HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1999
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. Neil LeBlanc
MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. James DeWolfe): I see we have a quorum and I would like to call this meeting to order. I certainly want to greet everyone. This is the first meeting of the new year and it is nice to see so many turn out. I think we will start off our meeting as usual and, starting with Mr. Estabrooks, introduce ourselves for the benefit of all in the room.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Without further ado, I would like to introduce to you, and I think most of you have met him already, Mr. Roger Stirling of the Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia. What we normally do, Mr. Stirling, is we have a presentation from you and then we will go around the table and ask any questions that we would like addressed. I would like to turn the floor over to you now, if I may.
MR. ROGER STIRLING: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today. I don't have a presentation as such. I have done this a few times before and I find it usually works better with a give and take back and forth. I have passed around a couple of pieces of paper, one on the Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia in case any of you are not familiar with our group. We have been around for over 50 years and we presently have about a dozen members. We represent probably around 70 per cent of the fish production in the province and we work cooperatively with other organizations in the fishing industry, of course.
The other piece of paper I have provided to you is a list of the members of an organization, which I am sure you heard about, called NORIGS 2000. That organization is actively campaigning for an extension of the current moratorium on petroleum activities on Georges Bank, primarily, but it is worth noting that the current moratorium not only includes Georges Bank but also the Northeast Channel and the western portion of Browns. You are quite right that the focus is on Georges Bank. It is important, I think, that we not forget about those other areas. The other focus of NORIGS is on other sensitive areas that are not covered by the current moratorium. There are major fishing areas, I think as everybody is aware, in the Bay of Fundy, important lobster fishing areas, lobster being our largest value fishery.
We have cooperated with the oil industry in terms of the developments that have taken place on the Scotian Shelf but feel strongly, as a member of NORIGS, in conjunction with a lot of other people in the fishing industry, that the moratorium on Georges Bank should be extended. If you don't mind, I would like to spend just a few minutes on that issue because that is probably the major focus of people in the fishing industry over the next two or three weeks. The hearings, as I am sure you are aware, started in Yarmouth yesterday and then they are going to be moving on to Shelburne, up to Liverpool and then end up in Halifax and a significant number of the members of NORIGS will, in fact, be appearing before that panel. We are also very pleased to see, by the way, that there have been some MLAs who have turned out to present and based on what I have heard of their presentations so far, they have been quite supportive of extending the moratorium on Georges Bank and the adjacent areas to Georges Bank.
Again, I won't take you through, this is sort of a draft of my presentation, which I will be making in a couple of weeks, but just to highlight it for you fairly briefly, Georges Bank, I think as we all know, is a pretty special place. Not only is it unique in terms of a number of its physical properties and the gyre that tends to keep nutrients on the bank, which seems to be the reason for the abundance of fish that are there, but it is also a major commercial fishing area. It is important for scallops, it is important for groundfish - cod, haddock, yellowtail, pollack.
We used to have a very large herring fishery on Georges Bank that was sort of wiped out by foreign trawlers back in the 1960's but it is now coming back quite strongly. Over the past three or four years we have had good reports from scientists of repopulation of Georges Bank with substantial stocks of herring. We haven't started to exploit those very well yet and we need to look at the types of vessels we have - it is hard, if you are fishing relatively close to shore, seiners make sense but, if you are fishing out there, then you probably need a different type of vessel.
The other important fisheries are lobster, which is more in the slope areas than up on the bank itself, and swordfish and tuna are also important fisheries in that area adjacent to the bank. So it is a pretty remarkable place, probably one of the most prolific fishing grounds in
the world, and that is not an exaggeration to say that. Sometimes I think living so close to it, we lose sight of how prolific a fishing area it is.
I guess the second point I would like to emphasize is that no matter how you cut it, there are significant risks involved with petroleum activities in any area and while I think the petroleum industry is taking steps to minimize those risks to the extent that they can, nevertheless, there is always the risk of blow-outs and there is, at least up to this point in time, there is significant discharge - tons and tons of discharges - from these operations in terms of muds that they use for drilling, in terms of cuttings and there is also some heavy metals in this stuff, and some of it is fairly toxic. I guess our view with respect to Georges Bank is that there is just simply too much to lose. Even if we can be satisfied that the risks are being minimized - and we are going to strive to see that that is the case regardless of where the drilling takes place - on Georges Bank there is just simply too much to lose.
