and you've basically taken away half of the fishermen's income. Skimming 10% or 15% off the top is not a solution because it would directly cut into the net profit of fishermen and therefore compromise the economic stability of the entire coastal fishery.

The third principle we are proposing are fair and equitable measures for every fishing group, irrespective of the species caught, be it coastal, midshore or offshore fishing groups. Everyone of these groups must be made to contribute to the transfer to Natives.

• 0925

For instance, unless I'm mistaken, yesterday the midshore crab fishermen of zone 12 in New Brunswick made the suggestion to contribute crab allocation exceeding the $500,000 contained in the co-management agreement signed between the crab fishermen and the government. This proposal is not equitable and fair, since this type of allocation would normally have been split between the coastal fishermen in the past. You would therefore be taking away part of the resource which crab fishermen have always had a right to.

There is also a fourth principle: every operation should be carried out in an orderly and peaceful manner. I think the government is first and foremost responsible for ensuring peace and order. To achieve this, it is essential to involve fishing associations every step of the way.

We know that in outlying areas, in towns and communities, fishermen and Natives are neighbours, live side-by-side and their lives are intertwined. Therefore, there will have to be some changes at the local level. This can be overseen by the fishermen. To achieve this, fishing associations must be directly involved in whatever takes place. The changes will be complex and will call for many studies, many meetings and discussions so that everything proceeds softly.

We understand that the main negotiations will happen nation-to-nation, that is, between the chiefs and the Government of Canada. However, all sorts of adjustments will have to take place on the ground and within the communities. The situation may vary from one community to the next, be it in Chaleurs Bay or the Bay of Fundy. It won't be the same from one place to another.

The fifth principle is that there should be a single conservation and management system and that it should apply equally to Native and non-Native fishermen and every fishing zone. The current system is based on seasons and there are different conservation measures for each species. This system is the result of a long adaptation and adjustment process, governed by a set of ethics which devolved from the relationships between fishermen and their interactions with the resources. It is impossible for two management systems to coexist; everything must be integrated into a single system.

Furthermore, we agree with the Mi'kmak chiefs when they denounce certain current fishing practices as being too risky and compromising the conservation of the stocks. Some people are still fishing this way. In most fisheries, such as lobster, for instance, conservation measures have been successfully integrated and well organized. The proof lies in the consistent growth in landings over the last 15 or 20 years. But this is not the case for other species.

To solve this problem, we propose to create a marine habitat reconstruction zone along the coast to protect spawning grounds and nursery colonies. The idea behind creating this coastal zone is to protect the fishing territories adjacent to Native communities, adjacent to land where Native fishermen will probably fish in the future. It is important to protect these areas and one way to do so would be to create a marine habitat reconstruction zone along the coast.

Only fixed engine gear would be authorized to operate within this zone, which goes out 12 miles along the Gulf. This summer, fishing trollers were still spotted using lobster traps along the coast along Native communities in Chaleurs Bay.

• 0930

In conclusion, I want to highlight something which concerns many of our north coast fishermen, where there are several Montagnais communities. We would like the government to inform us as soon as possible of the implications the Marshall judgment will have for the north coast Montagnais communities, since the crab fishery along the coast may be affected by the ruling.

In short, our organization is willing to actively participate and cooperate in a creative manner to find a way of making everyone, Native and non-Native fishermen, happy.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Your presentation was fairly brief. It contained many ideas. I would like to thank you, Mr. Poulin in particular, for having agreed to speak to us via video-conference. In fact, I think your annual general assembly is taking place right now and we had to kidnap you for half an hour this morning.

Mr. François Poulin: That's right. The Alliance's executive board discussed the Native question at length over the last two days. What I told you this morning basically reflects the conclusions we reached.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Let's quickly move to members' questions now. I will ask them to be brief. Since I am chairing this committee, I will ask the final question if there is any time left and I will also have to be quick about it.

I will let Mr. Peter Stoffer, from the NDP, speak first.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Good morning, Mr. Poulin.

[English]

Thank you for your presentation. I have just three questions for you, monsieur. You talked about a 12-mile zone within the gulf, and you have them only for fixed gear. But as you know, your organization needs to have fish in order to survive. With the oil and gas exploration or the seismic—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Just give the main spirit of your idea, and Claudia will translate it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): When I put my hand on your shoulder, shut up.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): I apologize for speaking so directly.

We have to make accommodations for interpretation this morning. As well, I have to get used to chairing a meeting. I'm not used to maintaining discipline around me.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: With regard to the oil and gas exploration within the gulf, has your organization been involved in discussions in order to preserve the habitat in terms of oil and gas seismic drilling in your area?

[Translation]

Mr. François Poulin: We were not told that was happening in the Gulf. We know there are problems in the Atlantic, especially outside the Gulf. Nova Scotia fishermen are very seriously debating whether they should demand a moratorium or an extension thereof. But to my knowledge, within the Gulf itself, we were not told about any major oil drilling projects.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Merci. Would it be possible to get a copy of the letters you wrote to the Prime Minister and Mr. Dhaliwal?

Mr. François Poulin: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. My final question—

• 0935

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): He could give his letters to the clerk of the standing committee who will have them translated and distributed.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I assume you're saying that everyone should fish under the same rules. Is that correct?

Mr. François Poulin: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of management of the species, as you know, the midshore and offshore in some cases have ITQ and EA attached to the species, and the inshore does not go by that. Wouldn't you consider that to be a different management system for various species that is already in place?

[Translation]

Mr. François Poulin: No. Competitive fishing, especially lobster fishering, is not really competitive since there is an agreement between fishermen to share the fishing grounds, so that each fishermen's income and average landings are approximately the same. The resource is basically shared evenly.

Individual quotas compared to competitive fishing quotas are managed differently. However, what is important regarding conservation is that each fleet present a conservation plan guaranteeing the protection of the species.

We are still in shock at the closing of the cod fishery. Every fishery in Quebec was badly affected by it and is just barely recovering. People are still talking a lot about reopening the cod fishery. So, in essence, each fishery has its own conservation plan. Each plan operates differently according the season, minimum size, the amount of fishing gear and so on.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Wayne Easter, would you like to ask a question?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions. You mentioned that you're wondering whether the decision applies to those on the north shore. Could you expand on that a little and raise your concerns there?

You might be able to tie this to the same answer. How would you suggest we handle the food fishery granted under the Sparrow decision to ensure it doesn't open up, as is often implied, a commercial black market especially for lobsters?

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Poulin.

Mr. François Poulin: On the north shore, there are one, two, three, four, five or even six very large Montagnais communities. They are located near fishing zones, and they are especially close to the crab fishery coastal zones. As you know, this is a very lucrative fishery.

Over the last few years, since the Sparrow ruling, there have been discussions to give certain Native communities access to certain types of species for food. It happened in an orderly manner. Everything went well. There were no problems. Our fishermen are basically happy with the way it went.

• 0940

Furthermore, in recent discussions we have had with senior officials in Ottawa, we were told that the Marshall judgement would affect the way future treaties and agreements between the Native communities and the Canadian government would be interpreted. For instance, there are a dozen native communities in British Columbia on Vancouver Island which will be affected by the Marshall ruling.

You have to wonder whether the north shore Native Montagnais communities won't also be affected by the ruling.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Poulin.

Mr. François Poulin: Committee members are also wondering the same thing. We are trying to come up with a complete list of communities which will be affected by the Marshall ruling. But there's a lot of speculation going on now. Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: On the second question, related to the food fishery, do you have any recommendations?

[Translation]

Mr. François Poulin: We don't particularly object to that. As I said, there hasn't really been a problem on the North Shore. However, there were violent confrontations with the Mi'kmak communities in the Chaleurs Bay three years ago. But the problem was eventually solved. The federal government bought back three or four lobster licences which were then transferred to the communities of Restigouche and Maria and things settled down after that. So, there haven't been any major problems in that regard.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): I have two brief questions. I think they're brief, but they may elicit long answers.

First, Mr. Poulin, I would like you to... There are some skeptics around the table, since my colleagues always feel I ask long questions. To begin, I would like you to come back to the fact that you do not want the government to levy any taxes on fishermen. You made this point in your brief and I would like a few clarifications.

Second, in what form do you think regional negotiations should take place, or what is happening with the negotiations now, the ones some of your member associations are involved in?

Mr. François Poulin: When we met with officials in Ottawa, they told us that if 10% of the lobster fishery were taken away from lobster fishermen, for instance, to be given to the Mi'kmaks, it would not really affect the income of lobster fishermen. This idea has gained ground in the last few months.

I just wanted to demonstrate that, as far as we are concerned, and I made my point by referring to a study done in the Magdalen Islands by departmental economists, such a measure would cut in half the net income of an Magdalen Islands fisherman.

We strongly object to this kind of measure, which would amount to an uncompensated unilateral transfer of a small percentage of the resource to Aboriginal communities.

Regarding regional negotiations between non-Native and Native fishermen, they can only succeed if two conditions are met. If accommodation is to be reached and adjustments made, and if the whole process is to run efficiently and to the satisfaction of both parties, we must settle a certain number of issues. All we can do now is to hold informal meetings.

• 0945

We need a general framework for discussions. As I said at the beginning of my presentation, the Canadian government must establish a series of principles to frame the discussions. There's nothing on the table now and we have no idea where the government wants to take this. It would therefore be exceedingly dangerous for Native and non-Native fishermen alike to sit down together, since they would not know what to talk about.

We need a general framework of discussion at the federal level and at the Native leadership level.

For instance, Aboriginals need an answer to the fundamental question: will fishing rights be transferred to the community or to individuals? This is crucial. Will the transfer be made to the entire Mi'kmak nation or to each individual community based on its local resources? We need answers to these types of questions.

Our position is basically that we are ready to sit down as soon as possible with Native communities to discuss these matters.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Poulin. I think we have one more question by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lawrence O'Brien.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I'll try. Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Poulin, what has been your relationship to this point in time with the federal negotiators, Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault, and your overall relationship with the department as relates to these issues?

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Poulin.

Mr. François Poulin: We met Mr. MacKenzie about 10 days ago in Montreal and the executive board of the alliance met Mr. Thériault the day before yesterday. We had a long discussion with him, and I think the discussions are going well.

However, we find it unfortunate that the mandates given to Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault are very vague. Their mandate is to negotiate, but we don't know on what or how. It's sad that the government has basically shifted its own responsibility onto the shoulders of one or two people.

As for our relationship with the department, we feel that since the two appointments, officials were told that they should leave the talking to the negotiators. So the officials are very unwilling to talk and are not getting involved in any kind of discussion.

By the way, we met Mr. Bevan two weeks ago. I think he is one of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' spokespeople in Ottawa. He explained the situation to us and our discussion was open and interesting. So we are receiving mixed messages. We have the impression that the department does not know where it is going. There is a certain amount of confusion.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Is that okay for you, Mr. O'Brien?

[Translation]

Mr. Poulin, thank you very much. We will consider what you said and thank you for having spoken to the committee.

I have a final small question; a little later this morning, we will meet with Mr. Cloutier who will talk about regional issues. Is he on his way to the Gaspé? I still have not seen him this morning.

Mr. François Poulin: He was here yesterday, in Quebec City. He took the plane last night and should be there shortly.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): It snowed a bit last night. I hope he was able to land.

Thank you very much, Mr. Poulin. I don't know what you are going to do now, but we are going to move on to the person responsible for the economic development of the Première nation malécite, Ms. Diane Brière. Good bye, Mr. Poulin.

Mr. François Poulin: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier. I'd like to thank everyone and look forward to meeting you again.

• 0950

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Good morning, Ms. Brière.

My name is Yvan Bernier and I am the Member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. You heard what I said at the beginning of the meeting. This morning, we are studying the impact of the December 17 Supreme Court ruling.

You have the floor. We can give you about half an hour. If you have an opening statement, we will gladly listen. Of course, we would like you to be as brief as possible. Afterwards, committee members will ask you questions.

Ms. Diane Brière (Economic Development Director, Première nation malécite de Viger): The Première nation malécite de Viger is sorry it could not make the meeting organized today by the Canadian committee on fisheries since the invitation came too late.

However, this does not mean we are not interested in the issues. On the contrary, we would have liked to debate several points contained in the Marshall ruling which, until this day, still have not been addressed, particularly as they concern the Maliseet community of Quebec. Therefore, we will take the liberty to raise a few questions we have.

How is it that your government does not believe that our nation was involved in the agreements signed by the British government of the time, knowing full well that the Maliseet of New Brunswick and Quebec maintained close links by going up and down the Saint-Jean River, which was an essential communication axis? Indeed, every Maliseet was part of the same community and they were all part of the treaty which was signed by a representative of the great confederation.

Why has it taken the Canadian government so long to start negotiations, as this delay led to conflicts between Natives and non-Natives, and when it knew full well that this will have a disastrous impact on communities living in regions harshly affected by the economic crisis and where the witches of nature were already plundered?

Why has the Canadian government, this one and the last one, spent so little on the AFS in Quebec and why did it not tell us about other rulings affecting Native people?

Why were we given such little notice that meetings between Natives and non-Natives would be taking place in Quebec? This only makes things worse for many people.

As the spokesperson for the Première nation malécite de Viger, the band council has, since November 1996, started a dialogue with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to have the right to fish for subsistence and commercial purposes.

Our goal is to give our members access to a resource which allowed them to survive on this continent for centuries. The money we could make from these fisheries would eventually help us to become self-sufficient.

We remind you that we also entered into a dialogue with the representatives of the various associations in Quebec—zone 17 and 12 crab fishers, and the association of boat owners—in order to equally share the resource and ensure our integration into these various associations.

We want your government to grant us the necessary fishing licences to enable us to have access to the fishery for the year 2000 season, that we commit to acting in the spirit of our ancestors, that is in harmony with the environment.

Finally, with respect to interpretations of the Marshall decision, our position is that the agreements reached under the British government must be honoured. How do you conclude a peace agreement with a people living in harmony on this continent while at the same time respecting cultural, social, and economic values? That is the challenge. That is the alliance we hope to have with you.

