[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 30, 2000
• 0832
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Could we come to order?
Before we start, Mr. Bevan, I'll tell you the way this meeting came about. As chair of the fisheries committee, I am not slightly angered, but quite angered, at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As the department knows, we have been dealing with the Marshall decision since early last year. We tabled a report in December. We asked for a reply by February. We accepted the fact that the minister was not in a position to be able to reply by February.
We've had a lot of controversy, in fact to the point of being unproductive as a committee, over whether or not we would have Thériault and MacKenzie as witnesses before the committee to brief the committee on where negotiations are at, and it seemed impossible to get them before the committee.
In any event, by accident yesterday, we found a media advisory advising the media that there would be a Marshall briefing by senior officials at the department. It's at that stage that I went to the whip's office and said this was unacceptable; that some respect should be shown for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, all members, not just government or opposition, all members; and that the briefing should be given first to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
As well, and this is nothing towards you, Mr. Bevan, but I was also informed that it would be Pat Chamut, who I understand is the ADM in charge. I see Mr. Chamut is not here. You're here in his place, and you probably know the file very well as well, but I do have to ask you the question before we start, who will be doing the media briefing?
Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Conservation and Protection Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I will be doing the briefing.
The Chair: Just you?
Mr. David Bevan: I and André Marc Lanteigne, the spokesperson from the Maritimes. He will be coming this morning. He is arriving from Halifax, however, and he won't be here until just before the media briefing.
The Chair: All right. You know my view in any event. That's why we've come to this stage. There is increasing frustration among committee members. I'm not alone in that.
Lou, we'll go to you as soon as Mr. Bevan makes an opening statement, keeping it brief. Then we'll go to questions.
You have a point of order, Sarkis?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Can I make an inquiry?
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'm sorry; I was a minute late. You were making the point that the committee was upset about not being informed. Maybe you should give the gentleman a chance to reply.
The Chair: Well, I'm going to.
• 0835
Mr. Bevan, the floor is yours.
Mr. David Bevan: As you are aware, there were briefings from the deputy minister, the minister, and the assistant deputy minister in October. There have been recommendations coming to the department from the standing committee, and a response will be forthcoming shortly through the normal process.
While all that is going on, there have been negotiations taking place within the maritime region and developments have occurred in terms of agreements. We now have three agreements and nine agreements in principle. Further action will take place over the course of this week and the weeks to come.
So there has been a great deal of activity underway. Our concern on why we briefed the media was to get rid of some of the misconceptions that apparently exist there. The media briefings are very general and don't get into the specific issues related to ongoing negotiations or specific debates between fishermen and native fishermen in particular areas. They were just an attempt to dispel any misconceptions the media may have had and to tell the media the general action the department has been taking. The more specific information will be coming to the standing committee in response to the recommendations.
If you like, Mr. Chairman, I can go briefly through the media briefing presentation to let you know what we have been saying to the media.
The Chair: Yes, if you could, Mr. Bevan. We want to be as quick as we can because we do only have an hour and a half.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: A point of order on what?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would it be possible to get a copy of his media briefing in print?
The Chair: It will be on the record in any event, but that's likely possible, is it?
Mr. David Bevan: Yes, it is.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: We started the media briefings with a brief summary of the Marshall judgment, indicating that the September 17 decision unleashed a significant conflict and controversy in the Atlantic fishery. The reason we wanted to brief the media was to let them know what the government has been doing in the interim since that decision and in preparation for the coming fisheries.
We put the decision in context. In 1990 there was the Sparrow decision—
The Chair: Just hold on, Mr. Bevan.
I want to inform members that because the meeting was called fairly quickly we have the fisheries critic for the Canadian Alliance in a location in Yarmouth, and he's on speaker phone.
You can't hear Mr. Bevan?
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): No, I can't.
The Chair: Can you move up here beside me, David?
It's just like the Marshall decision. There's some confusion.
Go ahead, David.
Mr. David Bevan: We noted that the Sparrow decision in 1990 recognized the right of aboriginal communities to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes and that this meant that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had to work with the fishing industry and first nations to provide access to first nations for those purposes. That helped us build experience in terms of the legislative framework, and the negotiation process necessary to respond to the Sparrow decision also helped set the stage for the kind of process we're currently engaged in with respect to Marshall.
• 0840
In addition, we had a policy—not required by law, but
a policy—of enhancing commercial access for first
nations. That was recognized, and the implementation
involved the allocation transfer program under the
aboriginal fisheries strategy. So we've been retiring
licences and providing commercial access to first
nations for some time. Again, that helped set the
stage for the work we're currently undertaking.
Marshall obviously had a significantly larger impact, particularly in the Maritimes, than the Sparrow decision. The degree of access needed to respect the Marshall decision and the treaty right recognized in it will be significantly greater than what was necessary to respond to Sparrow. So we recognize the impact.
We had a number of difficulties in the fall. The immediate application of the judgment with no grace period, the obligation in the judgment to negotiate with first nations, meant we couldn't do that retroactively, so there was a period after the judgment until we were able to have limits set on the first nations that were continuing to fish. There had been limited first nations participation in the commercial fishery, and therefore the new access needed to respect the right meant it was threatening to those who were currently traditional fishers and who were dependent on it for a livelihood.
We then went in to just review what the Marshall decision said. It said the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy have a treaty right to hunt, fish, and trade. The trading right is limited to securing necessaries, defined now as a moderate livelihood, and that has not been legally defined or defined through negotiation with the first nations at this point. The right does not extend to open-ended accumulation of wealth; it can be regulated. The subsequent clarification on November 17 reaffirmed it's a communal right, it's a regulated right, and the right itself is to be local in nature—that is to say, it cannot be transported far from the location of the community.
The oft-repeated notion that Marshall allows first nations to fish anywhere, anytime, without a licence is not correct. It's not factually correct. It's certainly not recognized in any of the statements by the court. We are acting on the understanding with the Department of Justice that it is a right that is regulated, etc.
We then explained why we were unable to prevent conflict in the fall. It was a very complex decision, and in an almost unprecedented move, two months later, the court used the response to the application for stay of the decision to clarify their judgment.
With respect to the judgment, as I mentioned earlier, we were obligated to negotiate. Therefore we had to discuss the access with first nations. We couldn't just impose it. We had no legal capacity to do that in the absence of negotiations. Therefore we had to start negotiations in the fall. As you're aware, the minister met with first nations almost immediately and was able to secure time from most of the bands. Of the 34 bands, 29 did not fish. Those that did fish we had to negotiate with in order to set the limits, and then we acted to ensure those limits were respected.
So immediate solutions were not and are not available. There are no quick fixes. It's important to realize that attention tended to focus on areas of conflict, but as I mentioned earlier, 29 of the 34 bands provided us with a time to enter into an orderly transition. Our approach in the face of this uncertainty was to engage in dialogue with the first nations and commercial fishing organizations and to accelerate the effort to clarify the judgment.
• 0845
We immediately communicated the following principles:
we will respect the treaty right and access will
therefore be provided to the beneficiaries; the
interests of others will not be compromised; there
will be no confiscation of fishing privileges or
expansion of fishing effort; the fishing will be
orderly and properly regulated; and conservation will
not be compromised.