The petroleum industry has pretty well open access to large areas of the Atlantic offshore. There are already substantial operations on the Scotian Shelf, substantial operations on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and we feel strongly that an area that is as productive for us as Georges Bank just doesn't merit the risk that is inherently involved in petroleum operations.
I guess another point that frequently can get lost in the shuffle is the fact that while fish is a renewable resource, petroleum is a non-renewable resource. So while the benefits of petroleum production are there, and while they are attractive, they are finite. You may be talking 10 years or 20 years or 25 years, but at some point in time those resources are going to be depleted. Fish resources, on the other hand, are there forever if we husband them and if we manage them in a sustainable fashion.
The other key thing that I would like to flag on Georges Bank - and I will stop after this - is the fact that we share Georges Bank with our neighbour to the south. It is clear that anything that happens, any disaster on our side of the bank would impact on the U.S. side and vise versa. The Americans, as I think you are all aware, have already taken the position of extending the moratorium on their side to 2012. Frequently we find ourselves in other areas, Pacific salmon, for example, or the Great Lakes, where we are really trying to convince the Americans to do the right thing and to look at sustainability and to look at conservation. This is an example, I think, where the Americans have taken the lead and shown us the way that we should be going.
Maybe I can just leave it there for a moment, Mr. Chairman, and entertain any questions on that subject. Another one that I would like to touch on briefly, a little later on if we have time, is an initiative that DFO has under way and there may be other subjects that you want to raise with me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and we will open up the floor and entertain some questions.
Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Roger, you mentioned that 70 per cent - I think that was the number - of fish producers are in your association.
MR. STIRLING: No, we represent about 70 per cent of production. We have 12 members. There are a large number of processors in Nova Scotia, I would guess probably 100 or more and probably 300 or 400 plants.
MR. ESTABROOKS: That is fine, I understand.
MR. STIRLING: So it is share of production rather than share of processors.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I am certainly interested in your point of view, yet somewhere in the background noise of my morning, this morning, I heard an interview on Information Morning with . . .
MR. STIRLING: Dick Stewart.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes, and this particular gentleman is pointing out, I think his line that struck me was, well, these big oil companies never did any damage to make sure that we have no fish out there, so why should we keep them off? I think that was the gist of the conversation. How do you rectify that pretty different point of view?
MR. STIRLING: How do I rationalize Dick? I am not sure. Dick represents a portion of the herring seiner fleet, and I think what Dick is basically saying is that as a result of technological improvements in the oil and petroleum sector there is less risk there now than there was in the late 1980's when Dick, in fact, was an active member of the original NORIGS. All I can really tell you is that here is a list of the people who support NORIGS 2000 and I would say that probably the only person in the fishing industry, that I am aware of, who doesn't support NORIGS 2000 is probably Dick and, why that is, I can't tell you.
Roughly about half of the seiner fleet is represented by Dick. The other half of the seiner fleet - this is the herring fleet - is represented by southwestern seiners and they have either presented or are presenting in Yarmouth, supporting the NORIGS position. The gill-net fleet, which is the inshore herring fleet, I think Donnie Cunningham presented yesterday on behalf of that fleet, indicating their support for extension of the moratorium. So all I can really tell you is that Dick is, as far as the fishing industry is concerned, basically the odd man out.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Stirling. I just happened to be listening to Costas Halavrezos on the way in here and he was talking with a lady from Gloucester, Massachusetts, I think and she was talking about this very topic. I am curious, if you were to achieve an extension of the moratorium, would you be going for the 2012 date, and what is the significance of it? I am thinking in terms of biology. Obviously, somebody came up with that for a reason and, I am just wondering, is it connected to the coming back of particular stocks? You mentioned the herring, but I am wondering about other species that are there; or would you be pushing for it further or is anybody talking about we don't want them drilling there, period? I can't see it being less sensitive in the future and certainly the direction of the fishery would indicate that oil and water don't mix.