I thank you for your attention.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you very much, Ms. Brière. Your comments were very direct and precise. I will now go to members for questions.

• 0955

Mr. Stoffer, do you have a question for Ms. Brière?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Good morning, Ms. Brière.

[English]

In terms of the access to the resources, is your organization and are your peoples meeting with the province to discuss any concerns about logging accessibility?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Brière: I'm going to ask my consultant to respond. He is more familiar with the technical details.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): That's Mr. Rancourt, I believe.

Mr. Marcel Rancourt (Fisheries Coordinator, Viger Maliseet First Nation): Yes.

First of all, we are happy to be able to participate in your committee meeting via video conferencing.

It is quite strange that this week we pulled out an old resolution dating back to 1868, which was sent to you and in which we stated that the Fisheries Act of the day did not pay us justice with respect to our Aboriginal rights.

As regards the fishery at the provincial level, yes, we are in negotiations with the provincial government regarding pelagic species such as sturgeon, eel and salmon. The results to date have not been very positive, but we continue to negotiate fresh water fisheries issues with the province.

Along the same lines, I can say that since 1996, our nation has been negotiating with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Quebec in order to obtain access to the commercial fishery. We have produced various documents on this topic. In November 1996, we produced the first document aimed at obtaining access to wildlife. Under the AFS, we too have conducted some brief studies on fishing, hunting and gathering for our own needs. We did that work for DFO.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of the management of the resource, once complete and open negotiations take place among you and DFO and the non-native communities, would you be willing to operate under the same management rules, all inclusive, with everyone together?

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: In October 1999, the nation gave Ms. Chartrand its plan for the year 2000 fishing season, in which we very clearly described how the year 2000 season should unfold. We took the time to describe the gear, protocols to protect small fish, the season, price control, on-board security of ships, information regarding public relations with DFO, fishers and Aboriginals. We even provided our chart of quotas by species, taking into account fishers in the area. We distributed the fishing effort in each zone so that there wouldn't be a problem. We even provided the department with a document describing how the resource, once removed from the water, would be returned to each of our members in a fair way, taking into account that our members are located throughout Quebec. We even told the department how the funds would be distributed to each member, based on revenues from this commercial fishery.

Over the past four years, the Maliseet First Nation has undertaken a broad reflection as to how it could integrate the commercial fishery. It is unfortunate to date that under the AFS, in Quebec, there has been no funding to assist Aboriginals in gaining access to the commercial fishery. We have held dozens and dozens of meetings on this topic, and we are happy to see the fisheries committee examining the issue today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): One final short question.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If it's possible to get a copy of those documents, that would be very helpful.

• 1000

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: We will send it to you by fax, if it works.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Rancourt.

[English]

Another short one? No, after, Peter.

[Translation]

We will now go to Mr. Wayne Easter. Wayne, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Your first question was along the lines of why you're not part of the agreement relative to Marshall, I believe. Can you expand on that a little bit?

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: We have always been convinced that the Marshall decision applied to our nation. What is somewhat strange is that shortly after the decision, some representatives called us to tell us that the decision did not apply to the Quebec Maliseet. I can tell you that we contacted the federal Department of Justice to inform it that when you are Canadian, you are Canadian in the East and in the West. Much to our surprise, we learned that the Quebec Maliseet are no longer Maliseet. The position of the Maliseet group is very simple: the Grand Maliseet Chiefs have never doubted it.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: We will have to have our research staff check that.

I just want to point out as well that as witnesses, you said you had very short notice, and that's true. We regret that, but what we've attempted to do is cover everyone we could think of and put notices out. I would say if there are others, they can certainly put forward written submissions. I'd just point that out.

My last question is, what is your participation in the aboriginal fisheries strategy? I didn't quite get that clear before.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: Well, it's the third agreement that we have signed with DFO under the AFS. Under the AFS, we have already obtained two commercial fisheries licences, for herring and mackerel.

With respect to the year 2000, in October we put in three requests for access to the commercial fishery and each time they were rejected. The requests dealt with training for our members, the lease or purchase of a boat, and the buy-back of a groundfish licence. We were told that there was not enough money in Quebec to give us access to the fishery under the AFS. And it is more or less for that reason that several months or several weeks later, the band council decided to give the government, or DFO, the commercial fishery campaign and tell it: “If you do not grant us the necessary licences under the AFS, we will be forced to fish on the basis of the Marshall decision”.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Are there any further questions? I am going to try something quickly. Ms. Brière and Mr. Rancourt, you're going to help me. There is a map behind me. Can we move the camera towards the map? Members asked me earlier on where your territory was.

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: Under the French regime, the Maliseet occupied the land from the tip of Lévis to the mouth of the Métis River. They moved towards the north. The Maliseet were in the past referred to as the guardians of the great portage. When there were conflicts between the English and the French, it was quite practical to have the Mi'kmak and the Maliseet take the good and bad news from Louisbourg to Quebec. The communications axis was ideal. It was the great portage. That is how the entire territory was protected via the Saint-Jean River.

• 1005

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Rancourt, Peter has another short question for you. Since there is a little bit of time,

[English]

let's go, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madame Brière, in your opinion, does the Marshall decision apply to non-status Malecite people in Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Brière: All Maliseet are recognized by our nation. I do not really understand your question about non-status Aboriginals. Are you referring to the Maliseet who live on and off-reserve?

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: I would like to give you a little bit of background. In 1856, the Canadian government authorized the sale of the Viger reserve, where we were. We still own two reserves, but most of our members live off-reserve. Since they no longer had access to the fishery on territorial land because all of the salmon rivers had been given to the whites, they were forced to disperse throughout the Lower North Shore.

The Maliseet are currently spread over two thirds of Quebec, but the reserves in Cacouna and Whitworth are still active reserves.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Rancourt. I would like to ask you a short question to refresh my memory of history. You talked about the resolution from 1868 that would—

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: I'm going to read it for committee members. It is very short. I will give you the context in which it took place. It is at the National Archives for those who are interested.

Several months prior to the sale of the Viger reserve, the Maliseet met, in Rivière-du-Loup, a former superintendent of "Indian Affairs"...

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Since it is short, could you read it slowly? The interpreters are having trouble following you. Go on.

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: Okay.

... whom several of them had met in 1856 when he visited the Viger reserve. They recommended that he write for them a request addressed to the Department of Indian Affairs. Namely, the restrictions caused by the Fisheries Act posed a problem for them.

This resolution is dated August 21, 1868, and it includes exactly the same points we are discussing today. When the Canadian government of the day adopted the Fisheries Act, it did not consult the Indians. It made no effort to integrate them into the fishery. That gave rise to the great Métis River battle. That is where the fate of the nation played out. From that time on we no longer had access to salmon, we were forced to go into other areas.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Rancourt. If you send us a fax later on, could you append that to the document? It would help us in our work. Are there any other questions?

I have a short question because I am curious. Are you the Mr. Rancourt who worked as a consultant at the Centre d'interprétation des pêches in Rivière-au-Renard?

Mr. Marcel Rancourt: Yes, that was me.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): It has been at least ten years since we've seen each other. At the time I worked at the ACPG.

Mr. Rancourt, Ms. Brière, we would like to thank you for appearing before us today. Now that we know you, we would like to have your parameters because things are changing. Don't forget to make them known to us. We are also learning about the first nations, the Maliseet, the Mi'kmak. I must admit that I was raised here, in Gaspé, but that I did not know there was a Mi'kmak band. I have friends that I went to school with, and I learned they were Aboriginal in college, because they had better scholarships than I did. I am proud to know them now, but help us to get to know you a little bit better. The standing committee is a forum where Aboriginal people can make themselves known and where fishers can express their concerns. There is always fear of new things.

I thank you and I wish you good luck in your deliberations as well. Goodbye.

Since we have to change rooms, the meeting is suspended for 10 minutes.

• 1010

• 1025

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Gentlemen, silence please. The Standing Committee on Fisheries is resuming its hearing. I remind the audience that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are conducting a study on the implications of the September 17, 1999, Supreme Court decision on R. v. Marshall on the Management of fisheries in the Atlantic Region.

I would ask members to take their seats. Our schedule has been thrown off somewhat since some witnesses are late, whereas others are already here.

We will start by hearing from Mr. Maurice Ouellet, who represents a member association of the Quebec federation of midshore fishers. Mr. Ouellet already knows how our committee works. We will give him half an hour and invite him to start with a short presentation. If your presentation lasts the full half-hour, we will not have an opportunity to ask questions. I'm going to try to manage the time we have available. I will repeat for those who just arrived that my committee colleagues are perhaps trying to play a joke on me this morning by asking me to take the chair, because it will prevent me from asking long questions.

You have the floor, Mr. Ouellet. We are all ears.

Mr. Maurice Ouellet (Director General, Association des crabiers gaspésiens, Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

My remarks will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I have already tabled a short brief. I will simply read my brief so that I can give the honourable members an opportunity to ask me as many questions as possible.

The Quebec federation that represents midshore fishers includes five regional associations located throughout maritime Quebec: the Association des capitaines propriétaires de la Gaspésie, the Association des pêcheurs de la MRC Pabok, the Association des crabiers de la Gaspésie, the Association des pêcheurs de la Côte-Nord and the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Our fishermen members actively fish snow crab, shrimp, and groundfish more specifically.

Under the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the Mi'kmak's right to a food fishery. By rejecting a request to a re-hearing filed by a group of non-Aboriginal fishers, the Supreme Court clarified the content of its decision, which caused and continues to cause quite a stir.

In light of this clarification, it seems clear to us that if the Aboriginals have the right to fish, the resources manager can and must monitor this right to fish. That is very important, and that responsibility remains in the hands of the legislator, and not fishers.

The fishery is a key economic sector in maritime communities in Quebec. The industry will survive only if resource conservation is the primary objective of all people involved, both fishers and managers.

The midshore fleets in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence have opted for sustainable development for several years now. They have equipped themselves with an ITQ program that has enabled them to put an end to unchecked and often unscrupulous over-fishing.

Our fishers have also equipped themselves with important enforcement tools, including dockside weighing of all landings, at-sea observers, as well as a protocol to control small fish and protect snow crab. It is obviously very difficult for the director general of the resource in Ottawa to know what remains in the sea if he does not know what has been landed at our wharves. That is the reason we put these instruments in place.

They also adopted a code of conduct for responsible fishing practices, which proves their commitment to sustainable development in the industry.

All of these efforts undertaken over the past few years to better organize the fishery must be acknowledged and maintained.

Two of our fleets have signed a co-management agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are the crab fishers from zone 12 and the shrimp fishers from the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. The agreements, that will end respectively in the year 2001 and 2002, stipulate a series of management measures to ensure the conservation of species, as well as formulas for sharing the resource.

• 1030

When these agreements were developed, various factors were taken into consideration, including the profitability of fleets. Entering into such agreements required our fishermen to work together and to be very open-minded.

This kind of agreement reflects the willingness of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the willingness of fishermen to work closely together so as to ensure rational, sustainable harvesting of the resource. These agreements, which were duly entered into, must be respected.

The Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec does not want the fishing effort to increase at all. I'm sure you are all aware of the deplorable events that occurred in a number of fisheries, and we certainly would not like to see such events happen again in other fisheries. That is why we are asking that the fishing effort not be increased. All the studies and all the experience we have acquired over the years show that if we made any changes to the current number of operators within the Gulf, we would endanger the resource and the whole situation could blow up in our faces. Conservation must be the primary objective. Any increase in the fishing effort could lead to overfishing.

The same rules should apply to all, be they commercial fishermen or Native fishermen. The efforts that our commercial fishermen have made for years must be recognized, and the results that have been achieved, thanks to these efforts, must not be wiped out by uncontrolled fishing activities.

Some Natives have already realized that it is possible to live together and fish the same species while respecting the same conditions that were set for traditional fishermen. Some Natives are already fishing for crab or other species, and they know what limits they should stick to. There is room for everyone, but there are ways of going about things.

The commercial fishermen must take part in the discussions and must be part of the decision-making. If Native fishermen have rights that the Supreme Court has recognized, the commercial fishermen also have rights, and they must be recognized as well. We are major players, and we should be recognized as such. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must not make unilateral decisions about this issue.

The profitability of our fleets must not be threatened. Our fishermen are investing so as to preserve their resource and their livelihood. They are major employers in their communities. If the profitability of our fleets suffers in any way, there will be major negative impacts on the regional economy.

The process for discussions and negotiation must be transparent. Everyone should know what the consultative process is. The commercial fishermen must be kept abreast of progress made in discussions with the Natives. There should not be any hidden agenda.

To conclude, I would point out that the fishing industry has had a rough ride over the past few years. The Marshall decision, and particularly the way certain groups interpreted this decision, has led to a wave of panic and violent demonstrations in the Atlantic region.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for managing the resource, and if it wants to avoid a social crisis, it will have to recognize everyone's rights, protect fishery resources and only allow an orderly fishery that respects the management measures that have already been identified, both by the department and by the industry.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Ouellet. This is the first time I've heard you speak English. I must say that the English version and our brilliant interpreter are equally pleasant to the ears. I hope you don't mind a little bit of humour this morning.

I don't know whether Peter is ready to ask the first question.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

• 1035

Thank you for your presentation. In Nova Scotia,

[English]

we heard some people say the future management of the fishery should be more of a community-based management, wherein the decisions come from the bottom up instead of the top down. What would your sentiment or your statement be for the future, including for the aboriginal people and the communities in the Gaspé region in Quebec, and for the maritime region, in that kind of a proposal?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Some people may find that the remarks you heard in Nova Scotia are somewhat progressive. Last June, during a presentation at the Château Bonne Entente, I did point out to Mr. Sprout, who is responsible for implementing a national fisheries management plan, that the Government of Canada has a number of autonomous regions that are run by regional directors, and that we should have a general fishery policy, as well as a form of management that would be restricted to our administrative regions, and of course, everyone involved in harvesting the resource would be part of that management.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you know, sir, in terms of access to the resource, the resource itself has to have a sustainable habitat. In the gulf region, there are a lot of oil and gas leases going to companies to do seismic drilling and hopefully future exploration, as they say. Has your organization been involved in any talks or meetings in order to decide if that's a good thing for your organization or not?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: No, we have not had any negotiations or discussions about that. We have gone by what we have been able to find out in the public domain and in the media. So far, we have not identified any problems with that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you for coming here this morning, Mr. Ouellet.