Within a few weeks of the court decision, we had a strategy to allow regulated access to beneficiaries who wanted to exercise the right. We started to develop a process for negotiation of agreements and to ensure orderly fisheries were going to be conducted when the fishery opened this year. Where first nations ignored the rules, action was taken to ensure compliance. Where non-native people ignored the rules or took action into their own hands, we also took steps for enforcement.
With respect to calls for immediate action, we—
The Chair: I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Bevan, but we are going to run short of time. The fisheries committee is very well aware of the history. We've stood on some of the wharves. Perhaps we could get to the meat of the issue. Where are negotiations at the moment and what's on the table?
Mr. David Bevan: We go further into the background. I won't go into it. We talk about where we are now. We talk about Jim MacKenzie and Gilles Thériault. They're out there as we speak, involved in the work of seeking to negotiate agreements.
We talk about the fact that there were discussions with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. That's now gone to band-by-band negotiations. We helped to fund both the commercial participation and the native participation. We talk about the fact that we have $160 million available for licence retirement and other initiatives. We talk about the fact that the money will be spent on gaining commercial access, training, and economic development. As you can see, it's a very general type of briefing and it doesn't get into any of the specific details.
We talk about the fact that there are a number of licences being offered. We now have 1,200 packages being considered, representing 4,500 licences. We buy only what we need. The negotiation process with first nations defines the demand. We have a supply on the other side of the ledger, so to speak, of these 1,200 packages offered. What we'll do is buy the best value that responds to the demand of the first nations. We've purchased 82 packages so far, with numerous others under consideration now, representing 259 licences and 27 vessels. That was yesterday's news; today there will be changes.
As I mentioned earlier, we have three signed agreements and we have the licences generally available to respect those agreements. We have nine other agreements in principle and we're in fairly good shape on the supply of licences for those. We have other areas where we do have problems, and those are local areas.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Can you just repeat the numbers on your agreements?
Mr. David Bevan: We have three signed and nine agreements in principle as of yesterday, but there's a tremendous amount of activity underway as we speak. It's a total of 12 out of 34, but again there are a lot of developments taking place over the course of the next few days and couple of weeks.
We note in our discussions with the media that there's no drop-dead deadline for these. Some are required earlier than others, and we go through the process with the media. We're targeting areas where we have immediate concerns where fisheries are going to start very shortly and we put our efforts there. Where fisheries don't start until later on, we have more time to work out agreements. So we are concentrating now on the areas that are of imminent concern.
• 0850
We then note with the media that there will be
situations where bands are not going to sign
agreements. With 34 bands, we have an expectation that
the majority will sign agreements. We're hopeful that
all will sign agreements, but there is a possibility
that we will have some gaps.
We also note that even if there are agreements, individuals in some first nations may still test the law in terms of the individual nature of the right. The Supreme Court has been clear, I think, that it's a communal right, but in some cases people may go out and fish as individuals. That will create some need for action on our part in the spring.
We also note with the media that even if there's no agreement, there will be access. This is a right, so even in the absence of agreement we will provide access. What won't be provided to first nations without an agreement is money for capacity building, for training, for assisting us in gathering scientific information and compliance information, etc., and neither will they get access to vessels and equipment.
So in the absence of agreement, they will get access, but not to the funds needed for capacity building or vessels.
That essentially takes us through it. We do note the fact that there will be a longer-term initiative with DIAND. That will start shortly. What we're doing is negotiating, without prejudice and without defining the treaty right itself, interim fishing agreements so that access can be provided in an orderly fashion this spring.
Essentially, that would then end the media briefing.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have everyone on my list, I think. We'll start with the official opposition fisheries critic, John Cummins.
You have ten minutes. I'm going to hold you to that and no more. You're on.
Mr. John Cummins: Thanks very much, Wayne.
I just want to say how appalling that presentation was.
Who is it we're talking to here, anyway?
The Chair: Mr. Bevan, please explain your position.
Mr. David Bevan: I'm David Bevan, the director general of resource management with fisheries management. I've been involved in the Marshall file since last fall.
Mr. John Cummins: I'm just appalled at your presentation and the manner in which you're taking rights from one group and giving it to another without any consideration whatsoever, going far beyond the mandate the court gave. There's no doubt that the decision of the Supreme Court, and especially the clarification issued November 17, was that the right is limited.
That being said, I'd like your assessment, briefly, of how you feel you're living up to...and how these negotiations, which are being conducted now, are in fact being conducted in a manner that was directed by the court?
The Chair: Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: We've started discussions with first nations on interim fishing arrangements. We are not defining their right. We are not defining what a moderate livelihood is. We have done some estimations, just to satisfy ourselves, to ensure that the degree of access we're giving is not going to exceed that. We're going to respond to it, but we are not going to provide more, because a larger process is needed to define what that is, and other resources are possibly going to be on the table. So we are not going to use fish as the only currency, but we do have to start providing access.
The court is clear—and this is not just this Marshall decision but also the Sparrow decision—that there is an obligation on the part of the crown to discuss these issues with first nations, that we cannot be arbitrary and we cannot limit the right without having those discussions. Otherwise, the honour of the crown will not be respected and our fiduciary obligations—
Mr. John Cummins: Don't hand me that hogwash about honouring the crown. The court hid behind that in this whole decision.
• 0855
Let's talk about the facts. The court in that
decision indicated that it was dealing with the eel
fishery. I think it made it very, very clear that
natives had a right to “resources traditionally
gathered in the aboriginal economy” and that their
harvest was to be limited to “traditional hunting and
fishing grounds”. Those are quotes from the court
decision.
You've gone, in my estimation, far beyond that. You're not talking about harvest in any traditional sense, and you're certainly not talking about resources traditionally gathered in the aboriginal economy. Is that not correct?
Mr. David Bevan: Our best legal advice is that the court recognized the right to fish—
Mr. John Cummins: That's not so, Mr. Bevan.
The Chair: John—
Mr. John Cummins: That was the misconception from the September 17 decision. When the November 17 clarification came down, the court made it abundantly clear that it was talking about eel fishing. In fact, it mentioned eel fishing ten times. You are going far beyond that.
I'll quote again. The court said “resources traditionally gathered in an aboriginal economy” and it talked about—and I quote—“traditional hunting and fishing grounds”.
You are ignoring both of those mandates of the court, are you not?
Mr. David Bevan: No, we are not—if I may respond, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: John, can you give Mr. Bevan time to respond here?
Go ahead.
Mr. David Bevan: In the clarification of November 17, the court mentions traditional areas and traditional resources. However, it's clear from jurisprudence, from previous decisions, and from the interpretation of the clarification that when they say “traditional resources” and mention fish, they don't mean it's limited to something that was fished traditionally—eels, for example. It can apply to other species. This modern technology is also able to be used, and that again is reflected in decisions from the court.
So we cannot rely on just the narrow interpretation of the November 17 clarification or the Marshall decision itself. There is a whole body of decisions that the legal people examine in providing us with this advice. I can—
Mr. John Cummins: Your legal people are no hell, Mr. Bevan. I mean, they're the guys who blew the case.
Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about, again, what the court said. The court said “resources traditionally gathered”. There can be no misconception about what that means. There can be no misconception about traditional hunting and fishing rights.
Last fall, fishermen from Indian Brook, around Truro, were allowed by DFO to fish lobster out of Yarmouth. The order was signed by Neil Bellefontaine. That shows no respect for the traditional territory limitation, and DFO indicates that this will continue.
How can you justify that?
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Bevan. Finish your first response.
Mr. David Bevan: With regard to traditional resources, when they mentioned fish they were referencing that to lumber, as I recall. They were talking about whether or not there was a right to access the lumber. They indicated that this had not been shown. They were not referencing whether it was one species of fish versus another.
Again, decisions have been rendered in that regard. It's clear that we do not have the capacity, under the law as it's understood right now, to say they can't fish a particular species because that wasn't a traditional species they used.
The other thing you're mentioning, however, is the local application of the right. We have an adjacency principle at play when we go through the negotiations. We are not looking at providing access to fishing in Newfoundland waters, say, for the sake of argument, but what we are looking at is the need to provide access as close to the band as possible.
There are certain locations where there are large aboriginal communities and relatively small commercial fisheries. If we were to try to provide all of that right in that location, we would have a huge displacement of the traditional users of the resource. In those cases, we are examining opportunities to provide access to other fish in other locations as a means of minimizing the local impact.
The Chair: Mr. Cummins, you have three minutes left. Go ahead.
• 0900
Mr. John Cummins: I don't accept your meanderings at all, Mr. Bevan. You yourself referenced the food fishery, and we saw how you mismanaged that.
The issue I'd like to address briefly here is this issue of proportionality. The Supreme Court said that proportionality is an important factor in accommodating treaty rights. They noted that when these treaties were signed, others had access to the resource at the same time. This, then, should ensure, if the proportionality factor is taken into consideration, that the needs of local communities and non-aboriginal fishermen are taken into consideration when the treaties are being negotiated.
But if I look at what's going on in, for example, P.E.I., I don't see that. I see that you're giving them 3,400 pots. There are 350 people on that Lennox Island reserve. You're also giving them 30,000 pounds of crab.
How do you square that circle? How does that fit in with the notion of proportionality?
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Bevan.
Thanks, John.
Mr. David Bevan: We're using the funds that have been available to the department to minimize the impact on fishing communities by offering, on a voluntary basis, opportunities for fishers to retire and minimize the impact on those who remain in the fishery.
First off, you've quoted a population for the Lennox Island community that does not reflect the total number of status Indians they represent. We have to negotiate with them, on behalf of all of the—
Mr. John Cummins: What's your definition of “status Indian”?
Mr. David Bevan: People who are represented by that community as per the Indian Act.
The Chair: John, we may get a chance to come back to you.
Just before I go to Mr. Bernier, on that point, Mr. Bevan, with regard to the residents on Lennox Island in Prince Edward Island, I talked to the fishermen this morning. There was a meeting on Lennox Island the other night, and they accepted the interim agreement. The fishermen had a meeting last night that Gilles Thériault was at, which went reasonably well.
The statistics show that there's one fisherman per 1,000 people on Prince Edward Island. In the Lennox Island area, there's one fisherman, under this agreement, per 25. Now, something is out of proportion. Where are we going?
What's your response to that?
Mr. David Bevan: Obviously, if you look at a larger community—for instance, the total population of P.E.I.—they have a huge variety of economic opportunities being exploited, from agriculture to industry, etc. So you're not looking at the same kind of opportunities in the Lennox Island community itself. We have an obligation to respect the right to a moderate livelihood from resources, and fishing is obviously on the table. If they don't have a lot of other opportunities, then I presume that's one reason why the participation is going to be quite high.
The Chair: I'm not going to get into a debate on it—I have to let other committee members in here—but the fact of the matter is, it can't be done on the backs of fishermen. That was a commitment by the department. There are other economic activities or opportunities there that can be developed. The figures I gave you are exclusive to lobster, to say nothing of the 25 tonnes of crab being offered, and other opportunities that may be there.
Mr. Bernier, you have five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Five minutes is not a lot of time.
Something is bothering me. In one of your answers, or at the end of your presentation, as well as in the speech Mr. Dhaliwal gave this weekend, you said that even if there is no agreement with a Native community or a band, it will still have the right to a community licence. If there is no agreement with a Native community, it means that there is none with the fishermen either. In that case, where will you find the fish for the Native people?
• 0905
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: We are providing voluntary retirement opportunities to fishermen. We'll do that even in the absence of an agreement with the first nations. To put it another way, we're going to buy back licences needed to provide the required access to first nations, regardless of whether there's an agreement. They won't get access to the gear or the vessels or any other opportunities in terms of co-management money, but they will be provided with access by voluntary buyback.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Bevan, I took from your speech that they will not have access to other types of equipment. I have a direct question. If there is no agreement with a Native community and none with the fishermen, you will still give them a community licence. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' mantra has always been: conservation. Where will you find the fish? I repeat that this is a case where you don't have an agreement with the fishermen or the Native people. Where will you find the fish to give them under a community licence?
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: The absence of an agreement does not necessarily mean we won't have an opportunity. We are buying licences in areas where there may not be an agreement. People are selling us their licences and therefore we're getting the access needed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: All right, but I will ask you a direct question. There is no agreement with crab fishermen in zone 12. No one wants to sell their licence for now, unless someone changed their mind last night. There is also no agreement with the Native people, but still you say that they will receive a community licence. I know that your mandate is to remove 1,060 tons. So what you're trying to do is take the fishermen's catches away. I want to know where you will find the resource if no one wants to sell. Would you seize it unilaterally?
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: Hopefully unilateral action will not be required. We're still hopeful in the case of area 12, for example, that discussions that are underway now will be fruitful in providing us with the required access. We have had offers going to and from the fishers from a mayor representing area 12 crab fishermen. We're continuing discussions with them now. I'm reasonably optimistic that we will have a successful agreement with those fishermen in order to get that access.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: But if there's no agreement with the fishermen, are you going to take unilateral action and take what you need from the overall quota, yes or no?
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: If we can't get an agreement with people to provide access, obviously the minister has absolute discretion in licensing and providing access. So there are other opportunities, but we are not inclined to expropriate. We have funds available to compensate people for the access. We will work on agreements. In the absence of agreements, we do have other options, but we are not going to just take without compensation. I'm hopeful that we won't have any need to exercise unilateral authority in taking the access.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a final quick question before the chairman tells me my time has run out. If you are forced to take unilateral action, will it be based on the same percentage per fishing licence, irrespective of the province, or will you respect the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' plan, which is to go with 50% of Quebec fishermen's share and 50% of New Brunswick fishermen's share, knowing full well that there are twice as many fishermen in New Brunswick and that, therefore, the impact will be felt twice as strongly on fishermen from Quebec?