[1:30 p.m.]
I am also curious as to the - probably maybe in general terms and I might come back to another question later once other people have had a chance to ask - I am curious about your views on the fishery, period, but certainly 2012 date, I wonder about the significance of that or if you know why the Americans picked that date, and what one you are aiming for?
MR. STIRLING: It is a very good question and we have and NORIGS have taken the position that we would like to see the moratorium extended to at least 2012, and the only reason we have picked that date is because that is the date that the Americans have extended their moratorium to at this stage. So I am not aware of why they particularly picked that date. I am not aware that it is particularly related to stock recovery, although I would like to come back to that in a second, with respect to groundfish, because that is an important point that I should have flagged before and I thank you for raising it.
Frankly, what we would like to see is a permanent moratorium on Georges Bank. I think we are saying at least 2012 because we think that, given the past history on this issue, it is not likely that we are going to get an indefinite moratorium and that one happens to coincide with the American moratorium, and I think there is a lot of merit in trying to go hand in hand with the Americans on this.
That brings me to the point that I should have made before with respect, particularly, to groundfish. The groundfish resource - as I think everybody in this room is fully aware, right across the Atlantic, or the northwest Atlantic anyway - has suffered very, very serious declines. Those declines have been most serious the further east you go and the further north you go, but they have also been quite serious in the Bay of Fundy and on Georges Bank. As a result of that, we have entered into increasingly cooperative management with the Americans on Georges Bank with a view to bringing those resources back. We have had some success on haddock and yellowtail, although those resources are still not back to the levels that they can sustain by any means, but the trend is upward. The one that we are still having
a lot of trouble with, a lot of concern about, is cod and, in fact, the Minister of DFO just announced actually a reduction in the cod quota for 1999.
So we have, I guess the word that I would like to use is fragility, with respect to the state of our resources there. Groundfish, particularly cod and also the herring, which I mentioned earlier, is just now emerging from a point where there was very little herring showing up on Georges Bank for a 20-plus year period.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am curious as to do they know why it is coming back? The problem with the cod, is that just a problem with the cod or is that a problem with the Americans onside with the cod? You mentioned about the relationship with the Americans and some of these other species and some of the work being done has been quite good, except with the cod. I just wonder, did that pertain to the American relationship or did that just pertain to the fishery of cod here anyway?
MR. STIRLING: Well, the fishery of cod here and there. No it has been a very big focus for the Americans and they have even got a bigger focus on it now because they have what appears to be a virtual collapse of their inshore fishery, not on Georges Bank. No, there has been good cooperation with the Americans on that and they have the same type of problems that we have, just a tremendous amount of capacity and a complete mis-match between that capacity and the resource availability and how you deal with that and how you deal with all the social problems that flow from that, yes. So it is a tough one but I am encouraged by what we have been able to achieve so far as a result of that process.
Your other question was on herring, was it? I am sorry.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Yes, do they know why the herring is coming back? Are they just not catching it because there aren't any and that is why it came back or is there some other biological mechanism that is . . .
MR. STIRLING: The answer is we don't really know. The amount that we know about fish resources compared to what we don't know, I guess, is probably small. The two observations I can make are what clearly, I think, knocked down the herring stock 20 years or 30 years ago was the massive foreign fishing that was taking place there. No one knows, really. I have heard estimates. I think the recorded catch was somewhere in the vicinity of like a couple of hundred thousand tons, which is a huge number. We have a quota now on Georges Banks of 20,000 tons, for example, at this point in time. Statistics weren't very good back then so the numbers could have easily been double that. So that is what knocked it down originally. Why did it take 20 years or 30 years to come back? Why is it coming back now? It could have something to do with the health of other resources. Everything is all tied in together.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am going to choke off for a minute.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Just before we move on, I would like to take you back for a moment there to the moratorium. You suggested that ultimately you would like to see a permanent moratorium and I know that is from your perspective. I have to question, do you think that that is a realistic position to take, given the potential of wealth that is underlying this subsea landscape, considering that, too, is a resource and a great potential to this province? What is your feeling, realistically, on this?