I heard in your presentation a considerable interest in the whole notion of conservation of the species. I think you mentioned a number of times that there should be no increase in the effort of taking those species, whatever they be. Given the fact that there has to be harmony in the fishing effort—and there will be through some manner—is there going to be the voluntary withdrawal of current fishermen to allow for the native people to take on some of that effort? How do you feel about it? How do you see that transpiring?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Often we hear members of Parliament and federal politicians say that protecting the resource is their first priority. Unfortunately, we don't see this happening in our areas. Because of events in the past, we are skeptical about certain politicians. In a way, that's why we are now talking more about the industry's initiatives. Indeed, since 1995 I've been involved in negotiating partnership and co-management agreements. If the industry is able to create the necessary tools and protect its own resource, I believe that perhaps politicians should let the officials of the administrative regions and the industry handle management of the resource. Politicians should stick to legislation rather than using the resource for political purposes. We know where that got us in the past. I do hope that when the members here talk to me about protecting the resource, they are just as sincere as I am.

• 1040

How could we proceed? It would be relatively easy if we copied Quebec's approach. Once again, Quebec is one step ahead of the other provinces and has designated professional fishermen. In June 1999, the National Assembly passed legislation to provide for accreditation of professional fishermen. Starting in the year 2000, not just anyone will be able to enter the fishery. And above all, people will not get in through the back door.

How can we adjust to the Marshall decision? I don't believe that's a problem at all. The government should continue its work to set up a general management plan, let the industry and its officials interpret needs from a regional perspective, and allow the Natives—whom I think are Canadians too—have access to the resource, but without increasing the fishery effort, by buying back licences from white fishermen who would like to withdraw from the fishery.

That way, we won't have any trouble living with any Indian band in Quebec. As I was telling you, Quebec already has a mechanism to ensure fishermen are professionals, as well as work methods and monitoring methods that we have set. We are all willing to work with our Native colleagues so that they can easily adjust to this method.

[English]

Mr. Paul Steckle: You mentioned transparency or the lack thereof. For the committee and for the record, can you cite where you felt there was a lack of transparency in recent events regarding yourself, the industry and DFO?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: It was extremely frustrating when the Marshall decision was handed down in September, because it was a relatively unclear decision that everyone interpreted in his or her own way. Fortunately, a group of fishermen obliged the Supreme Court to shed some light on the waters of the Gulf, although the decision did create a great deal of upheaval in the Gulf between the time it was announced and the time things were cleared up.

I have absolutely nothing against Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault, whom the Minister appointed as ambassadors, but I don't think it's useful for them to go here and there, meeting with small groups, while we know nothing right now. What are the intentions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Where do they want to go? How do they perceive the problem, and do they believe they can solve it? We have absolutely no answers to these questions. We're told to wait until Mr. MacKenzie or Mr. Thériault comes to meet with us.

That's not transparency. Our Native friends are here today, members of Parliament are here today, and the industry is here today. That's transparency. I'm not afraid to speak in front of a member of Parliament or in front of any Native band. Why is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sending us messengers? That's not transparency.

They should hold meetings for each one of the fisheries concerned in each one of the provinces concerned, and invite all the stakeholders, rather than just consulting with one small group at a time. This could lead to squabbles. It's not transparent.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Wayne, did you have some questions?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair. They're along the same lines.

Welcome, Monsieur Ouellet.

Dealing with the process you're outlining, yes, there's some criticism of the process. This committee is going to report to Parliament prior to Christmas, and one of the big issues we've been hearing about is the concern over the process itself. What kind of timeline do we need to be looking at? How can the process be improved?

Secondly, you associate with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff in the regional office, I'm sure. Does DFO staff on the ground, in the district offices, know what's going on? If you were to talk to them, they obviously should. If they don't, why not?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Unfortunately, I have to be negative, and I hate doing that. No, the officials are not aware of what's going on. Or perhaps they received orders to pretend not to be aware. But one thing is for sure, the only people who have a mandate at the present time are Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault. In his press release, the Minister clearly indicated that Mr. MacKenzie had been chosen, and the following week, he announced that Mr. Thériault would join him. They are the only two people who currently have all the powers to negotiate in Quebec and in the Gulf.

• 1045

So I think that we should quickly set up—today we are appearing before the best authority to make the suggestion—a committee that would bring together all the stakeholders so that they can look at the problem in depth, bearing in mind what you have learned and heard here. Once you report back to Mr. Dhaliwal, perhaps he will be able to understand the situation properly.

It is absolutely clear that he was not aware of the extent of the problem that we are discussing today. I think that once he is told about everything that's been said here today and everything that's been said in the Maritimes, he will be able to form an opinion and instruct his officials, administrative region by administrative region, to discuss catches, both with the industry and with the Natives in each one of the regions. That is the only way to solve the problem, which obviously varies from the Laurentian region to the Maritimes, the Gulf or the West.

So let's set a general set of guidelines and let the officials, ordinary citizens and the fishermen solve the rest of the problem with the Natives amongst themselves. That way, we will be prepared for April the first... You know that Mr. Dhaliwal said that everyone should be ready to go out and fish by April 1. He is a lot faster when it comes to setting deadlines than when it comes to striking committees to take on responsibilities.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Ouellet. Mr. Easter, do you have another question?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: I see two things happening here. First, if you as a fisherman are not getting the facts about what is going on, then the rumour mill starts. There are perceived problems out there. I see no reason at all why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can't communicate with its district staff, or even with its enforcement officers, on a biweekly or weekly basis, just to tell them where negotiations are with MacKenzie and Thériault. That shouldn't be a problem. At least, it should be a problem that we can fix.

Secondly, just so it's clear, you're saying there should be a general set of guidelines and principles coming out from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Under that set, the fishing organizations and the native community should come together on the ground, so to speak, to implement that set at the local level. Have I understood that clearly?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Yes. In response to your first question, I would say that this is what we have been waiting for ever since Mr. MacKenzie was appointed. Unfortunately, that's not being done.

As for your second question, I would say yes, obviously we have to set some guidelines. As I said earlier, after the hearings that you've been holding since last Sunday, the Minister certainly will know exactly what the industry wants and exactly what the Natives want. If that doesn't inspire his staffers, if they are unimaginative, he can always come back to the people who actually fish and ask them questions. We are always willing to meet with the Minister and answer his questions.

When I talk about guidelines, what I have in mind is the extremely remarkable methods that we have tried, particularly in the past few years, to protect and conserve the resource. I think that we must maintain these methods and apply them to all the species.

Not only will the department get reports from its scientists on the stocks in the water, the department will also know what is being taken out of the water. It's much easier to control that way. This is one of these guidelines. To give you an example, in the case of the crab fishery in zone 12, we could sit down and see whether there is room for 10 more licence holders in a zone where there already are 160. We can do this as long as the will is there. We have to go through this exercise, and the industry is still willing to do so.

• 1050

But when the Minister gives the controls to a senior representative and tells us to refer to him and to wait until he comes to meet with us, it's not very reassuring when you're in the month of December. The fishery begins on April 15. That's tomorrow.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Lawrence O'Brien.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Sir, you put forward a situation that basically is not reassuring. We were given the Marshall case on September 17 and the clarification on November 17. We have a case in which the committee has undertaken to fast-track and to have these hearings that are concluding here today. We have the two gentlemen, by the names of Mr. Thériault and Mr. MacKenzie, and we have the regional director generals in the Laurentian, in the Atlantic and so on. In my view, we have the process moving as quickly as we can. I know it's frustrating, because we always want to move faster.

In light of all the things you said and all the perspectives you pointed out, can you honestly tell me if there are any other things we can do differently between now and April, other than what we're doing now? What can we do to bring it to an interim resolution or to find harmony, if you wish, on the water by mid-April? It's important to seek your views. That's why we're here. We're here to learn from you and to get some points to include in our process of doing whatever is most practical, if we can.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Obviously, time is passing by, and it is passing very quickly; you just pointed that out yourself. I couldn't have asked you to move any faster than you did. You made your decision very quickly, and we thank you for that.

However, there is a fair way to go before April 15. That's why I've been repeating that the report you are going to prepare is extremely important so that both the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can adopt a position and come back to each one of the administrative regions to sort out the details. However, this will only work if the departments move as quickly as you have. And I mean both departments.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Is that answer satisfactory, Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. Ouellet, I still have a few moments. First of all, I would like to thank you for appearing here today. I took a few notes.

First of all, I would point out to you, since you want to be quite sure that the remarks made here this morning are reported back to the Minister, that these proceedings are being recorded. However, this standing committee of the House of Commons also presents a report to our peers, that is to say, to the 301 members of the House of Commons. Of course, there are representatives of the governing party at this table; Mr. O'Brien is the parliamentary secretary. So you have whispered to the right ear. It's up to him to pass the message on. As for myself, I will be talking more to my fellow MPs.

There's one other thing that bothers me. It may not be directly related to our discussions, although everything is interrelated in the world of the fisheries. In a few moments, we will be hearing from a group of witnesses who represent the inshore fishermen. Everyone in the region knows that there are two possible models to manage the fisheries: individual quotas or a competitive fishery. But there's a problem. Everyone agrees that we have to preserve the species. However, this means that in order to include new fishermen in the fisheries, others will have to be excluded.

Here's my question for your group. You may not have an answer for me this morning, but you could take note of it. If the government needed to have some crab quotas, might some of your fishermen be willing to sell theirs? Or, still within the same rules, might the so-called traditional fishermen be willing to part with some of their permits, or in other words, would they be willing to split them?

I'm trying to find out whether it might be possible to have both management methods coexist to some extent. We will need some leeway in terms of the resources so that we can satisfy everyone. Of course, all of this would be done on a voluntary basis.

Could you give us an initial reaction?

• 1055

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: I think I said... It's true that I may have spoken somewhat quickly.

Obviously, right now we are looking at two different categories of fishermen. However, I think that as we move closer to the year 2000, that will be more and more part of ancient history.

With the industry becoming professional, when I talk to colleagues who fish for lobster, herring or cod, it's businessmen who are talking. We are running a business, we are responsible for employees, just as we are responsible for the survival of the economy in our individual regions.

Let's forget about these two different groups that will disappear over time, in my opinion. It will be more useful to make a concerted effort to provide all the Gulf fishermen with known and approved mechanisms that have shown their worth, able to ensure conservation of the resource, and at the same time we must be careful not to exceed the maximum number of fishermen in each area.

When you talk about splitting the licences, Mr. Bernier, I can tell you from experience that it is a bad practice to allow all one's neighbours to go picking in a strawberry field when you want to share the strawberries with them. It is better to pick the strawberries yourself if you want to ensure their quality and conservation.

Let us focus on conservation then. If there is not a full contingent for a certain species or fleet, then we can sit down together and decide how many new fishermen can be added. But if we think we have the required number of fishermen, then we can tell our Native friends, as we say to our friends who claim to be inshore fishermen, to the professional fishermen of Quebec, that if they require a permit, there are some or there will be some for sale and all they have to do is buy one.

That is the practice in our region. I have a lobster fisherman who took out his licence this spring; we haven't yet come to blows and things are going smoothly. He has learned the rules of the game and has complied with all the regulations. Everything is going swimmingly. What we want to avoid is waking up one day and find ourselves faced with the situation that has occurred in other species because of the competitive fishery.

If we want scientists to know what is inside the water, we also have to know what is being taken out of the water. We have to make sacrifices and everyone will have to do so at the same time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Easter, a short question.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just as a point to inform Mr. Ouellet and others, I don't see it as a problem. I'm certain there would be agreement among the members of the committee that through the parliamentary secretary we can request on Monday that the minister send out information to all the district offices on the MacKenzie process so that people know what's going on. Sometimes there won't be much new information, but at least on the ground they will know what's going on. That way you can be informed if you call.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Our thanks to you as well, Mr. Ouellet. I must thank you now for your presence. We shall now be hearing from the other group of witnesses.

Mr. Maurice Ouellet: I would like to thank you, sir.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Goodbye, Mr. Ouellet.

Since there has been a change to our timetable, I'd now like to call Mr. Cloutier representing the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie. I don't know if you are the only one to represent your association this morning.

Mr. Cloutier, I'll give you time to settle in. The committee procedure is familiar to you since I believe you have already appeared before us. You may make your presentation. We have about half an hour to spend together. The briefer you are, the more time we will have to devote to questions. Members will adjust accordingly.

• 1100

Do you have a written presentation?

Mr. Onil Cloutier (Director General, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie): No. The last time we made a written presentation we raised the problem that we are now facing. We suggested the establishment of an integrated zone to allow for a sufficient development of the resource to be of assistance to our Native colleagues. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected. But I don't wish to dwell on this.

I am happy to be here this morning for two reasons. First of all, because it gives us an opportunity to meet people other than officials, to meet people from the party in power, the government party in Ottawa as well as members of other parties.

I'm also very pleased to see that the Native representatives are here today since, after 250 years of secrecy on the part of all governments, both previous and present, we are now being asked to settle the problem within six months of its appearance.

We are being asked to settle this problem through a disavowal of the department with which we work—on this point I must say that this is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with my colleague Maurice Ouellet—by disavowing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and by appointing two persons, one for the English side and the other for the French side, and asking them to see how the problem can be solved, a problem that is far from being an easy one.

The group I represent, the inshore fishermen's group, includes approximately 180 lobster fishermen in the southern Gaspé peninsula out of the 223 such fishermen. The zones likely to be most affected are those we represent, that is the southern Gaspé peninsula and the Baie des Chaleurs.