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: We are aware of these provincial shares, particularly in area 12 crab fishing, and we are working on an agreement with the fishers that will respect those shares. Right now we're looking for a voluntary agreement and we have another counter-offer.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: We can't keep on going on hope and belief.
[English]
The Chair: Last question, Yvan.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: You can't continue to go on hope and belief. It's the Peter Pan syndrome: I believe that, I believe that. I have a clear question: if ever you had to take unilateral action, will you treat everyone the same way or will you go by the 50% for Quebec and 50% for New Brunswick plan? In my opinion, that's unfair.
[English]
Mr. David Bevan: We have a proposal going to the fishermen today. There will be discussions with them and they will have an involvement in what the end result is. If there's no agreement with them, we will at least consider their views as we go through these discussions with them in imposing an arrangement.
• 0910
I can't answer your question right now
because I don't know how those discussions are going to
go today and I don't know where we'll end up. Again,
we are not just going to impose it on them without
considering people's views. We are going to seek those
views, and if we can't get an agreement, the
arrangements we make will at least reflect people's
views.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier and Mr. Bevan.
Mr. Sekora.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much.
I'm going to come at this from a different area altogether. I'm just going to tell you how frustrated this committee is. As a matter of fact, there should have been a body sitting here on this chair, but he refused to show up after hearing that somehow.... And then you went on about misinformation out in the communities or out in the public.
I think the foremost, the most important, thing that should be happening is that if there is misinformation there.... There sure as hell is misinformation as far as this committee is concerned. It's total disregard for this committee. It's as if we're nobodies sitting around these tables to listen, to make decisions. If you people have time, we've asked for MacKenzie and Thériault to come here. They couldn't come here, which is fine. Then the minister is going to come here on the 11th. I have great respect for him because he is from British Columbia and I know him very well. I have a lot of respect for the minister.
But I'll tell you this. What is happening is not good for the minister and not good for us. The fact is that somehow the staff have time to go and have media briefings because it's most important that they should appear on radio and on TV and everything else. They're briefing everyone else but this committee and it's totally not acceptable to me as a member of this committee. I might as well not be here.
Those are the things that really bother me. We are elected bodies. The fact is, we go to our individual ridings and we must get a report card every four years from our taxpayers or voters. It seems like the other hand doesn't understand because I guess they don't ever have to have a report card of their performance—but we must have a report card about our performance.
So I'm totally.... I'll tell you what. I am burning. And I'll tell you what. The members who should have been here today are not here for that reason. They are totally disgusted, totally disappointed, that there is time to go and have a media briefing with a total disregard for this committee. I hope it never ever happens again.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sekora.
I don't think you're in a position to answer that, Mr. Bevan, unless you want to. It would be for the deputy minister or someone else, but go ahead.
Mr. David Bevan: I will just let you know that Thériault and MacKenzie have not been to any media briefings. The only people who have gone are André Marc Lanteigne and myself. The other thing is that the media briefing consisted of the kind of thing we went over just earlier. It's obviously familiar ground for the committee. We did not try to tell them something more than has already been provided.
Mr. Lou Sekora: No, you know something...? I'm sorry, but the fact is, the media briefing was set up, and our chairman found out accidentally that there was going to be a media briefing. Now you tell me that somehow a chairman of this committee doesn't even know that there's going to be a media briefing.... We are being totally ignored. That's what I'm getting at.
The Chair: As I spelled out at the beginning, Mr. Bevan, there's a lot of frustration around this committee over this issue. We are elected members of Parliament. If there is any group of parliamentarians that knows the fisheries issue, this committee's members do. We've spent a lot of time studying the issue. Our constituents—and indeed Canadians—expect us to be on top of the issues. As I said in the beginning, we do believe there's some disregard being shown towards this committee by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's as simple as that. That's the bottom line. That's Lou's point.
In fact, to make matters worse, because of the controversy.... This committee has done very good work in the past in terms of its reports, but because of the difficulties of not being able to get what some committee members feel is proper information on what's happening in terms of these discussions—there's a lot at stake here—other committee work, like the aquaculture tour on the east and west coasts, is not coming to fruition because of the frustrations over this particular issue.
• 0915
It's as simple as that. The minister requires this
committee to do statutory work on the Oceans Act and
certainly wants us to come back with a full, in-depth
report on aquaculture, and because of the problems we
as a committee are having in getting proper information
on what's happening relative to the Marshall decision,
things are going astray.
Mr. Provenzano, there are four minutes left for the government side if you have a question.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Then I'll just ask this one to Mr. Bevan.
On the comments you made about adjacency, about where there were insufficient resources adjacent to a particular community and going beyond the area, I'm a bit puzzled about that. If the right is grounded on tradition, on what was traditionally there, and if the resource wasn't traditionally there, what's the basis for going beyond the area? What we're saying is that we're going to ground the right on tradition, but if a community was not adjacent to an abundant resource, what is the basis for now attempting to provide a more abundant resource?
Mr. David Bevan: Our concern was that the resources are in fact there but that there are traditional users in the local area and the impact on them would be too great if we were to provide all of the right in a local manner. If we have a large aboriginal community next to a relatively small fishery and if we have them get access to that fishery in order to satisfy part of their right, they would end up displacing all of the commercial fishermen in that area. We don't want that to happen, so to protect the interests of the commercial fishermen in that area, we would distribute the right more broadly.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.
I have on my list Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Proulx, Mr. Keddy, and Mr. Gilmour, and then we go back to Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Stoffer, you have five minutes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witness for coming today. Now I know what a mushroom feels like.
Sir, in January of this year, I believe, or in early February, there was a meeting with Mr. Thériault and the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance, a group of organizations in Atlantic Canada. What was discussed at that meeting—from the documents we received—was “plan B”. Can you please tell the committee what plan B is?
Mr. David Bevan: Plan B was something we were looking at at the time in case we didn't get enough uptake on the licence buyback. That's subsequently something we haven't really been exploring recently. With 4,500 licences being offered for retirement, we likely have enough resources.
Having said that, there could be several areas, or some areas, where it's going to be more challenging than otherwise to get the access needed. We've had requests for.... Mr. Bernier has touched on area 12 crab. That has been challenging and still remains challenging. There may be local areas where it's going to be more difficult. Plan B was to find access in the absence of an uptake or an offer for sale of licences. Right now we are not facing that kind of problem. We have enough on the table.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, you mentioned the fact that the licences are...to retire the people who are selling their licences. But is it not true that the fishermen who sell their licences can still remain in the fishing industry in another capacity?
Mr. David Bevan: There's no obligation on the part of the person selling us a package to retire. Unlike CFAR or some of the other buybacks where they have to retire, that is not an obligation. We're not in this to retire fishermen. We're in this to provide access through getting packages. With the money they receive, they could buy a licence somewhere and fish somewhere else.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: But, sir, you just said earlier that it was retirement.
Mr. David Bevan: Retiring the package, I guess. I used the wrong term. We are not looking to retire fishermen. We're looking to buy their packages of licences—and in some cases, vessels and gear—to allow that to be transferred to native communities as part of a communal right, but they themselves, the individuals, can still find another way back into the fishery. There's no obligation on their part to be out of the fishery.