MR. STIRLING: Realistically, we are not asking for a permanent moratorium because we don't think we are going to get it so we are asking for a moratorium to 2012. That sort of ties in with the American moratorium.
I don't think we want to sort of deny Nova Scotians any opportunity for economic development to better the lot of Nova Scotians generally but I guess I would make two points, one of which I made before and that is that we should never forget that we are talking a non-renewable resource here versus a renewable resource. So I think the last thing we want to do is grasp at some short-term gain for a whole lot of long-term pain.
I guess the other point I would make is that there has to be, I think, some kind of balance here. We already have substantial developments on the Scotian Shelf and more to come and seismic work is just everywhere. Georges Bank is, again, one of the most prolific fishing areas in the world so I think the fishing industry is trying to be responsible, trying to be balanced. We have done quite a bit of work with the petroleum industry on the Scotian Shelf. We worked out an agreement with them involving a number of principles in the context of the Sable panel hearings but in relation to Georges Bank we are saying there is just too much to lose here.
I don't think this is really the issue. I think the other thing that people have to ask themselves is how much benefit is there going to be for Nova Scotians with respect to Georges Bank? If you pull out a map and look at Georges Bank, you will find that it is closer to parts of the U.S. than it is to Nova Scotia. My guess is that if oil or gas were developed on Georges Bank, it realistically would be much more likely to go ashore in the U.S. than it would be in Nova Scotia.
When you look at the overall picture, I think what we are asking for on Georges Bank is pretty reasonable and I think, frankly, is the right thing to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stirling, we don't know, at this point, even what the industry's long-term plans are for expanding into that area, so it is sort of all up in the air right now anyway, on what their long-term plans are.
MR. STIRLING: Well, they have leases there going back a long time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The leases go back a long time, that's right.
MR. STIRLING: They drilled a bunch of wells on the U.S. side back in the early 1980's. If they weren't planning development there, they wouldn't be as aggressive as they are with respect to the moratorium question. We have to assume that if the moratorium is lifted, there is going to be lots of seismic going on there, exploratory drilling, and if the exploratory drilling is successful, it is going to result in development and production. There is a bit of a strange message being put out by the oil industry that this is really just about exploration, that this is just about seismic and production but, goodness gracious, they are not going to go out there and spend millions of dollars on exploration without the intention to develop. If we are into development, we are probably into multiple wells, pipelines, tanker traffic; the risks are great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Muir.
MR. JAMES MUIR: I guess the other thing, Roger, that would seem to me, the longer you can delay movement into Georges Bank, the better the technology and presumably the improvements in technology, the safer it might be the longer it takes, I guess, and that is what you would hope for. How big is Georges Bank?
MR. STIRLING: My goodness, I don't have that here with me, but it is a confined area, particularly when you are talking about the Canadian side of Georges Bank. It is not as big as people might think it is. If you look at the number of fisheries that go on there and the number of vessels that fish there, if that is the point you were leading me to, it is a fairly confined area and we have a fair amount of gear conflict there already.
MR. MUIR: The value of the fishery in Georges Bank?
MR. STIRLING: It depends on how you measure it, but in terms of landed value, at least $100 million per year, and then you could probably double that in terms of production value.
MR. MUIR: You had mentioned the herring had gone because the foreign trawlers were sucking it up. Do we have exclusive rights on Georges Bank now, in the Canadian portion, or do we have agreements with the Portuguese and others?
MR. STIRLING: It is exclusive.
MR. MUIR: There is no more foreign fishing going on?
MR. STIRLING: There is no foreign fishing, whatsoever, on the Canadian portion of Georges Bank.
MR. MUIR: What about the American portion?
MR. STIRLING: To my knowledge, there is none; I am pretty sure I would be aware of it if there was. There is no foreign fishing on the U.S. side. What they have had in the past is some over-the-side sales that involve offloading of fish - this would be herring or mackerel - caught by American boats to foreign processors, but that is not taking place now either.
MR. MUIR: Picking up on something that Mr. [John] MacDonell said. Sustainable fishery, have the scientists determined at this point how much fish can be caught in the course of a year, or whatever period of time they use when they are assessing the fishery, how much we can catch, or are we still guessing about what amount can be taken and the fish still be able to regenerate?