We wish to stress that it will be difficult for the lobster fishermen to settle the Native problem for all Canadians since cash revenue—and you are in a position to verify this since your department is still capable of providing you with the information—does not exceed $15,000 a year on the average. In this context, it will thus be extremely difficult to make a sufficient quantity of the resource available to transfer it to the three Native bands that now live in the Gaspé peninsula.

It must also be said that the lobster fishermen are not willing to be the only ones to pay the price required to meet Aboriginal needs, so long hidden and looked down upon, that we are now being asked to satisfy in six months.

We also want to emphasize that we will never agree to jeopardizing the resource in order to meet this requirement. We follow the rules governing the catch of species, operation and conservation. We share the opinion of the midshore fishermen: it is not possible today to add new fishermen without risking a radical decrease in the species.

In the Gaspé Peninsula, the annual landing of the 223 fishermen amounts to 1,000 tons of lobster bringing in a gross income of approximately $45,000 to $55,000 for each fisherman. It must support approximately 1,000 people: 225 owner-operators and a minimum of 225 deck hands, the remainder being plant workers.

At the present time, we have to ask ourselves whether we are endangering this economic activity, as is the case for all the others, without giving sufficient thought to the matter. I realize that after waiting 250 years to have their rights upheld, the Natives do not want to risk losing them on the very day they are recognized because of a poor agreement or a poor compromise.

I would invite the Native bands to discuss with us the way in which they will be integrated into the fishery. We're convinced that the only proper way of doing it will be through the purchase of licences.

• 1105

We're convinced that the only way of achieving this will be through the distribution of licences. As a matter of fact, on September 19, two days after the Supreme Court decision, we officially informed the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec and everyone else that in our view the only way of solving this problem was to buy back the licences of the white fishermen and to give them to the Native bands.

Since we do not often have the opportunity to meet the Natives, we would like to take advantage of this opportunity to tell them that we don't give a damn whether the person fishing next to us is white, black or any other colour, provided that the resource and the economic activity are maintained in the Gaspé peninsula. It is in fact the only resource that is left to us and I would ask the federal government not to compromise this economic activity.

That's all I have to say to you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. We allowed you to sit somewhat to the side but I would ask all witnesses to speak through the chair.

Mr. Stoffer, do you have any questions?

[English]

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

You talked about conservation being the number one priority, and I can't agree with you more. But in the gulf right now, the provinces have issued licences for seismic exploration to a lot of oil and gas companies, not only off Chéticamp on block one, but when you look at their map, they actually wish to go all the way up around Quebec and into Labrador and Newfoundland. That's what their goal would be in terms of just testing for oil and gas reserves.

First of all, are you aware of this? If you are, have you been in any kind of contact with the provinces and these companies in regard to their proposal for exploration in the gulf for oil and gas?

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: I have to say that it is so far from the Baie des Chaleurs that I don't see why this question should suddenly arise now. We are not worrying about oil at the present time but rather about lobster in the Baie des Chaleurs. Of course we are not aware of all of this.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I asked that is you say that conservation is the key. But for conservation to be the key, you have to have a habitat for the lobsters to survive.

In Cape Breton and in the Pictou in the Cumberland area, they're very concerned about the future of oil and gas exploration in the gulf. In fact, as you know, on Georges Bank there's a big coalition to get rid of the rigs completely.

If they move into the gulf, I can assure you that the government won't be your problem. The aboriginal people won't be your problem. Those big oil and gas companies will your problem, because in my estimation it could destroy the resource, period.

So if you talk conservation—this is why I asked if you are aware that these oil and gas companies may be coming in to do the testing here.

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: Obviously we saw the oil rigs being set up off Newfoundland. Are you talking about the tar sands in Sable Island?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No. I'm talking about the companies that have the leases now to come into the gulf to do seismic testing on the ground, which scientists in our interpretation say can be very dangerous to the stock. Are you aware that they're coming in there?

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: Yes, we realize that there are serious dangers all over the planet. When I go out my house, I may be hit by a car. But our present debate deals with the Gaspé lobster. Lobster stocks are sedentary and belong to the region where they are found. They are inshore stocks that do not migrate and that are not likely to be affected by gas and oil operations. So far there have not been any oil spills.

We are concerned about the over-exploitation of the earth. I'm not sure that we will be able to solve that problem at the same time as the problem of the Natives.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate that. I'm just trying to stretch the debate a bit. The reason I asked that is in Chéticamp, the oil and gas companies will be a mile and a half offshore, right where the lobster stocks are.

Besides that, I have a final question, sir, and I thank you for your presentation. What is your current relationship with the DFO? Is it good? Is it bad? We heard some severe criticism of the DFO in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. What's your current relationship with them?

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: I'd go so far as to say that it is non-existent at the present time. You would understand this point of view if you looked at the way the Canadian government has acted in almost bringing about a racist conflict between the two peoples in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I'm not referring here to all the other decisions it has taken concerning the other species over the years.

• 1110

We believe that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a group like any other group and that it does not have the necessary flexibility and sensitivity to solve this problem with its social dimension. It is not acceptable to take away from Peter what he requires to survive and give it to Paul. I do not believe that this department will be able to foster a harmonious relationship between the two peoples.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you.

Mr. Easter.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Yvan.

You talked earlier about there being 250 owner-operators in your fleet, and there are crew members on those. Now, earlier Mr. Ouellet talked about the need for principles and guidelines basically laid out on how the Marshall decision and access to the fishery can be accommodated.

One of the areas that certainly came up a lot during our hearings has been the possibility of a buyback. That may or may not be; we don't know at this point in time. That's easy to handle in terms of a captain and his boat, but there are other people who are affected, and that is the crews of these boats when you're opening up access to the native community. Do you have any suggestions on how that can be handled? How do you handle the whole package through a buyout—not just the licence, the boat, and the captain, but crew members as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: At the same time, it is clear that if we do not do anything, the Gaspé fishermen, including some midshore fishermen, will be penalized. All the jobs will disappear.

We speak on behalf of a number of owner-operators and we realize that there will be repercussions on plant workers, crew members and former fishermen. However, we believe that first of all we must settle a part of this problem by buying back licences and offering them to the Natives so that they can properly take part in the life of commercial fishermen.

I suppose we should also be in a position to implement programs for plant workers and former fishermen. I think it is important to emphasize the extent of processing of the product that takes place in the region where I live. The purchase of a white man's licence by a Native will have less of an impact on plant workers if the Natives agree to deliver their product in the area of origin. In such a case, the only thing we have to worry about is the former fisherman. Do you understand the point I'm getting at?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: I appeal to the Native communities that will be benefiting someday, soon I hope, from this arrangement so that we are able to solve this problem. I urge them to give strong consideration to the fact that every pound of fish that comes out of the water, no matter what species, is strongly linked to local or regional employment in the Gaspé Peninsula.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's a very valid point. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Yvan Bernier): Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can certainly understand your deep concern when you get such a fixed area with so many fishermen chasing after—as the old saying goes—so few fish, and you have to entertain other entrants. I think you made some very good points, actually, relating to the way you suggest doing this and doing it on parity between the Marshall decision and the existing fleet, existing fishers.

• 1115

I'm going to pose a question to you, basically what I proposed to the previous gentleman, as relates to the situation as it's unfolding in terms of Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault and the regional staff; i.e., your regional director general staff and so on. Have you had any involvement with these people to this point in time? If you did, maybe you can share that with us, and if you didn't, maybe you can tell us your perspective on that. I would appreciate that.

[Translation]

Mr. Onil Cloutier: We had a first meeting with Mr. Thériault the day before yesterday in Quebec City. In our opinion, Mr. Thériault was appointed to the position he occupies solely because he's very close to the party in power and also because he had the nerve to announce that inshore commercial fishermen were willing to transfer 15% of their resources to the Natives. I suppose it was to thank him for this that he was given his position.

However, we do share the idea mentioned by Mr. Maurice Ouellet, namely that the issue in the Gaspé Peninsula is completely different from that in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Let me explain why. It is totally unrealistic to believe that the problem can be settled by transferring 10% of the lobster resource through licence buy-backs to the Native fishermen in Maria, Listuguj and Gaspé. From what we know of the distribution of lobster in the Gaspé Peninsula, the sectors with the least amount of lobster are those where the two main Native bands are located, that is Maria and Listuguj. The fishermen present here can confirm this; Mr. Daniel Mercier, among others, hardly lands 6,000 tons of lobster a year.

In other words, if we give 10% of the resources without ensuring that this 10% is redistributed throughout the Gaspé fishing sectors, we will end up creating a problem of over-exploitation and destruction of the resource in the sectors where the Aboriginal bands now live.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I know that he's the one who asked me the question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): When you see a report...

Mr. Onil Cloutier: Here's the other problem that we foresee. I am mentioning this to reassure the Natives. I am a fisherman representing a group of fishermen but I am not the father of each of them and I do not know how they will react. The other problem is one of security.

If 10% of the resource is attributed to the Natives and they are told to fish it close to where they live, that is Caplan, New Richmond, Maria and Listuguj, then this sets into motion a phenomenon of disappearing resources in the Baie des Chaleurs. If the licences are redistributed through buy-back and the Natives decide to go fishing in the zone authorized by the permit, then there is the makings of a security problem. How can we ensure the security of two Natives from Listuguj, for example, who go off fishing after buying back a permit from my area in L'Anse-à-Beaufils? If it isn't properly organized, we will have a problem on our hands.

I personally don't intend to get into a fight with the Natives; not for the government of Canada. The fact that Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault were given a mandate by the government of Canada frightens us. We are afraid they will come up with a solution that is valid for New Brunswick and will attempt to impose it on the Gaspé Peninsula. That will not sit well either with the Gaspé Natives or fishermen. I'm in full agreement with Maurice Ouellet when he said that all these people should be brought together, since we know we have a problem, and come to a settlement together taking into account the regional disparities and situations.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Is he working for you, Mr. O'Brien?

Before you leave us, Mr. Cloutier, I'd also like to ask you a few short questions.

First of all I'd like to thank you for coming here because I know you were in Quebec City for the annual assembly of the Alliance of Commercial Fishermen, I believe. I gather that it is still continuing today. The committee would like to thank you for coming to speak here before your fishermen.

I know that about three years ago you went through some experiences that astounded you. I'd like you to briefly set out for us the human aspects of this crisis for the fishermen.

• 1120

Could you then explain to us how this system for the buy-back of licences was developed? I think that there was a system and I would like the members to be informed about the way in which this model was developed. Was it linked to the number of available pounds? What price was determined? Was an effort made to ensure that the fishermen whose licence was being bought back would be able to have an adequate retirement in dignity?

Mr. Onil Cloutier: To return to the events of three years ago, I think that we met the bands concerned. Once again, we are sorry we played the role assigned to us by the government of Canada at the time. We were victims, just like the Natives.

It is obvious that when a fishing community is attacked, particularly when it is one of the poorest groups, with the turbot and groundfish fishermen, then situations such as the one we found ourselves in will be inevitable.

The first reaction of the inshore fishermen was to say that the Natives had no business being there, that it was too bad but that the revenue generated by this activity was so low that the Natives would be threatening their families' livelihood. It was true at the time and it is still true today.

Once the initial excitement was over, we decided that we would not start tearing each other apart and killing each other to solve a problem affecting all of Canada. There was no reason why the inshore fishermen alone should have to pay for all Canadians. So we asked the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to buy back a sufficient number of licences to satisfy the Natives' requirement for a livelihood. At the time, from what we knew of the Sparrow decision, their needs were limited to obtaining food. This decision has evolved of course and the Marshall decision gave it a much larger scope with respect to the activities that could be exercised by Native bands in order to meet their needs. Selling is now part of it, of course.

As far as fishing itself goes, after the buy-back of the two licences that seemed sufficient to satisfy the food requirements of the Natives, it seems possible to buy back a greater number in an integrated fashion, in other words they could be made available on the market when necessary in order to allow the Natives to engage in the commercial fishery. We still believe that this is the only way of going about it. There is no other way of doing it if we wish to maintain the social fabric and the level of economic activity in the region—you know very well that the Gaspé Peninsula is starting to be affected by a number of crises—and if we wish to avoid racial confrontations between the two peoples.

As I said, I think that the Natives, after waiting 250 years to obtain what they had previously been entitled to are able to understand that they can wait another year or two and begin, starting today, to buy back the licences that will allow them to become part of the fishery.

I should note that the two licences that were bought back belong to someone who is 65 years old and retiring and who sold his licence for a price no higher than $100,000, I believe. The second licence was bought from a fisherman of 35 with a family. This licence was directly linked to the Miguasha zone right in the heart of activity at the time. I don't know how much this person got but it must have been between $100,000 and $150,000. Today he probably doesn't have any money left because once taxes are paid, it's too bad but there's nothing left.

So I'm saying to the government that there is a price to be paid for obtaining permits. You can't imagine that you can buy back the lobster fishing licence of a guy like Daniel Mercier, for example, who is 40 years old with two children and a house, for $125,000. It's one thing to settle a Native problem by buying a licence but it can't be done at the cost of making someone else flat broke for the rest of his life. You're going to have to think about that too.

There is a fair price. We are not talking about overbidding but rather the fact that there is a fair price to pay to compensate a white man who gives up the commercial fishery.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): I see.

Mr. Onil Cloutier: Does that answer your question?

• 1125

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Yes, and I'd like to ask another short question. I would appreciate your sending to us the calculations that allow you to determine the expected profits and the number of pounds of landed fish so that we can have an idea of the way this buy-back program would work.

Second, you said that it could be dangerous if the licences that are bought back come from outside the area where the Natives live. I'm trying to be careful with my wording. Would your association be willing to offer training to the Natives if they required it? This training could be a good way of going about integrating the Aboriginal nation among the traditional fishermen. I think that Mr. Poulin denounced, on behalf of the Alliance of Professional Fishermen of Quebec, the general principle. I'd like to know whether your association could, at the local level, consider such an initiative? If you are unable to give me an answer this morning, you might simply take the question under advisement. I don't want to put anyone in an embarrassing situation. That is not my role this morning.