• 0920
Mr. Peter Stoffer: There was also a meeting with some representatives from the offshore and their legal team with DFO in Nova Scotia to discuss the concerns of the Marshall decision and how it applies to the offshore. Are you in any way negotiating with the aboriginal communities to have access to resources past the three-mile limit?
Mr. David Bevan: Absolutely. Obviously if they have access to a lobster fishery it's not confined to three miles, because they're native.
Shortly after the Marshall decision, some legal opinions found that it was local, and they came up with the.... These are legal opinions, not from the government but from private industry, and they suggested that the right would be exercised locally, which was confirmed, but then provided a three-mile limit.
We don't believe that is justifiable, in our interpretation of the law. Having said that, that means the right as noted in the November 17 clarification would be local in nature, but it could go beyond three miles, in our understanding of it. We're trying to reflect that in the bulk of the agreements, but again, we don't want to have all the onus of adapting to this right focused on one group of fishermen—that is, the inshore commercial fishermen, who will be the most heavily impacted. We want to find a way to distribute the adjustment to other groups. Therefore, midshore access will be provided in these agreements to native communities, and we will work to buy those licences needed to provide that access.
The Chair: Last question, Mr. Stoffer, for the first round.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: My question, sir, was actually about the offshore. I'm thinking of the Georges Bank and the scallop grounds. Will the aboriginal community have access to the scallop grounds in, for example, Georges Bank?
Mr. David Bevan: I'm not sure where we are with access to those resources in the current round of negotiations.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question—because that was just a repeat of the other one, Mr. Chair—
The Chair: That was a nice slide.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: The non-status aboriginal community, of course, as you know, is very concerned about not being in the loop in terms of the Marshall decision, and I understand they're having negotiations or discussions with the negotiators. What's the current status of their concerns at this time?
Mr. David Bevan: When we work with the bands, there are on-reserve and off-reserve people, so we have to ensure, first, that we don't double count, but secondly, that nobody who is a legitimate treaty beneficiary falls through the cracks. So we're working with the bands to find out to whom they are going to provide the access we give them. In other words, we provide it to a particular native community, and are they going to give it to all the status natives or just the on-reserve natives? Then we'll work with the native councils to make sure anybody who's not covered by the bands is covered by them.
Now, as for non-status, that's an issue that's still.... We don't want to give it to people who are not treaty beneficiaries, so we're going to have to go through a process of discussions with the councils.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it the chief of the band who decides, on a communal basis, who gets the licence?
Mr. David Bevan: The band will provide access. We give it as a communal right to the band. They provide the access within their community.
The Chair: The chief and band council, basically.
Mr. David Bevan: Yes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Proulx.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bevan, my colleague Mr. Bernier brought up the subject of area 12 crab a short while ago, mentioning that if you were in a position of being forced to force a settlement, one of the plans of DFO would be to split it 50-50 between Quebec and New Brunswick or to take it away 50-50, whereas New Brunswick...is more numerous, in my understanding. Why would Quebec be penalized in this case? What is the thinking of DFO behind a situation like that?
Mr. David Bevan: First of all, I don't think that is actually on the table right now. That's not part of the counter-offers and the offers that we've been getting.
So that kind of 50-50 split is not being discussed thus far, and I don't believe that's how we'll end up making these adjustments. The offer that's going out right now is to compensate crab fishermen for the required tonnage, and to do it following a formula that will respect the provincial shares.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me, sir. Am I hearing from you that Mr. Bernier is inventing this 50-50, or has it been in plans prepared by DFO? If Mr. Bernier is inventing, just tell me, and that'll be the end of that. But if DFO has been playing with 50-50, penalizing the province of Quebec, I'd like to know.
• 0925
Mr. David Bevan: I don't think Mr. Bernier was inventing it. He was just trying to find out what we were going to do if we had to impose it, if we would respect provincial shares or not.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: So therefore we can count on the fact that Quebec, in that particular area, will not be penalized.
Mr. David Bevan: Just before you say that, I have to clarify. Whatever the arrangement is at the end of the day.... We're going to talk it over with the fishermen. If we don't have exactly the provincial shares coming out of that arrangement, then somebody might say we've penalized one province or another, but I don't want to commit right now, as the negotiations are underway today or discussions will be underway. I don't want to commit right now to the outcome of that or to guarantee here that we're going to respect the last fourth-decimal percentage share of provincial shares.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: I have a last short question. I'm the new kid on the block, in two ways: I'm of the new generation of elected members and I'm a new member of this committee. What I hear around this table this morning is bad faith, it would appear, or why DFO would refuse to supply information to this committee. Could you please—I know you cannot answer this question this morning—supply me or supply the committee with the position of DFO vis-à-vis this committee, in this sense. As a new member, am I to expect in the future that DFO will always not respect the committee or am I to understand that this committee will be working hand in hand with DFO?
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. David Bevan: I'll have to take that back to the department and get an answer for the committee.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Of course. Thank you, Mr. Bevan.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proulx and Mr. Bevan.
Mr. Keddy, five minutes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd also like to thank Mr. Bevan for coming in this morning.
The trouble with this process—and I think there's a legitimate problem here—is certainly, first of all, lack of time. All of us have a lot of questions and a number of issues that need to be raised. There have been several issues raised already that I want to touch on again, but I don't really want to waste my five minutes going back over what's been gone over already because of the amount of issues that are out there.
The issue of adjacency really hasn't been broached yet—a bit by Mr. Bernier—and proportionality has been talked about, but certainly adjacency is going to be huge issue in Nova Scotia and in the rest of the Maritimes and in Atlantic Canada as well. You said that Newfoundland wasn't involved with this. There is a reserve in Newfoundland and Newfoundland is involved.
On the adjacency, we have a licence now—one lobster licence, two boats fishing—in the south shore in St. Margaret's Bay or in Mahone Bay, from Indian Brook. That band never traditionally hunted or fished in that area. These are the types of problems that I'm hoping you will take back, at least to your people, and I'm hoping that message will trickle down through the system to Thériault and MacKenzie. I really hope you take back that message.
There's another message that needs to trickle down to those guys. This morning you talked about expropriation. I want that explained. I want it explained very clearly how or why and on what basis you would even consider expropriation.
This is a huge mess. In 1993 there was an aboriginal fishing strategy and there were 220 aboriginal licences in Nova Scotia before Marshall ever happened. The one thing John Cummins said that was correct is that Marshall was about eels. I'm listening to DFO talk like you don't have any cards in your deck, like you don't have any cards in your hand. We're entering upon a set of negotiations with a group of people and we're not negotiating in good faith on behalf of...and I hate to say “us and them” or “two sides”, but we're on behalf of the government.
Quite frankly, I think that's the way most of the fishermen see it. That's certainly the way I'm beginning to feel. We already have an aboriginal fishing strategy. We have an opportunity and we have an obligation, because of Marshall, to negotiate instead of continuing to fight this in the courts, and I quite agree with that.
• 0930
But when I listen to the government talk, I'm not
hearing that we're negotiating for the government side
but that we're simply providing access to the fishery.