MR. STIRLING: All of the above. The scientists make recommendations as to what a reasonable level of removal is on a species-by-species basis for each year, but it still involves a lot of assumptions and probably scientists wouldn't appreciate it if I used the word guessing, but maybe informed guessing. Fish resources are still pretty unpredictable. When we extended jurisdiction and got control of the area out to 200 miles, I think a lot of people in the fishing community, broadly defined, convinced themselves that we could manage these resources in such a way that there wouldn't be major fluctuations in them now that we sort of had control, that we could sort of figure out what the long-term yield should be from a particular stock in a particular area and that within 10 or 20 per cent of that we could keep it there. We developed more and more sophisticated mathematical models to try to do that.
I think now there is a wide recognition that that is not the real world and that no matter what we do, there are going to be fairly dramatic fluctuations in fish resources from one year to the next, or certainly in terms of cycles. We have certainly seen that as some fish resources have gone down - for instance, as the cod resource has gone down - we have seen a dramatic rise, for example, in shrimp. Shrimp was a relatively small fishery on the East Coast of Canada not that long ago; now shrimp is everywhere. Shrimp is known worldwide as a cold water indicator, which maybe tells us something about why the cod resource hasn't come back.
We still have notions of long-term yield for various stocks, but we are now no longer saying that we can, from year to year, keep our TAC levels, our catches close to those yields. We recognize there are going to be fluctuations and we are trying to build a fishery now that can deal with those realities.
MR. MUIR: One last question, I guess, at this particular point. Do you think there should be a seal fishery?
MR. STIRLING: Yes.
MR. MUIR: A massive seal fishery?
MR. STIRLING: No, I think we should be harvesting seals the same as we harvest in any other - fishery is not the word I am looking for because a seal is a mammal not a fish, but you always have to be careful when you talk about mammals because people might think you are talking about whales. I think seals should be harvested, looked at the same way that other marine resources are.
MR. MUIR: My question was relating to their predatory effect on the fish stocks; I was trying to say it in a nice way, I guess.
MR. STIRLING: I guess I am trying to respond to it in a nice way. I am not advocating that we go out there and kill every seal, but I think the other extreme is just as bad, to say that we shouldn't kill any seals. I think they should be harvested in some kind of an ecological fashion the same as fish resources.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just some clarification on the shrimp being a cold water indicator.
MR. STIRLING: Yes, scientists will tell you whenever you see an explosion of shrimp, it is an indication that there is colder water present.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it interesting in that the larger shrimp that we get here are from Louisiana where it is probably warmer down there.
MR. STIRLING: Yes, they are a different species. They are warm water shrimp.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see. Thank you for setting me straight on that.
MR. STIRLING: There has been a number of areas where there has been a big explosion of shrimp. I think the quota in Newfoundland, I cannot remember my numbers exactly now, I think has quadrupled over a relatively short period of time, and the shrimp resource on the Scotian Shelf has gone up. There is a whole new fishery that has developed out on the Flemish Cap outside 200 miles. That is an international fishery that people thought, with the level of fishing on it outside 200 miles, wouldn't last any more than a couple of years. It is still going strong and we have seen some increase in the shrimp resources between Canada and Greenland. So, it seems to go on and on. There have been 11 new plants either built or converted in Newfoundland. I think $60 million of private investment is the number I have seen in shrimp processing in Newfoundland in the past year or so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Interesting, thank you. Mr. Parker.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Mr. Stirling, two or three little questions here I want to ask you. First of all, I am just wondering why is it Georges Bank is so unique, or why is it such a tremendous producer of fish? Is it the latitude, or the depth of the water, or the temperature? How come it's so productive?
MR. STIRLING: You would need to probably hear from a scientist to have a good appreciation for that. Just in very general terms, it is the northern extreme of a number of species. It is the southern extreme of a number of species. There is a gyre on Georges Bank that tends to retain nutrients on it for a longer period of time than they are retained in other areas. It has the right type of bottom for certain species. There a number of factors that, again, I think I must bone up on before I do my presentation on this.
MR. PARKER: I am just curious. We are fortunate to have it so close offshore.