Mr. Onil Cloutier: There is no problem, we'll have dealt with all the aspects.

Daniel, did our last meeting take place on October 25? At the meeting our fishermen gave us the mandate to negotiate integration with the Natives. Since I had a lot of work, I didn't have a chance to write to the Natives to ask them if they were willing to sit down with us to discuss the way in which we could proceed with a harmonious integration. We are willing to do the outmost to help them. If they wish, we can give them training so that they know how this resource is exploited and in this way it will be easier for them to be integrated into the business world of the fishery.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. It was a pleasure to hear you.

We'll now hear from our next witnesses representing the government of the first nations of Listuguj. I'll read your names carefully in order not to make a mistake. I invite Chief Allison Metallic, Chief John Martin and Chief Richard Jalbert to take the floor.

Would you please repeat the names of your nations because I am not accustomed to pronouncing them.

[English]

Maybe you could sit together, and we will listen to you one by one. Is that what you want? Do you want to answer the questions together afterwards, or do you want to do it one by one?

A voice: We all have briefs. We're going to read our briefs first and then we'll be ready for the question and answer period.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Okay. You can be seated now and read your briefs, and afterwards we will ask questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Jalbert, since you are sitting opposite me, perhaps you could help me make the introductions.

Who of you three would like to begin?

Chief Richard Jalbert (Mi'kmak Nation of Gespeg): To my right is Mr. Allison Metallic, Chief of the Listuguj Nation, to my left Mr. John Martin, Chief of Gesgapegiag. My name is Richard Jalbert and I am the Chief of Gespeg.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you. You may continue, gentlemen.

Chief Richard Jalbert: Chief Allison of Listuguj, Chief Martin of Gesgapegiag, committee members, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Mi'kmak Nation of Gespeg, I would like to wish you a very cordial welcome.

As for our procedure today, we have agreed that we will make use of the time given to us to make our presentations and then answer questions, as Mr. Metallic already mentioned.

• 1130

My comments will be the shortest not because Gespeg is the band with the fewest members or because it was incorporated more recently but more out of choice and solidarity since we share the same values.

We are gathered here today mainly to discuss the Marshall decision made by the Supreme Court on September 17, 1999. Before discussing the direct repercussions of this decision on the Gespeg Nation, I would like to give you some background about our community.

Gespeg is a fully fledged Aboriginal band recognized as such in 1972. This recognition does not mean that there was no Aboriginal occupation of the Gaspé territory. On the contrary, history clearly demonstrates an Amerindian presence and full use of the Gaspé territory and its resources. These Natives whose livelihood came from the forests, hunting and fishing, originated mainly, as is the case today, Mr. Chairman, from the great Mi'kmak family of the seventh district.

The Marshall decision is based on the 1760 treaty at a time when provincial divisions as we know them were non-existent. In spite of this, there is still today some questioning about who the beneficiaries of this treaty were and the geographic extent of the rights arising from the treaty. We know that the applicability of this decision was called into question for the Mi'kmak communities of Gespeg and Gesgapegiag as well as for the Viger Maliseets. Such questioning in itself constitutes an injustice.

We can state today that the people of the First Nations of the Atlantic region as well as the Aboriginal peoples of Quebec are joint beneficiaries of this treaty. That being said, Gespeg, in spite of its sorry situation, namely the loss of its territory, its language and its customs, still remains directly affected by the repercussions of the Marshall decision.

Let's now go to the big question: to what extent will the Gespeg use their Aboriginal rights? It is very important to mention at this point that the Gespeg people are not looking for confrontation with non-Aboriginal fishers, nor are they calling for the withdrawal or elimination of advantages that these fishers have in this area.

What we are seeking, Mr. Chairman, is a way to benefit fully from our rights in harmony with the fishing community, by acting honourably, honestly and compassionately. In short, we are seeking a spirit of co-operation on the part of the people involved instead of a defensive attitude. We strongly believe that it is possible for there to be economic development in our community from the fisheries industry, by adopting an attitude of respect and partnership and, of course, by remaining subject to the regulations regarding the biomass. This point is very important to note, especially since we are very much aware of the state of the resource.

In order to be reassuring, or to attempt to be, we must point out that the Aboriginals are natural resource managers. We are innate and recognized conservationists, as you will see later on.

Before giving the floor to Chief Martin and Chief Metallic, who will provide you with greater clarification, allow me to confirm today that members of the Gespeg community fully intend to exercise their rights that stem from the Marshall decision and that any benefit derived from these rights must first and foremost focus on conserving the resource and the economic viability of the industry.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we are not ruling out the possibility of promoting partnerships and the sharing of knowledge.

Moreover, I would like to point out that since September 17, the vast majority of communities, including Gespeg, have acted in good faith in benefiting from all of the rights to which we are entitled, but never to the detriment of others.

Before giving the floor to Mr. John Martin, I would like to thank you for your attention.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Jalbert.

Mr. Martin.

• 1135

[English]

Chief John Martin (Mi'kmaq of Gesgapegiag): [Witness speaks in his native language].

I would like to express greetings to those people who have come here today. I express appreciation for the words of Chief Jalbert. My respects to Chief Metallic as well as the government representatives who are here today. We appreciate being given the opportunity to come here and express ourselves.

Unfortunately, what I will say to you this morning contains very little in terms of technical knowledge concerning the fisheries, mainly because we have been excluded from this fishery for the past few hundred years. I'll proceed by simply reading from the text that has been prepared.

We welcome you to Gespeg in the territory of Gespegawagig, the seventh district of my country. Before we proceed to address the questions your government wants to have addressed in regard to implementation of the Marshall decision of September 17, 1999, we would like to point out to you certain important facts with regard to the Mi'kmaq people we represent.

First, it is a confirmed fact that there has been an aboriginal presence in this most northern of the Mi'kmaq territories for at least 10,000 years.

Second, according to the putus, a Mi'kmaq record-keeping system, the Mi'kmaq people's governance systems have been in existence for over 3,000 years.

Third, this land we now stand on and the water surrounding it are in the seventh district of our country, Migmagig. At one time, every river and geographic area important to the Mi'kmaq people had Mi'kmaq names; many of our elders still remember these names to this day.

The Mi'kmaq have never given up title of this land and, by that fact, we retain our right to the natural resources, be they on land or on sea. Therefore, our right to these resources is first and foremost an aboriginal right, and the treaty of 1760-61 is but a confirmation of this fact, as is the treaty of 1779.

We, the Mi'kmaq present here today, view the Marshall decision as an opportunity for the people of Canada and their government to correct the injustices committed against our people since the arrival of the lost sailor, Jacques Cartier. He arrived on the very shores that are only minutes from where we stand today.

Let us also remember that it is on these shores as well that the first Mi'kmaq specimen were captured and brought to your forefathers' land across the sea to be put on display. Let us also remember that it was the Mi'kmaq who welcomed with open arms our white brothers, nursed them back to health, and gave them the necessary skills not only to survive but to live and enjoy this beautiful and bountiful land known to my people as Migmagig—Nm'tgi.

For over 300 years the Mi'kmaq have been forced to stand by and watch their land and resources get devoured in a non-compassionate European fashion. We remain powerless, mainly as a direct result of the pestilence and disease which were introduced by the newcomers to this land.

Over the past couple of hundred years, our lands have been taken away, largely by settlers not respecting the dictates of their crown, be they English or French. In exploiting the bountiful resources of these lands, Canadians have built prospering towns and economies. During this time, a number of initiatives were undertaken by the dominant people's government to extinguish the Mi'kmaq people, through legislation and through relegation to the poorest and smallest plots of land. The sizes of our reserves in comparison to your municipalities are a shameful testament to the unjust treatment of the Mi'kmaq people.

Our people suffer from the highest unemployment and poverty rates in the country. We also suffer from the highest rates of suicide, crime, housing shortages, and numerous diseases such as tuberculosis, which is a disease of poverty and is making a big comeback in many first nations communities.

• 1140

Your tax dollars have served to keep the Mi'kmaq people dependent and without resources. According to a 1999 study by the United Nations, your country, Canada, is rated 63rd in the treatment of its aboriginal people.

I believe there are questions you should add to your list, which our non-aboriginal brothers and sisters should ask as well of themselves. Should Canada and its provinces continue their immoral and genocidal treatment of the Mi'kmaq people? Shouldn't Canada consider the debts, suffering and loss of language and land? Considering these things, shouldn't Canada address the issues of access to resources, and sharing and rebuilding the Mi'kmaq nation in an honourable and honest manner, as a minimum?

For the Mi'kmaq people, we hope there still exists some conscience and humanity, and that money and greed have not destroyed these things. We hope Canada will want to treat us in a compassionate, honourable and honest manner, because if it were any other people, not only would you be required to make it so our situation was economically and socially at par with the Canadian people, but the Government of Canada would be asked to also compensate our people for their losses and the pain caused.

The Mi'kmaq people of the seventh district of Gespegewagig can no longer accept that the dominant people and their governments continue to exploit the resources of our ancestral territories, at their exclusion. The Mi'kmaq economy, which was destroyed so long ago, must be rebuilt and brought to the standards of the Canadian economy, in general. This would be a step in taking away the shame brought upon the Canadian people, as a result of their governments' treatment of the Mi'kmaq people, and first nations in general.

With regard to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Marshall, the treaty interpretations are biased and one-sided, with the Supreme Court acting on behalf of the Canadian government.

The Mi'kmaq people of Gesgapegiag, Listuguj, and Gespeg are adamant in their belief that the ruling on Marshall is contrary to the spirit of previous Supreme Court decisions that clearly stated the treaties must be interpreted in the broader sense, and respect the honour of the crown. The Supreme Court ruling has failed to interpret the treaty in modern day standards. It has also failed to reject the colonialist attitudes of dominance and oppression.

We believe that the court ruling on Marshall is not a full interpretation of the treaties, as dictated by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it remains an important historical decision, not only for the manner in which the government and some fishers have conducted themselves or for the level of continuing support for the racist premise of assimilation, under the guise of equality of people, but also because the door is left open for non-aboriginal people and their governments to treat the Mi'kmaq people in a manner that is compassionate, honest and honourable.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Chief Martin, please slow down.

Chief John Martin: Sorry, I'm getting a bit emotional here.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): I will give you enough time.

Chief John Martin: We strongly advocate these principles, as they will allow both the non-aboriginal and Mi'kmaq people to work together in a dignified and fair manner, and allow us, the Mi'kmaq, to begin rebuilding the economies of our communities and to contribute to the strengthening of our respective regions.

Certain statements made this week by individuals representing fishers continue to indicate a defensive mood, rather than a cooperative one. There seems to be a movement to prevent the Mi'kmaq from exercising their rights to access the fisheries resources, consistent with the levels of non-aboriginal people. There is talk of how to prevent confrontations.

We reiterate that we have no desire for confrontation, and we ask the fishers and the Canadian government to do what is right by us. Is it too much that we benefit from our resources in a manner equal to the non-aboriginal people?

We strongly encourage the non-aboriginal fisheries to accept the historical fact of our presence, the fact that the Mi'kmaq are here to stay, and that the Mi'kmaq of the Gaspe coast can no longer accept that the resources of their ancestral land continue to be exploited at our exclusion. We must have access and the same opportunities as any non-aboriginal community.

The Supreme Court, in their rejection of the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition on November 17, 1999, rejected that treaty rights be recognized, only to the extent that such recognition would not occasion disruption, or inconvenience the non-aboriginal people. It is a clear indication that the government must provide equal access to the industry.

We recognize that the federal government has a certain authority to regulate the native fishery. However, it is also confirmed that such regulations cannot be unilateral, and proper consultation must take place with the Mi'kmaq people.

Any such regulation must be justified in accordance with the tests set out first in the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Sparrow and later applied in the court decision on Badger.

• 1145

The Mi'kmaq people have always recognized the need for regulation and control in the exploitation of resources given to us by the Creator. Conservation has always been a part of the Mi'kmaq culture and heritage.

The Mi'kmaq of the Gaspé coast have demonstrated their capacity in recent years to do just that. The Listuguj First Nation government has won awards for its conservation management plan of the fishery resources in its estuary. The Mi'kmaq of Gesgapegiag have co-managed the salmon resource of the Grand Cascapedia River for the past 20 years, and have done so successfully. The Mi'kmaq people have clearly demonstrated their capability to develop their own regulatory systems, respecting conservation.

Dr. Gerard Hare, a fisheries biologist with some 30 years of experience, filed an affidavit demonstrating that concerns over conservation are unfounded. Mr. Hare's evidence was not contested by the coalition.

It has been pointed out on many occasions that the process of accommodation of aboriginal and treaty rights is best resolved by consultation and negotiation. We are prepared to do this, but we are not prepared to hold off for another 200 years for our integration into the exploitation of the fishing industry. I concur with those who spoke before me that it has to start happening now.

We reiterate what has been said by our brothers in the other districts: “It is important for the federal government to recognize that in order for the negotiation process to be effective, it must provide the political and financial support necessary for the development of various processes and policies, as well as support for the implementation”. We need the government's support for the process of dialogue and negotiation with the existing non-aboriginal harvesters.

We wish to point out too that the Mi'kmaq of the Gaspé coast have been treated unfairly, in comparison to the Mi'kmaq in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This region is guilty of unfair practice, and minimal effort and resources have been given over the years for the development of the fisheries industry in our communities. This situation must be corrected.

We also need the federal government's support at the regional level for the development of processes to address evolving resource access requirements, and the development and implementation of Mi'kmaq Nation policies. The present initiatives being undertaken by the Atlantic Policy Congress are an expression of our desire to reach our common objective, which is the peaceful and equitable participation of the Mi'kmaq people in the benefit and exploitation of its natural resources, on both land and sea.