There are a whole bunch of things that we can use to
force agreements on all sides, to make it non-violent,
to make it happen, to allow access, but if you don't
recognize proportionality and you don't recognize
adjacency and the big issues they supply, if you don't
recognize the fact that there is absolutely no reason
why we should be giving licences to anybody.... We
should be providing the opening and the opportunity,
but there's no reason to give that boat and licence
away. Certainly first nations can buy those boats and
licences—same as anyone else that enters the
commercial fishery.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Keddy. Can Mr. Bevan have time to answer? He won't have time in a minute.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have another minute left now.
Mr. David Bevan: On expropriation, I want to make it clear that it was not part of our process—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, you were careful about that, but—
Mr. David Bevan: We talked about a plan B. We were looking for access through a quota we actually hold because of other buybacks and things like that. We were not talking about rolling into an area and expropriating without considering the local fishermen. That was not part of the process. That's why we have the money. That's why we're doing the licence retirements. All of that is underway and we are not going to expropriate.
On the adjacency, by and large that will be part of the process for the federal representative in the negotiations. I want to say that by and large there are going to be groups that have been fishing recently in other areas—and Indian Brook fishing in St. Margaret's Bay is an example—and we will continue to work towards a negotiation with them that would involve that kind of fishing activity.
We will, however, try to avoid situations—I mean, we will avoid, not try.... We are not going to permit fishing such as, for example, a ban from Cape Breton to fish in southwest Nova Scotia in area 34 lobster. That's not going to be permitted. We aren't going to allow people to concentrate effort on the most lucrative grounds because they're easy to fish. We're going to make sure there are local rights applied in those cases, so we're looking at adjacency as part of the negotiation mandate.
On the provision of boats and gear in the case of agreement, the right was to a moderate livelihood. We wanted to make sure we minimized the impact on the existing commercial fishermen by providing them the biggest net income available for each set of licences. If we don't provide them with boats and gear, what happens is they end up having to buy it—loan money. Their net income from that opportunity, then, is much reduced and we have to provide more access than we otherwise would. So we're looking at maximizing the net income in order to provide them with a moderate livelihood, or part thereof, at the minimum impact to existing fishers.
The Chair: Gerald, I'm going ahead. I'm going to try to get back to you. You took too long in your explanation.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Four minutes—I have another minute, Wayne.
The Chair: You actually had six minutes.
An hon. member: It took him four minutes to ask his question.
The Chair: It was six minutes you had.
Mr. Gilmour, I understand you're sharing your five minutes with Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I am.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just on a point of order—
The Chair: What's your point of order?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: —Mr. Chairman, are we going to have all three members of the Alliance Party represented here today? They have two members at the committee and we have one on the telephone. Are all three going to get to speak or just two?
The Chair: We'll see as time goes along. They're in their second round of five minutes.
Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bevan, in your opening comments you said that the rights of others will not be compromised. I'm assuming you're talking of non-native fishermen.
Mr. David Bevan: That's correct.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yet with proportionality.... I mean, you can't have both, so explain what proportionality means if you're not going to compromise the rights of the non-native fishermen.
Mr. David Bevan: Well, we're saying...not compromise them.... There are going to be adjustments, obviously. People, particularly in something like the lobster fishery where it's highly territorial, where people go out and set their gear in the same spot every year.... Now there are going to be changes. People are going to be leaving. New people will be coming in. There's going to be adjustment.
So when we say we're not going to compromise their right, we are not going to expropriate, we are not going to increase participation at the expense of either the resource or participants that are fishing now, but that doesn't mean there aren't going to be adjustments.
Proportionality—
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Excuse me, but you said in your opening statement that the rights of others will not be compromised. You just said that the rights will be compromised. Which is it?
• 0935
Mr. David Bevan: I don't think having people make an adjustment is compromising their rights. If they're going to have the same level of participation and the same opportunity to make the same level of money they've made in the past, that does not compromise them. But they are going to have to adjust and work with the other participants and have a dialogue between the two communities to make those adjustments. I don't believe that's compromising somebody's right.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: I do. We've seen it on the Pacific coast. What happened with the AFS on the Pacific coast is exactly what is happening here. DFO is operating behind closed doors. We can't get the guidelines and we can't get straight answers. This is what this committee is going through right now. DFO is ignoring them. We've been through this on one coast; it's now occurring on the other coast. This is why we're getting somewhat frustrated.
John, you wanted to ask a question. Go ahead.
The Chair: You have two minutes, John.
Mr. John Cummins: Thanks very much.
You said you're not talking about expropriation, but the fact of the matter is that you have threatened crab fishermen with expropriation if quota wasn't made available.
Now, in the court decision in both Gladstone and Marshall, the court talked about this notion. In the Marshall case they said that the 1760 treaty right from its inception was enjoyed alongside the commercial and recreational fishery. In Gladstone the court also talks about the interests of all Canadians and the reconciliation of aboriginal societies with the rest of Canadian society. Those are principles that the court has established and that you're ignoring. In fact, what you're doing with this expropriation and your actions now is you're assuming a priority right, are you not?
The Chair: Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: Thus far we have not expropriated anything. We have stated—
Mr. John Cummins: You've threatened.
Mr. David Bevan: —our intention to use the resources that are available to us to retire licences or to reach agreements with commercial fishermen. People have come forward asking for millions of dollars for licences, etc. We're not going to get into that. Fortunately, we've been able to buy at reasonable value. But if people are also suggesting that there's not going to be any adjustment for them and that we would be subject to extortion-type numbers in order to gain access, I think that's why we've come back and said that's not on. There are other means available to us if we can't come to an agreement. So there has been—
Mr. John Cummins: But the court said that the right was enjoyed alongside the commercial and recreational fishery. By your actions you're assuming a priority right, are you not?
Mr. David Bevan: We are assuming that we have to make access available as a priority, yes. Now, whether that right has a priority over a commercial right, I'll leave that to the lawyers to decide.
Mr. John Cummins: Is it necessary to expropriate in order to ensure that priority right as you've defined it will be granted?
The Chair: That's your final question for the moment, Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: We are going to give them access. They're going to get access to the crab fishery. Having said that, we'll work as best we can with the fishermen to accommodate their requirements and interests. That's what we're going to do. But we are going to provide access.
The Chair: Mr. Sekora.
Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much.
You mentioned buying back licences. You said that you buy back the licences, but somehow the person you buy a licence from can go and buy another licence. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. David Bevan: Yes. What we do is buy the package that's held by the fisherman. He may have a licence to fish a number of species: crab, groundfish, lobster, whatever it might be. We buy the whole package and we make that available as part of a communal licence to a first nation. Obviously, he gets money for that. If he wants to re-enter the fishery by buying somebody else's package, that's his right, that's his business.
Mr. Lou Sekora: If I understand what you're saying, that licence never really expires. If he can go and buy another licence, you may be buying the same guy out over and over again. If he continues to buy licences, you'll be chasing him forever and a day. Why not have it that once a licence has been bought back, that's the end of that person?
• 0940
Mr. David Bevan: This is not an effort to try to reduce participation in the fishery. That wasn't the objective of this at all. The objective here was to provide access to first nations as per the treaty right, not to shrink the participation.