With regard to the Supreme Court's ruling and the questions raised in defining moderate livelihood, the following is our understanding. Keeping in the spirit of previous rulings where it has been repeatedly stated that the treaties are to be interpreted in the broad sense and in favour of aboriginal people, it is logical that the interpretation of moderate livelihood by the Supreme Court would not mean a standard close to the poverty level. It is our belief that moderate livelihood may be interpreted as a standard being enjoyed by the average of those involved in the exploitation of a specific resource. This standard should also fluctuate from levels, areas, or types of exploitation.

Where we are concerned it may be acceptable to establish such standards based on the income and profits of non-aboriginal individuals or companies in the traditional Mi'kmaq territories, a possible average could be established, based on the variance of profit or income from one extremity of the Mi'kmaq territory to the other. It remains unacceptable that moderate livelihood would mean to sustain the Mi'kmaq people at a level just above the poverty line. Such an interpretation would be discriminatory.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you of the history of the Mi'kmaq people and the injustices that have been committed against our people. We appeal to your humanity and ask the fishers, the Canadian people, and their government representatives to negotiate with us in good faith. Return the gesture of good faith shown to your ancestors and the lost sailor, Jacques Cartier.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Chief Martin.

Mr. Metallic, you have the floor.

[English]

Chief Allison Metallic (Listuguj First Nations Government): Chief Martin, Chief Jalbert, honourable members, Mr. Chair, my name is Allison Metallic. I am the elected chief of the Listuguj First Nations Government. With me is my councillor, Troy Jerome.

• 1150

I will make some brief remarks, and then, as we said before, we will be happy to answer questions. It's not as brief as I wanted, but between us we have about an hour and a half. It should take about 15 to 20 minutes to read this text. So I will proceed.

First I will make some opening comments in my own language, and then I will proceed to read the text that's in front of you.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Now some geography and history. I wish to welcome you to the Gespe'gawagi, the last land. This is the seventh district of the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq Nation. The modern village of Listuguj is at the head of the Baie des Chaleurs on the Restigouche River. But the territory is based on watersheds, not political boundaries, so the lands and waters of the Listuguj Mi'kmaq are found to the west of here in what is now Quebec and New Brunswick.

I am pleased that the standing committee has thought it appropriate to hold these hearings in the wake of the Marshall decision.

I am also aware of the long and not always happy history. For 200 years Sagamaws and chiefs and elders of Listuguj have petitioned federal and provincial bodies and officials in protest over unconstitutional and unfair fishing regulations and against the encroachment of white settlers. We have been largely denied access to resources and a fair share of the wealth of our native land.

Our people have been hemmed into small reserves while great wealth has been reaped from the forests, mines, bays, and rivers of our territory. While commercial overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, and sport fishing have threatened the stocks of Atlantic salmon, our people have been limited in their access to this most traditional of our fisheries.

We have been turned into criminals for fishing and sometimes selling a few salmon. My own father, Alphonse Metallic, was the chief in 1981 when Quebec police invaded our reserve with helicopters and automatic weapons in an effort to prevent our people from exercising their right to fish. In the summer of 1998 a dispute over access to forest resources led to a lengthy confrontation, which ended with some grudging ad hoc acknowledgement by Quebec that our community and aboriginal entrepreneurs must have access to resources.

Of course, in common with our aboriginal brothers and sisters elsewhere, we have unacceptably high rates of unemployment, welfare dependency, suicide, drug abuse, and compromised health.

So while I am pleased to see the interest you are now taking in our affairs, you should also know that Canada and Quebec, as representatives of the crown with solemn constitutional, treaty, and fiduciary duties toward my people, should not have waited to be told by the Supreme Court that we have rights that must be respected. Now you must act quickly and without fail to give full effect to your obligations and ensure a fair sharing of the resources of this great land. My people offer you our collaboration in this regard.

• 1155

We do not live in the past. In fact, my people are moderate and energetic. But we cannot allow this history of the crown-Mi'kmaq relationship to be forgotten, because that history carries with it the recognition of our rights. It is the basis for the modern flourishing of the Mi'kmaq people with the right to resources and to make a living as do other Canadians.

Unextinguished aboriginal title to lands, waters, and resources is my next topic. It means we have unextinguished aboriginal title to the lands, waters, and resources of our territory. Under the 1997 Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court, this means our collective right to occupy and possess our lands and waters. We may use them for a variety of traditional and modern purposes to meet present-day needs according to the self-government decision-making processes of our nation.

Our rights include not only hunting and fishing but also forest resources, minerals, and oil and gas. These rights are constitutionally recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. They can only be limited by infringements that meet strict tests of justification set down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Concretely, this means accommodation of our participation in development wherever it occurs in our territory. This requires, depending on the circumstances, consultation, consent, and compensation before the federal and provincial governments engage in regulation and allocation of resources for development. Both the process and the economic result must be just and fair.

The story does not begin or end with the Marshall decision or certain treaty rights. The lesson of the aftermath of the Marshall decision is that the federal government and the provinces should not and cannot wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on a specific case before setting about to give full effect to our constitutionally protected rights.

Litigation has often been the only option for aboriginal peoples deprived of their lands, but the Supreme Court of Canada and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have clearly stated that negotiation, accommodation, and agreement are required in order to achieve just, comprehensive, and lasting solutions.

Treaty rights and beyond. With regard to the specifics of our treaty rights, our unextinguished aboriginal right to fish and to trade in fish is recognized, affirmed, and given independent superadded protection in a chain of treaties, which go back to 1725. Our treaty chain includes the 1760 and 1761 treaties at issue in Marshall. Our link to those treaties is made specific in the treaty of 1779, a copy of which has been supplied to you. It renews, ratifies, and confirms all former treaties; promises that we may remain on our lands, quiet and free in our hunting and fishing; and recognizes our right to engage in trading.

In this context we do not accept that the economic rights extend only to fishing and are limited only to a moderate livelihood, especially if that means perpetuating poverty and underdevelopment.

• 1200

So we say to you, to use a hockey analogy, don't trail the play. Make sure, starting now, that you don't only try to do what the Supreme Court says you should have already been doing yesterday. Instead, take a positive lead and cooperate with us and giving full effect to our rights.

Unfortunately, recent history and even events of recent weeks do not give us much hope that Canada and Quebec will, with enthusiasm and honour, take positive steps to ensure the recognition of our rights and a new overall sharing of the wealth.

I have already mentioned the events of 1981 in Listuguj. Since that time, dozens of our people have fought off salmon fishing charges laid by Quebec under the federal Fisheries Act without proper regard for our rights and the requirements of Sparrow.

Quebec has a history of denying our rights. It took years of litigation and hundreds of thousands of dollars until two Supreme Court cases demonstrated to Quebec that section 35 of the Constitution and Sparrow apply in Quebec. I refer to the 1996 cases of Adams and Coté. Now, while offering sector-by-sector economic agreements with first nations, Quebec denies—despite Delgamuukw—that we have aboriginal title or simply pleads that it has been extinguished. Just last week some of our forest workers were charged by Quebec with cutting wood on lands in which we have unextinguished title, and they face very heavy fines or even the prospect of years of litigation. This is not an approach with a future.

DFO and the Department of Indian Affairs have been equally unhelpful. Despite our common treaty rights with the rest of the Mi'kmaq Nation in Atlantic Canada, our leadership was not included in the urgent consultations that took place with the federal officials after Marshall. Instead, our fishermen have had their lobster traps seized by DFO off Miguasha and have been told that the treaty rights recognized in Marshall do not apply to them.

We will not be third-class citizens just because the crown has chosen, for administrative purposes, to divide our territory by the Quebec and New Brunswick provincial borders.

I believe I have provided you with an outline of a broad, purposive, and good-faith approach that requires us to move forward together. The view cannot be limited to Marshall and lobster pots. We insist on the need to ensure broad economic opportunities and a choice for our people. So we are not just limiting things to fishing. We're into economic opportunities, as I mentioned before—oil and gas, which is a topic I want to explore further after I finish my presentation.

With respect to the specific management of fishing, in the mid-1990s our people took over control of our salmon fishery. Through a community fishing plan we provided for biological research, a force of conservation officers, and self-regulated aboriginal harvesting. Despite the initial tremendous resistance from DFO and Quebec officials, we eventually gained their financial assistance and grudging recognition of our de facto presence and control. We have worked in cooperation with sports fishing and outfitting interests up-river, and the result has been buy-in by our people into a system of self-regulation and an era of relative peace and harmony on the Restigouche River.

In conclusion, I have to say that full recognition of our rights to lands, waters, and resources and to self-government, together with negotiation—not ham-fisted regulation—are the way forward.

Thank you very much for your attention. Wela'lioq.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you very much, Chief Metallic.

Before giving the floor to my colleague Mr. Stoffer, I would like to thank you and at the same time tell you that...

• 1205

[English]

Since you made the effort to speak English for us today, maybe I can speak English for you. When you spoke in Mi'kmaq, I was very amazed. I tried to put myself into the body of Jacques Cartier when he put his feet on the Gaspé coast for the first time. I believe that was a great moment, as it was for me, today, hearing Mi'kmaq spoken for the first time. I thank you for letting me hear that new language.

[Translation]

Peter has left the room.

Mr. Wayne Easter, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Yvan.

I don't know where to start.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I guess where we go from here is a hard topic to get into without being considered somewhat racist. I mean, there's no question in terms of what you say—the discrimination, the cost of suffering among your people. That in effect is true.

With regard to the Supreme Court, one of the problems in trying to right the wrongs of the past—and I say this in all honesty—is that you create another wrong today. So how do you make the two come together? This is where we're at. I think you're suggesting negotiation.

When you get into the specifics of the Supreme Court decision itself, they make it very clear in their clarification that the regulatory authority extends to other compelling and substantial public objectives and recognition of the historic reliance upon and participation in the fishery by non-aboriginal groups. So on the one hand the Supreme Court is saying, yes, the right to fish is recognized. But further in the judgment the Supreme Court is saying, well, non-original groups have rights too.

The problem for us, then, is how do you bring the two together in a way that will indeed work? I've had commercial fishermen say to me, look, I'm seventh- or eighth-generation on the water—and that's certainly not the number of generations your people have had—and I've lost a grandfather on the water. Fishing hasn't always been a bed of roses in any of the fishing industries.

There are three of you here, all representing your different areas. How do you see bringing it together in a way that it will work?

Chief John Martin: First and foremost, I think there has to be a recognition and a commitment on the part of the Government of Canada and the elected people who represent the Canadian people in general. People have to accept the fact that the current situation is unjust. People have to recognize what condition our communities are in.

We believe the initiative definitely has to come on the part of the government. If we're looking at the lobster fishery in Chaleur Bay, it's not a rich lobster fishery. As I explained to one of my constituents, I realize that this is a poor fishery. We have an initiative going in our community in particular. I told him he had to understand that anybody who has been fishing this area for one generation or two generations or three generations is not going to look at you as an aboriginal person trying to exercise their rights. They are going to look at you as a competitor who is coming in and basically taking away his bread and butter.

• 1210

The government has the responsibility to prevent those kinds of situations from happening. The government has to put in place processes where we can sit down, face to face, to look at the issues of conservation and sharing.

The matter of sharing has to be first and foremost on the agenda, I believe, in terms of an equitable share for our people. It's just like the decision in Sparrow, where it says, sure, native people can fish, but it's not acceptable that they be prevented from exercising their rights just because it bothers some non-aboriginal person who fishes. That's unacceptable.

So the court has given a directive already in terms of how it should be approached and what needs to happen there. To me, it's a matter of political will to be able to move that forward.

Chief Allison Metallic: I'd like to add a bit to what John Martin said.

There's no denying it; first nations people have been left out of the fisheries. We've been left out of industry. We've been left out, relying only on the handouts from the federal government.

For our people, for our young people, we have to start getting into more opportunities. We're not limited to opportunities in fisheries. We have representation out here from concerned fishermen. I don't blame them. I don't blame them one bit. The point I'm trying to get at is that we have a right to at least have the opportunity to harvest as well. There is room for all of us, I agree, but we don't want to limit our expectations to fisheries alone.

Mr. Stoffer mentioned the fact that there is oil and natural gas. There'll be drilling on Anticosti Island. Opportunities are going to arise in that sector. We want to play a part in that as well.

The main question right here is economic prosperity for our people to have the same opportunities as non-natives. We will achieve that through cooperation and negotiations.

By addressing the standing committee this morning, we have an opportunity to at least make you aware of the drastic situations in our communities, where our resources, even in forestry, are limited. Our resources in any other sector are limited.

In our community alone, Listuguj, I have the responsibility, as chief of my people, to start creating an economy so we that can benefit Canadian society and not be just a hindrance. We're open to a lot more than just fisheries. That's what we're saying. We're open to economic opportunity.

• 1215

I'm from a community that has a population of 2,200. There is no major industry. We don't even have a bank. All we have is grocery stores. That has to change. We're going to hook into every possible business opportunity, maybe through joint ventures with natives and non-natives. That's happening out west in the fields of construction, mining, and natural gas.

So I don't want to limit our expectations to only fisheries. I want to be able to grasp opportunities. And we will. We will make those attempts. Our people now are getting smarter through the education system. We have university graduates we have to attract back home. They are working in Ottawa, in Quebec, and all over the country. We need these young people to come back to our communities so that we can build our communities, but first we have to build the foundation. As of now, we can't offer them anything.

Mr. Wayne Easter: On the same subject, Chief Martin, you mentioned in your presentation that your people have clearly demonstrated their capability to develop their own regulatory systems respecting conservation. Do you want to explain that to us a little bit? We are looking at different management systems in the course of these hearings.

Secondly, there's the aboriginal fishing strategy. I do believe you have concerns in this area, and I'd like to see you table them. Whether it's been done right or not, I don't know, but the intent of the aboriginal fishing strategy, starting in 1992, was to open up opportunities for the aboriginal community in the fisheries.

Is it meeting your needs, and if it's not, why not?