Mr. Lou Sekora: If there are, say, 75,000 licences across Canada, just to use a fictitious figure, and it's overfishing and there are too many boats with too much sophisticated equipment, reducing it to 20,000 may make more sense. You'll never do it this way. It's going to continue to be 75,000 at all times.
Mr. David Bevan: We have reduced participation in the fisheries on both coasts through buybacks of salmon packages on the west coast and groundfish packages in Atlantic Canada. We're not targeting those fisheries at this point. We're targeting the fisheries that are coming through in the negotiations with first nations. They are core fishing enterprises, and we're buying the whole enterprise. We're not trying to shrink the participation through this program.
Mr. Lou Sekora: I have one more question. What is your target at the end? What do you see five, ten, or fifteen years down the road? Do you see the same amount of fishermen out there fishing, or do you see one-third or half of them gone? What is it you're aiming for? You have to have something to aim at.
Mr. David Bevan: Over time there's likely to be somewhat fewer fishermen than there are right now. There's still a problem with overcapacity in some fisheries, and we're trying to address that. In respect of the ones we're dealing with, with regard to the first nations, I don't know if there's going to be much difference in participation over time with regard to lobster fishing or crab fishing in the gulf, etc.
The Chair: Next is Mr. Bernier, followed by Mr. Stoffer. We'll try to go down the line. I know you have to be gone by 9:50 a.m.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: First, to address the insinuation that I was inventing things, I'm pleased that Mr. Bevan did not fall into the trap by saying that I was not inventing things, since that is also an idea which has been brought up. I would like to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for pointing it out.
I would like to remind the committee and the government, and more particularly Mr. Bevan, that I already heard Mr. Anderson say that some provinces should receive more for reasons of economic diversity. I would like to remind you that in Gaspésie, where you are about to negotiate crab licences, you probably won't have any problems with the crab fishermen. We have a 25% unemployment rate and no economic diversity. The Murdochville mine as well as the Chandler paper mill have closed. So pay particular attention to what is going to happen in that area. I would also like to note that I am in favour of righting historical wrongs. We just have to find the right way to do it.
One issue has not been raised yet. I spoke about it with a Native chief in my riding and I would like it to be taken into consideration when we try to define what a “moderate livelihood” is.
Could the other MPs please listen or leave the room.
[English]
The Chair: Lou, order. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Canadians have a problem now, and our Native people have an advantage which could help us. They have diplomatic or international immunity when it comes to harvesting seals. I would like us to study the possibility with them of exploiting this resource in our area. I am willing to work very hard towards that end, and it may be something you could look at from your side.
I'm almost finished but I would like to ask this question: since we are talking about issues surrounding short-term crab fishery negotiations, why don't we also discuss temporary leasing agreements offered by industry more thoroughly? You have strongly insisted on the fact that these are but temporary agreements, but I don't understand why the government won't discuss with fishermen their offer to lease equipment.
I have a second question. Since we are dealing with temporary agreements, how is it that a Native band, the Malecite, were allowed to buy a boat and christen it last week. When you christen something, it means that it belongs to you. So how were they allowed to christen this boat under a temporary agreement? I'd like to hear your answer.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bevan, I don't know if you'll have time to finish your answers, but start anyway.
• 0945
Mr. David Bevan: We are not now negotiating with the first nations a treaty right, or defining their treaty right. What we're doing is providing access that represents part of that right.
Yes, the access being provided is not one year but is going to be part of a longer-term package. When the Maliseet...the vessel, obviously it's not there for one year. They will be continuing to fish after the one-year agreement. There will be another agreement, therefore, next year I expect.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: But how long?
Mr. David Bevan: Right now the fisheries department is providing access so that we can have orderly fisheries this year and in the future. We're doing that right now in order to make sure we can have some order to the fisheries, but this will be part of the longer-term discussions that will be led by DIAND to define the right and bring other issues and other resources to the table that will then end up defining the overall right. What we're doing now is just the interim arrangements to allow people to get access.
With respect to the crab fishery, there was a temporary offer provided by one group of fishers. I'm not sure it had support from all.
So we're discussing all sorts of options with them in the next few days. We're going to need that access. We are hopeful we can get an agreement with them—we expect to get one—and are coming back with a counter-offer.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bevan. I have just a couple of points I want to raise, and then I'll give each of the three members who are in line a minute each.
In the court decision, they stated that the Governor in Council has the power to amend the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations to accommodate a limited commercial fishery as described in the September 17, 1999, majority judgment, in addition to the food fishery.
Has DFO amended those regulations? Is it in the process of it, and will both food and commercial be tied in?
Secondly, do you have the enforcement capability, with the new moneys allocated, to in fact enforce the regulations?
Mr. David Bevan: First off, we have the legal authority to create the communal licences covering both food and commercial access. So we have the legislative tools, the regulatory tools, to control this fishery.
Do we have the enforcement capacity? We have additional moneys coming. We have quite a number of fishery officers, over 600, in the country now. We've increased the number from 470 a few years ago. Even during program review cuts we've increased the number of fishery officers and provided better equipment, training, etc.
So we think we have the capacity, with the additional funds, to provide the required controls for these fisheries.
The Chair: Okay.
A minute, Peter, a minute, Keddy, and a minute, Duncan.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bevan, you're giving me the impression that this time last year aboriginal groups came to Ottawa to discuss with the various departments the fact that the Supreme Court may rule favourably in their decision. You folks look like you're hurrying and you're rushing, and you did absolutely nothing until that decision. That's a fact.
As well, the clarification ruling was not sought by DFO. It was groups like Wayne Spinney's in southwest Nova Scotia, who had intervener status, who got the clarification for it, not the Government of Canada.
The Chair: Is there a question here, Peter?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.
You have $13 million coming for enforcement. My question is, sir, what is going to happen on the water and how many enforcement officers will be there for Nova Scotia specifically?
Mr. David Bevan: We're going to be able to respond to situations as they arise. I can just say that. I'm not going to tell you that we're going to have x number, because we're going to move people around to deal with issues as they arise. We have the money to put the effort where it's needed. That's the case.
We've had additional or new officers going into southwest Nova Scotia, and we have 60 graduates coming out this April. We'll be deploying them as well. Some will go to Nova Scotia, some to P.E.I., etc. I can't tell you how many are going to be looking at what's going on in southwest Nova Scotia this year. There will be enough to do the job, and whatever is required will be put in there. But if it's not going to be a hot area, we aren't going to put the effort there. We'll put it somewhere else.
• 0950
The Chair: Mr. Keddy, a one-minute question.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're probably going to need—and I hope you don't, but I suspect you will—your extra officers in southwest Nova Scotia, so you might as well plan to put them on the ground. If you need to take them somewhere else, take them somewhere else.
What is the plan if this strategy fails? By “fail” I mean we're spending $160 million to introduce aboriginal fishermen into the fishery; what happens if, in a year's time, those boats are sitting on the bottom at the wharf, they've been neglected, and the licences have been half-fished? Are we going to have non-aboriginals fishing that effort or are we going to introduce aboriginals into the fishery and have them fishing that effort?