Chief John Martin: On the issue of conservation, we signed an agreement in, I believe, the early 1980s, which is close to 20 years ago now. We created a partnership with the non-aboriginal community next to ours and we've worked basically at maintaining salmon stocks on the Grande-Cascapédia River. We've exploited it through sport fishing. We've also been able to sustain our subsistence fishery at the estuary.

Obviously, where the river is concerned, the salmon stocks have maintained themselves. In the past two years they've been quite stable. However, we just hosted a major salmon conference. As a result of a coalition formed with the non-aboriginal people who were also concerned around our area, we were successful in causing the forestry companies to halt their operations and to redefine and take a look at how they are conducting their operations in close proximity to rivers.

A branch of the Grande-Cascapédia was killed as a result of logging. When I say “killed”, I mean the salmon beds were destroyed because of the spring breaks. Every time it rained, ground and whatnot was flowing into the branch. It was no longer possible for salmon to spawn.

So not only have we demonstrated a capability to develop conservation policies and set things up so that it's possible for people to continue to fish but we've also been involved in terms of trying to take on the forest industry and correct their practices in terms of their consideration for the overall environment and the river systems on which they work.

• 1220

With regard to the second question, in terms of the aboriginal fishing strategy, I already made my point two years ago to I believe it was Mr. Gilbert Normand, in Lake Delage when they made a presentation on the aboriginal fishing strategy. Up to that point, the bands here on the Gaspé coast in the province of Quebec were not aware for the most part that an aboriginal fishing strategy existed. So there was very little promotion or marketing in terms of this strategy. We kept finding out that licences were being bought. The communities in New Brunswick were being assisted to get involved in the fishing industry, and a number of communities were actually out there alongside non-native fishermen, fishing and making a living at it, therefore making a contribution to the development of their economy.

That did not happen in the Quebec region. It's a fight right now. Sure we have a little training program to train people in the lobster fishery, but as you've heard, it is one of the poorest industries among the fishers in fishing industry. Therefore, again I feel that in terms of marketing, in terms of promotion, in terms of information and letting us know where the opportunities lie, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans certainly has not done a very good job of it.

It's impossible for our communities due to the economic situation of the communities. Basically, there is no economy. For the most part, we're entirely dependent on government handouts for assistance. So it's hard for our people to gather any kind of capital.

One, there's no economy, and two, as native people residing on the reserve, we're not solvent at the banks. There are a number of hurdles and difficulties in terms of acquiring the financial capital you need to get going.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thanks.

Chief John Martin: I would like to continue on that.

It doesn't make sense to us, with no economy at all, to go into debt hundreds and thousands of dollars with no means of repayment. Definitely in the Quebec region, something has to happen to make it possible for our people to get involved in the fishing industry—not just in lobster, because I guess lobster is simply a difficult choice right now, but in other areas of the fishing industry.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Peter, do you have a question?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have several questions.

First of all, I want to thank all three of you for your presentations, and especially addressing us in your mother language. It's always good to hear.

We have a woman on our committee whose name is Nancy Karetak-Lindell, from Nunavut. She represents that area. She's an Inuit person. Once in a while she speaks to us in Inuktitut. Unfortunately, she couldn't be here because she's part of the Nisga'a committee as well on aboriginal affairs; otherwise she would have been here. I'm sure she would have sent along her congratulations as well to you in your efforts to achieve equality in terms of access to economics and the resources.

The question I ask now is, when you talk about your people and about your children and everyone else.... You probably know I've been asking this question ad nauseam, and this is probably the last time I'm going to get to ask this in committee. I've asked a lot of aboriginal chiefs, representatives of their reserves and their bands in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and now I'm going to ask you. Do you think this Marshall decision applies to off-reserve non-status aboriginal people?

Chief John Martin: I'm an Indian no matter where I am. It is only in recent years that the Government of Canada has begun movement in terms of restricting its fiduciary responsibility towards our people.

The issue of fiduciary responsibility is something that is often discussed at the table with the government. We believe our people have a right, regardless of where they are, and they should be allowed to access that right. However, I think it is the community itself that is in a difficult economic situation. I think the focus in terms of building an economy has to be with the community.

• 1225

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you know, Mr. Bernd Christmas, who was his lawyer as well as a Mi'kmaq individual, said quite clearly that in his legal opinion, the decision applies only to status aboriginal people. Is that what you're saying as well? I know it's difficult to answer, but I'd like a clearer answer, if you don't mind.

Chief John Martin: On the issue of status, I'll answer you this way. Yes, the government has put regulations in place defining who is an Indian and who is not an Indian. It is not the right of Canada to do that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Do you have another question, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I have several.

Mr. Metallic, you had mentioned oil and gas. Here's where I have a bit of difficulty in that regard. We are the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and one of the things I'm extremely concerned about is conservation of the natural resource—that is, lobster, shrimp, cod, whatever we talked about. As you may know—you mentioned Anticosti—the provinces in Canada entered into an agreement with companies for seismic oil and gas drilling off what is known as the Cabot block, just off Chéticamp, a mile and a half off the coast line, right in the heart of lobster spawning grounds. That could have a very detrimental effect on the spawning grounds and on the resource itself, because the only way anyone is going to access the resource is if the resource is there in the first place.

You said you would like to have access or at least look at the opportunities of all—logging, oil and gas, fishing, not just one resource. My problem is, is it possible that you may decide as a representative of your people that oil and gas may be the better economic one to grab, and not necessarily fishing?

If oil and gas comes in and they do the seismic drilling, it could—I'm not saying it will—destroy the resource. So instead of talking about fishing, you'd be just talking about that. Oil and gas may appear to be more lucrative in the beginning as compared to fishing. So if that's the situation, how would you, representing your people, decide which one to go for or which one to have access to?

Chief Allison Metallic: First of all, if I had the choice of bringing in employment for my people.... You know we run an unemployment rate as high at 80% in the wintertime. It's not fair for you to ask me a question like that, since I would grab any kind of opportunity I could get for my people now. I never had the same choices 15 or 20 years ago when the fishing was at its highest, and you've seen the result for the cod: it disappeared.

At our level, at the reserve level, it is a totally different situation. When you have a community of 5,200 people, and half the time you can provide work for only half the community while you have nothing for the other half, that is why you keep hearing stories of division amongst our people. The division comes from not enough opportunity for our people. So if I have opportunity....

Mind you, native people are conservationists, and we've always been conservationists. As a matter of fact, we've won awards in conservation. We took the Restigouche River; it's a major salmon river, and we've been fighting on that river since 1981. As I said, my father was the chief at that time, and since then, in 1992, we developed our own conservation fishing plan where the native people themselves developed it, patrolled it, and played an integral part in salmon conservation, which in turn was not recognized by Quebec at that time. We lost funding of $450,000 annually. That's a loss of $900,000 in two years that we've incurred. And when you take $900,000 away from my community, it leaves detrimental effects, and it leaves a lot of people without jobs. But the reward from that is that we've proven that we have rights and that we can play an integral part in conservation.

• 1230

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I'll ask my last question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Make it a short one, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Martin, you, Mr. Metallic, and Mr. Jalbert talked about the plans you have for conservation, the integrated plans you have when it comes to the fish resource. We also heard earlier from the crab fishermen and their organization that they too have plans in place. Can you see, with open dialogue and everybody at the table, a possible integration of those two plans, in terms of conservation?

Chief John Martin: I think it has to happen. There are no two ways about it. It's unacceptable that we continue to be excluded. Now, there are always questions of profitability, which again is the money issue, and there are the questions of conservation. I think the gentleman who spoke before expressed these concerns, but I think he also expressed that there is a way to do this.

I think if, in all honesty, these people are willing to look at it and accept from the start that, yes, the Mi'kmaq people are going to come into this industry, and it is only right that we have a share in the resource that's out there, then with the support of the Canadian government we should be able to move forward on that issue. But to try to prevent Mi'kmaq people from gaining access to the industry just because some people are inconvenienced or it may affect profit to some degree I think is simply wrong.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Peter.

Chief Allison Metallic: Can I just add another comment to that, as well?

Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting part, and I'd like to expand on that. We need the financial resources at the community level as well, to develop training programs and conservation plans. This is crucial too. I think the Government of Canada can play a major role and come a long way, because most of the communities in Atlantic Canada and the Gaspesian coast don't have the financial resources to develop conservation plans.

I just want to add another thing. Of course we're willing to sit down with anyone to discuss what role our community will play in the fishing resources. We welcome that, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Let me just throw this at you, sir. You have non-native groups here who say okay, for this particular area, say the Baie des Chaleurs, we want to protect that for fishing resources. And let's say your organization, in terms of the table, says no, we would like to allow seismic oil and gas drilling in the Baie des Chaleurs to see if there's oil and gas so we can access that resource. How can you see yourselves coming to an agreement on that?

Chief Allison Metallic: I don't think if there's any opportunity for us to participate in—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no, you will be participating.

Chief Allison Metallic: We've been told that before, with all due respect.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I know.

Chief Allison Metallic: With all due respect, we've been told that so much.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There's no question, but hopefully we can move forward.

I could see this being a problem, where, like Mr. Martin said, everyone's at the table in open dialogue to discuss the resources. One group says to protect the Baie des Chaleurs from oil and gas, and another group says we should allow oil and gas in there. How would you resolve something like that, hypothetically?

• 1235

I could see that happening. It's happening now in the Cabot block between fishing groups and groups who want to have oil and gas. There's a great big tug-of-war, and the province is in the middle. I can see that happening off Anticosti, and in this area as well. How would you resolve that?

Chief Allison Metallic: How about the research that's going on, and the drilling in the mountains behind our territories? Why haven't we been notified of that as well?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You should have been.

Chief Allison Metallic: And we haven't.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We're the fish guys.

Chief Allison Metallic: I know.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I didn't mean to slough that off, but you're right, you should be.

Chief Allison Metallic: I'm just throwing it back at you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. You should have access to that information and you should be at the table.

Chief Allison Metallic: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But when you're at the table.... I see that's going to happen. We've had almost sixty presentations to us in five days, and not one person has said that aboriginal people should not be at the table. Everyone has told us, especially non-native groups, that they welcome aboriginal participation in the discussions. They've all said that. So it is going to happen. When you're there, and this problem comes up, how will you resolve it?

Go ahead please, sir.

Chief Richard Jalbert: Just to take your words that you are the fish guys, what I've received from you is that you're trying to fish for a choice between one industry and another on our part.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sometimes one affects the other.

Chief Richard Jalbert: And I'll agree with you on that, but the thing is our communities, our people, are similar to non-native people who are trying to work.

In Gespeg here, we have fishermen. The stocks, the resources, are critical. There are fishers who value it, are keeping on with it, and want to fish; and there are some who say they're looking for another industry, selling this and going into the trucking industry or whatever.

It is very hard to go around and make a choice for personal values in each individual. Everything should be analysed and looked at. The thing is, we're not moving a possibility of one industry over another one, or making a choice.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Chief Richard Jalbert: We are open-minded. We're getting educated, and we're more and more aware of every economic possibility. This is why we stand here today. It is the first time that we are trying to negotiate and open up dialogue among government, non-natives, and each individual in every industry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Merci.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Merci.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I call it a privilege indeed to be here to listen to this dialogue this morning. I think this has been a very worthwhile exercise. I would like to continue to dialogue well beyond the noon hour, but I can't do that.

We are the fishing committee. My honourable colleague has just reminded us of that. And we're here to find out your views in terms of where we should go with this issue. On the issue of some people who are going to divest themselves of some of their fishing, those who want to get out of the fishing and make that allowable quota, whatever it is, available—if indeed there is a buyout—would that buyout then, in turn given to the native people, become the sole property of the native band, or would it become the property of a native chief and his family? How would that be distributed?

Some of the laity of the native communities have said it may end up in the hands of a few people, so the general good is not going to be there at all—it will be simply in the hands of a few people. I want your comments on that. I know it can be very personal, but I don't intend it that way. We need to know that. How should the government distribute that wealth, if that's what you call it?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Who wants to begin? Mr. Metallic.

Chief Allison Metallic: I'm glad you mentioned that point, honourable member, because—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He's a good man.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I defer.

Chief Allison Metallic: That's very interesting, because there's no doubt it's true. It happens in first nations because of the legislation that's in place called the Indian Act that governs us and states exactly, clearly, what the roles and responsibilities of the politicians are at the local level.

• 1240

The abuse that comes from some leaders is a major concern. I will acknowledge that. I will agree. It's something that a representative of a community, like me, who has no self-interest in fishing or in any other projects I may bring into my community....

We have just finished an election. I was just elected no more than a week ago. So you can imagine the hectic schedule I've had trying to gain administrative control and also to get ready for this presentation, because I felt it was very important that the standing committee have an opportunity to get to know my community.

We just experienced the same thing in our community, which I'm not afraid to say. Some community members gained financially from projects by the provincial government and by the federal government. This practice has to stop. It is a major concern. It is a very major concern to me. It's something I know has to be addressed, and it will be addressed.

I've been saying right from the start that my people are the ones who elected me. These are the people who will show at the end if they want me to serve another term or not.

It's something that I blame on the vague regulations of the Indian Act, a piece of legislation that was enacted in 1952. It's time that modifications and strict guidelines were implemented in the conflict of interest rules, since any band can pass an order in council and eliminate the conflict of interest rule, thus allowing themselves to benefit directly from projects and programs that are brought to the community level by the leader.

Our previous chief did that. I'm not ashamed to say that, because this is something that's going to stop in our community. In Listuguj it's something that will stop. I'm only speaking for my community. I'm not speaking for any other communities, because I'm not going to put my nose where it doesn't belong. These are just my personal feelings on that question.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I appreciate that.

Mr. Troy Jerome (Councillor, Listuguj First Nations Government): I'd like to make a couple of comments to that question.

In our community, I'm a councillor. Our government is put there to do many things, among them to look for employment for our people. I see a number of boats. We've developed a wharf along the waters in our community, with boats there owned by individuals, going out into the rivers and into the bay and accessing the resources. These are individuals creating businesses for themselves. They're also going into forestry and other sectors.

If we can limit our involvement to only one sector and broaden it through all the sectors, we will displace a lot fewer people. If we had more of our people in the industry, we wouldn't be using all of our energy to look for employment for our people.

We were elected to develop a multi-year plan to talk about projects that should be taking place in five years and things that are going to be happening in ten years. But unfortunately many times we don't get there, because people are coming to see us saying “We need a job.” A lot of our efforts are put toward that.

• 1245

I think if we can be fully integrated into the resources, into the fisheries as well as forestry, mining, and other sectors, we will be able to develop constitutions within our communities, thereby protecting our community from some leaders who may take it upon themselves to help themselves. But I think one thing is important here: that we need access into these resources. And we're here to tell you today that fishing is only one part of what we see. We believe we have a right to title to the Gaspé. We will be making efforts to look at that in the future and into negotiations over the time.

To answer your question specifically, both. I think the band council in some big ventures should be the ones that are pushing forward and that will be the owners of certain companies. And the small individual people should also have the opportunity to create small businesses to go out into different sectors—forestry, fishing, and other things.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you.

Chief Martin.

Chief John Martin: I want to address the issue of the right.

Our rights in different areas, either aboriginal or confirmed, are collective. It remains up to chief and council of the community to manage that right and to share the resources among the community members. If a chief and council of a community decide they have sufficient resource to allow individual members or to permit the individual members to go out and develop private business, then I think that is something that is entirely possible and up to the council to decide.

Everybody knows the economy of any community, any region, any province, any country is run by the private sector; the motor of that economy is in fact the private sector. So we definitely have to take the collective right, our collective access to resources, and make it possible for the private sector in our community to evolve as well and to develop a motor for that economy in our community and thereby also for the entire region.

So it is a collective right, but it is definitely under the management of the elected leaders of the community, which does not prevent people on their own getting into different business ventures. In fact it should be encouraged.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Basically what I was looking for was direction. When we do this, when we make these changes, when there is this divestiture of property from one group to another, how can government ensure that everyone benefits by that resource and not just a few individuals? That is the core of my question.

I don't want to prolong this, but I think for the record we need to have, before this committee, on the record, your comments. I think you have answered the question. I'm not sure I feel quite as comfortable with your comments, and you have broadened the debate, so I'm not sure whether you can quickly say how one should mandate that it becomes the property of and the good for all, yes or no. I guess that would be my question to you.

Chief Richard Jalbert: Well, I will give you my answer to your question. In regard to what Mr. Metallic said, it is right what he said. It is particular to his community; he's answering for his community. To be explicit, aboriginal government is a government within. We each have our own management rules. It's not a common management thing.

If I talk for Gespeg, for us, we are getting educated looking at regular management rules. We're looking at collective management situations, encouragement of private sector, and we are encouraging transparent rules that would go from one government to the next to the next elected government, which they can't change.

• 1250

This thing, these rules, these guidelines, should be—and again I'm talking for Gespeg—based on transparency and on every opportunity for every individual in the collective management situation.

Chief John Martin: I believe that at this time there is a technical committee established with the aboriginal Atlantic Policy Congress, which is looking at that question in particular. There was a resolution forwarded by the Mi'kmaq chiefs clearly stating that the right in terms of fisheries is in fact a collective right, but that it is within the right of each individual first nation to manage that right accordingly and appropriately.

I think all of this requires a constitution—similar to what Troy was saying. Obviously a larger framework has to be developed by first nations for a individual first nations community to be able to manage that right and exercise their right appropriately. Further, it goes without saying that such a framework cannot be developed in a vacuum. It has to be developed in a manner where it will, I guess, be able to interface with the present policies in place.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): You will have to make it short, because your time is nearly finished.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm fine.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): That's fine...? Are you finished?

Does no one have anything else to add?

Okay. The pêcheurs have to go and the others have an airplane to catch too.

Goodbye, Lawrence.

Peter, if you want to add something, but short—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll do it privately.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Okay.

Do you have other things to raise?

Chief John Martin: Yes. In particular, we're all concerned by the situation in the region, by the fact that the region here certainly is far behind in terms of developing the aboriginal fisheries in our community. That's the major concern, a point you have to take back. Some action definitely has to happen there—the sooner, the better.

I think that's one of the concerns we have in regard to this standing committee. What is the purpose of this standing committee? How soon will we be getting some feedback? I understand that you have a deadline of April 1. Between now and then, what is the process? We've received no documentation in terms of letting us know what the process is that's going to happen after the standing committee. There are some concerns there. We don't want to end up going out there on April 1 and having to experience a confrontation.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Wayne, do you want to answer for the government side?

Mr. Wayne Easter: The process for the committee, Chief Martin, is that we will report as a committee to the House of Commons prior to the Christmas break.

We come together pretty well. This committee seems to be, to a great extent, non-partisan, so we seem to be able to work together fairly well, in a non-partisan way.

We'll make recommendations to the government as a whole, to the House of Commons, to which the minister then has to respond. He may or may not agree with our recommendations. The government then will move accordingly, taking into consideration those recommendations.

We certainly have made note—and I expect the researcher has as well—of some of the points you have raised, like an aboriginal fishing strategy. We will carry those up the line and see why you haven't been more involved.

I have one question for you, which relates to the MacKenzie-Thériault process. Have you been involved to any extent in that process or are you aware of it?

Chief John Martin: I'm not too familiar with the process. We have not been involved with it. I have two major concerns. One, I did write to Minister Dhaliwal following a visit from representatives from the Quebec region telling us that the Mi'kmaq bands of Gesgapegiag and Gespeg in particular may be excluded from the Marshall decision.

I'm a bit concerned by that statement. In fact, the Minister of Justice is looking at this. As we've seen this morning, councillor Troy Jerome has passed on to you a copy of the treaty of 1779, which ties together the 1760-61 treaties. It clearly states that this treaty extends to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs. It's very explicit. It's there in black and white. We have some serious concerns about that, and we would like that issue put to rest as soon as possible.

• 1255

I would also like to receive some kind of response from the minister. I believe it was October 15 when they came to see me. By October 16 the letter was out to his office. I have had no response.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll check into that as well.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Jalbert.

[English]

Chief Richard Jalbert: Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me just a brief comment, it's in regard to Mr. Easter's first question. It is not an answer; it is a remark.

We know that a wrong was created, and we are aware that correcting that wrong can create another wrong, but that doesn't take away the responsibility to correct the first wrong. Now, the fact that we are here is a sign that we want to work together to minimize the creation—or even if we need to correct—of a second wrong.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Merci.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Chief.

Chief Alison Metallic: A final comment I'd like to make is that as native people we're here and the rules are there, and we must be included in this process.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thanks a lot.

[Translation]

We have one final witness to hear from, Mr. René Landry, who had asked to take the floor following some comments made by our witnesses this morning.

Since we have very little time, Mr. Landry, I invite you to make a short presentation so that members will have an opportunity to ask you some questions.

Mr. René Landry (President, Mouvement des pêcheurs de crabe, Zone 17): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

I am not a great speaker, but I would like to give you a brief overview of the crab fishery in zone 17. This morning, you heard some of the claims and proposals by the Viger Maliseet.

The crab fishery in zone 17 started in 1969. I am a deck hand and have been in the crab fishery for 30 years. I represent 22 fishers in zone 17. In the 1970s, the crab fishery was complementary. Crab was not very well known and the fishery did not become more lucrative until the 1980s.

In 1981, DFO stopped issuing licences. From 1969 to 1981, everyone had access to crab licences, including one Aboriginal who is a member of our association and owns a licence. In 1986, the 22 fishers had almost exhausted their resource and had put it in danger. That is when rules were set and catches reduced by 50%. In 1992, individual quotas were put in place in zone 17 and the season was only opened three months a year.

In 1996, the Minister of Fisheries invited us to negotiate co-management. We were among the first fishers invited, right after fishers from zone 12 who signed a co-management agreement that covered their salaries and stipulated that once they earned $500,000 or more, they had to start sharing the resource.

We preferred going a different route and established a two-year quota of 1,600 tons. It is important to get the figures straight. In these types of negotiations, it is important to ensure that crab fishermen's incomes will be high enough to cover their expenses. We based our calculations on data from 1992 to 1995 on the price of crab and tonnage, and we attempted to determine how many tons and how much money crab fishermen required to make ends meet.

• 1300

We had invited the Maliseet nation from Viger to participate in negotiating the co-management agreement in 1996. So they were aware of the steps taken. Two other bands, one in Les Escoumins and the other in Betsiamites, were also invited, but unfortunately they declined to participate. We find it very strange that the Maliseet are asking for licences in 1999.

The co-management agreement stipulated that when our catches reached 1,600 tons, 40% would go to non-crab fishers and Aboriginals. Since we exceeded the 1,600-ton threshold this year, 70 tons were redistributed in the following way: 40 tons went to the non-crab fishers and 30 tons to the Aboriginal bands, in other words, 10 tons to each band. I am surprised that the Viger Maliseet are seeking involvement, when they do not even know whether or not they are recognized under the Marshall decision.

As a witness pointed out earlier, the Indians affirmed that the government has sidelined them for 200 years. I do not think that is true. Didn't we invite them to negotiate a co-management agreement and haven't we decided to share our catches with them even if they made no such requests?

Snow-crab fishers have made a lot of progress. Our crab licences are currently very costly. Crab fishers are the ones who are financing co-management enforcement, dockside weighing, travel by officials and research. If you add up all of the expenses borne by the crab fishers, you can see that they have to spend roughly $200,000 before they catch a single crab.

Although the Aboriginals are entitled to make claims, I think it would be wrong to add one or two additional crab licences when we know full well that in 1986, the 22 crab fishers jeopardized the resource. We must ask ourselves some questions. We continue research and follow up year after year. When there is a surplus, we share the resource. Part of the 1,600-ton quota must be set aside to ensure these fishers survive.

A crab fisher in the southern zone is prepared to sell his licence. I don't see a problem with an Aboriginal buying it and getting into the commercial fishery. That seems to be the only solution, unless the Minister decides to put an end to the co-management agreement that we signed in good faith and that took two years to negotiate. That more or less sums up my comments.

I might also add that your committee should familiarize itself with these agreements before making recommendations to the government. To my mind, these agreements are absolutely essential.

You asked Mr. Cloutier what DFO represented for fishers and what agreements they had reached with him. I can tell you that to date we have been very well served by the department and that we have always been able to reach agreement, even though on some occasions I have had to put my neck on the line in order to reach a compromise. We had to get fishers to understand that we are not alone on this planet, and we were successful in signing an agreement that I am very proud of and that I would like to keep intact as long as possible.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Thank you, Mr. Landry. I don't know if any of the members have a question.

[English]

A very short one.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Landry, thank you for these explanations.

[English]

Can your co-management plan you've developed work in conjunction with the aboriginal conservation plan they have? Can you conceivably bring those two plans together and present a joint co-management plan to the DFO for the future negotiations?

• 1305

We heard your co-management plan with DFO. We've heard the aboriginal community state that they have a management plan for conservation. Can you conceivably bring the two of them together under careful, open dialogue and present that to DFO as a management plan for the future? I know it's a tough question, and I'm sorry to ask that, but it's something that—

[Translation]

Mr. René Landry: It goes without saying that we believe that this is a good management plan because area 12 is different in that it contains four provinces. In the southern zone, we are lucky because that's the only crab area in Quebec where there is a co-management agreement that has been negotiated.

We probably wouldn't say that all of the other areas should follow our model. The department consulted with us and we shared our perspective after the first decision, the Sparrow decision, which we even bettered somewhat. We could virtually see the Marshall ruling coming. In a sharing system, the better the resources, the more the quota levels increase. Our studies indicate that our catches should be very good next year, which means that the share of the Viger Maliseets will increase. As you have been able to notice, you must always protect the resource and ensure that it doesn't decrease. The department has insisted on this a great deal and I congratulate them for that. I could answer that this still depends on how the other associations see the management plan.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Mr. Landry, we have taken note of the elements that you have brought up. When we discuss the Maliseets' perspective, we will make sure we consider these two perspectives that have been explained. Thank you.

Before ending this meeting this morning, I would like to thank the witnesses who came to meet with us and to congratulate the interpreters who facilitated communication in both official languages, in addition to all the staff who supported our work. I know that some people worked or travelled all night long in order to provide us with what we need.

Before ending the meeting, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Easter, the real chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I acted as chair today in order to facilitate the communication in both official languages.

Wayne, you have the floor.

[English]

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank MP Bernier for his and his staff's efforts in having the hearings here. There's always a lot of organization in the local area that you get into.

This is the sixth and last day of hearings that we've held in Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé region. I know Mr. Bernier thanked the staff generally, but I would like to place their names into the record, because without the staff these hearings certainly wouldn't be possible.

I would like to thank Alan Nixon, researcher; Nathalie Labelle, logistics officer; and France Lewis, who's the administrative support officer. And, as Mr. Bernier so often says, we've had three brilliant interpreters: Claudia Cassie, Carole Lévesque, and Cindy Runzer. We thank also Virginia Honeywell, console operator, and Micheline Egan, console operator.

From Simul Tek, these gentlemen have paid their dues, certainly. I know they didn't get here.... They truck around all this equipment you see from location to location. They drove here from Miramichi and got here at about four o'clock this morning. They've lacked sleep this week, Kevin Rossitter and George Horton, and we certainly thank them for their efforts.

• 1310

Finally, there's the clerk of the committee, Bill Farrell, and Michael O'Neil, who's with my staff as well. I don't know whether everyone here recognizes it or not, but Steven Hogue is with the minister's office. He's been with us and has been taking extensive notes, and I'm certain he'll be giving the minister another viewpoint as well.

So we certainly thank everyone for their efforts, and the committee will be reporting to Parliament prior to the Christmas break.

With that, Yvan, you can adjourn the meeting. We will hold a few further hearings in Ottawa, and then we'll get a report done.

Thank you very much, everyone.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Yvan Bernier): Okay, thank you. The meeting is adjourned.