Mr. David Bevan: We're going to provide people with an opportunity, and what they make of that opportunity is up to them. We're going to provide them with funds, in the case of agreements, to allow them to build the capacity to realize the benefits from that opportunity. Again, it's an opportunity. Just like a commercial fisherman with a licence, he may exercise it or he may not.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bevan.
Mr. Duncan, last point. Mr. Bevan has to get out of here quickly.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): First, I'd like to make a specific request that the three signed agreements be tabled with this committee.
Second, you've talked about this right being a communal right. We know that moderate livelihood is something that is sought to be defined. The two concepts are completely contradictory. You can't have a communal right and then define individuals as having a moderate livelihood.
How are you planning on squaring that?
Mr. David Bevan: With respect to moderate livelihood, the communal opportunity is provided on a communal basis to provide that community with the capacity to have a moderate livelihood for their members. How that's distributed is up to the community. We are not going to set the rules. We will make it public, however, what the benefits flowing to that community under this treaty are so that the members of that community can hold their own leadership accountable for how that was distributed.
But the calculation will be based on the population in that community—
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
Mr. David Bevan: —and what is required—
The Chair: Order, order.
Mr. David Bevan: —to give them the access that will provide the community with a moderate livelihood.
With respect to the three agreements, I'll have to take that back to the department.
The Chair: Can you respond to us by next Tuesday?
Mr. David Bevan: I think that should be possible, yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, Sarkis. I had indicated to Mr. Bevan that we would have him out of here at 9:50 a.m. and it's now 9:55 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Bevan, for coming. I think you certainly sensed the frustration from the committee. There were very good questions, and there are a lot of concerns here. I hope you take that back to the department as well.
Mr. David Bevan: I certainly will. Thank you.
The Chair: Again, thank you for coming.
Committee members, we do have a couple of issues to deal with. One is the notice of motion put forward by Mr. Keddy. That motion is up for discussion.
The second issue is the draft letter, which perhaps we could deal with first. The draft letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was forwarded to all your offices some time ago. Because of the timeframe on the west coast, we're not getting to the east coast as fast we would like. It was felt that we should draft at least a letter to the minister outlining some of the concerns we've seen on the west coast.
What's your position on that letter?
Some hon. members: Okay.
The Chair: Do we have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Discussion, Wayne?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: The last paragraph on the second page indicates that there should be a single manager of the resource, but we do have evidence where co-management agreements are in place on the east coast for various species—crab, for example. So a single manager working in conjunction....
• 0955
Take area 19 crab,
for example. That's co-managed, and it's done very
well, from the evidence we've heard over the last
while.
So when you say a single manager of the resource, we could be contradicting ourselves in regard to the co-management agreements that are already in place with other users, other groups.
The Chair: I don't want to really get into the discussion, Peter, but does that single manager of the resource not imply that overall you have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in charge of the management plans?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, just as they do with the—
The Chair: I don't think we're contradicting ourselves here.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's similar to what they have with crab. They have the overall authority in terms of either shutting it down or doing whatever, but it should be a little more specific on that. The DFO should be the ultimate authority.
The Chair: We don't need a motion; we just need agreement.
Are there any other points? Are we agreed on this letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy, do you want to explain your motion, and then we'll deal with it from there?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The motion is pretty straightforward. It's that we request MacKenzie and Thériault to appear before the committee prior to the break, April 15. We discussed it at the meeting last day. Then we'd get on with the committee's business.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Duncan and then Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. John Duncan: My only point is I'm not sure where Gerald has been. This is the point we've been trying to instil in the committee now for quite some period of time.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: You know what, John? I'll tell you where I've been, and I'm going to soon tell you where you can go.
It's quite simple here. The motion was made. It didn't get on the books. It wasn't approved. You guys would sooner sit back and cause conflict and not make the motion again and not try to get agreement on it. If somebody wants to vote against the motion, they can. If you want to vote against it, you can, but don't criticize the motion on its merit. You guys made a similar motion that didn't get approved. I'm making the motion.
The Chair: All right. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have the notice of motion, but I don't see the body of the motion anywhere here. Aren't we supposed to have the exact wording of the motion so that we know what we are voting on?
An hon. member: It's right here.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, it's not here. It says, “The motion will request...”. Where is the more exact wording of the motion?
An hon. member: We had a big discussion on that.
The Chair: Yes, we had a discussion. The motion was there.
An hon. member: Sarkis voted against it.
The Chair: Do you have the motion there, Bill?
Can the clerk read the motion? I don't have the original motion that was tabled.
An hon. member: It's simple.
The Clerk of the Committee: It's pretty straightforward. There it is:
There's the motion.
The Chair: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: I call the question. Do you want a recorded vote on this?
Some hon. members: Yes.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)
The Chair: There is no further business. The item scheduled at the moment is the minister on April 11. That's the only thing on our schedule. Correct?
Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Bernier, and then Mr. Duncan.
• 1000
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, in terms of John's request to get the three agreements on what's already been negotiated, do we have to do that formally by a request in writing, or is just a verbal thing good enough?
The Chair: No, the request has been made through the committee.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.
The Chair: I expect an answer on Tuesday, and I will immediately mail that out to the committee members.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: On the subject of future business, since there is no other meeting scheduled before we meet with the Minister on April 11, why don't committee members who are in contact with industry people get in touch with them if they cannot meet with Mr. MacKenzie, so that we can find out what they can tell us about the state of the negotiations. For instance, some people have said that I invented things regarding the negotiations in zone 12. I think some stakeholders would like to be heard. It's just an idea I'm throwing out. If you like it, so much the better.
[English]
The Chair: I don't have a problem with that. If committee members are willing to set aside Tuesday or Thursday of next week to hear from people in the industry about their views on this decision, I don't have a problem. Give me the names, and I'll run it by people and see what we can do on it.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. John Duncan: My understanding is we had the minister scheduled for April 12 on the estimates, and that's been postponed.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Duncan: Do we have a specific date?
The Chair: We've asked the department, John, and they haven't got back to us. April 11 is on Marshall.
Mr. John Duncan: Yes.
The Chair: We basically made the request that at the earliest possible time, we want to deal with the estimates.
Mr. John Duncan: So this committee is committed to getting the minister here?
The Chair: Absolutely. We want him on the estimates, and they're well aware of that.
Mr. John Duncan: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just have a question. Do we have enough room in our budget to video-link with industry, or is that the plan?
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay. So I would put in—
The Chair: Can you give me those names after? I'm willing to try to get two or three witnesses.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, last point.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Reform Party if their position has changed in terms of our travel to the east coast.
The Chair: They'll have to get back to me on that. I imagine they're going to have to talk about it.
We as a committee made a decision that we would travel. I know it's at the House leaders. I would ask that the Canadian Alliance members—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Oh, sorry. Canadian Alliance.
The Chair: —reconsider their position so that we can complete our travel. We're doing our best as a committee to try to accommodate. We're all concerned about the Marshall decision and where it's going, and we're trying our best to get before the committee anyone who can give us information.
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.