MR. STIRLING: Yes, it is a remarkable area and it is not an exaggeration to say one of the most prolific fishing grounds in the world.
MR. PARKER: I just want to come back to the fishery in general. I get the impression that it is generally healthy although maybe not quite as many people employed as there was 20 years ago, but it seems to be fairly vibrant especially in southwest Nova Scotia. Where do you see the future of the industry? Do you think we are going to be able to maintain the jobs that we have? Is the conservation direction heading in the right directions or are we heading into the deep waters? I am just wondering what you see in the forecast for the future in the industry.
MR. STIRLING: Well, in terms of employment in the industry, it may be sort of settling out now. Unfortunately for a long period of time, we tried to use the fishery as sort of the employer of last resort. I think everybody sort of agrees, at this stage, that the fishery is not likely to be able to employ the number of people that it did in the past, but it is still a very large employer. It is still very important to lots of communities, particularly in southwestern Nova Scotia. So, I think the jobs will probably be less seasonal than they are at the present time, more reliable.
On the conservation side, I think we have learned a lot since extension jurisdiction. Certainly, we made a lot of mistakes along the way, but I am increasingly optimistic that we are putting the right mechanisms in place to foster conservation. I think there is wide recognition in the industry now that fish resources are not inexhaustible. I think there is a growing conservation ethic in the industry as well as in government, so, I am optimistic.
MR. PARKER: One theory that I have read about, or heard about, as to why some stocks are in trouble, and why some have disappeared or gotten down quite low, is it the dragging or the trawling really disturbing, digging up the bottom and causing lots of damage for eggs, young fish, or species in general? Do you think there is anything to that theory that this is causing some real problems?
MR. STIRLING: Well, this has been topical in the last two or three weeks with the report out of the U.S.; the evidence that I have seen in the past does not support that. I think one of the things that we have to do is get more of the background out of this. There has been
quite a bit of work done by BIO on this stuff over the past few years. I think you will probably also see some technological improvements in the gear in relation to that. I think there are things that can be done that will result in the gear spending less time on the bottom than it does now, and it is going to be the focus of some examination over the next period of time, I would think.
MR. PARKER: One final question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. ITQ is the direction the fishery has been going here in the last few years, and some are in favour and some are against. I would just like to know what your thoughts are on it. Individual transferable quota, do you see that as a good thing or otherwise?
MR. STIRLING: Well, it depends on the fishery and depends on the sector. It is not a panacea any more than any other management approach in the fishery. I think it has worked relatively well where it has been introduced. I do not think it should be forced upon sectors. I think it should be up to the sectors themselves whether they want to have that type of a management approach. Most of the fisheries that are probably likely to go that way are probably already there, I would suspect.
MR. PARKER: Is there a danger that it can be too concentrated in the hands of too few and not spread around like it has been among many fishers?
MR. STIRLING: Yes, I think you have to be - looking at the social side of the fishery - concerned about concentration. I think the way to deal with that is to put measures in place in the specific ITQ plans that will ensure that that does not take place. Whether you are talking ITQs or whether you are talking any other management measure, it is pretty difficult to stop people from cooperating with each other. People talk about concentration in certain sectors now, but I think a lot of that concentration might have been there before that.
You have probably heard of under-the-table licences and that sort of stuff. That really goes back to Romeo LeBlanc, when Romeo put something in place called the fleet separation policy, which basically said that we should have harvesters over here and we should have processors over here; they should be separate. Harvesters shouldn't be processing and processors shouldn't be harvesting. Unfortunately, when he put that in place, he only put sort of half of it in place, the half that says that processors can't get involved in the harvesting side of the industry; he didn't say anything about harvesters getting involved in the processing side of the industry. He didn't have jurisdiction to do that anyway; that would be a provincial jurisdiction.
[2:00 p.m.]
What happened over a period of time was that more and more harvesters started getting involved in the processing side of the business and processors were taking supply, sort of committed it to existing processors and setting up new processing plants and diverting the
supply to that processing plant, leaving the existing processors with no supply or with reduced supply. So that forced the existing processors to enter into whatever arrangements they could to ensure their survival. That took the form of what's referred to as under-the-table licences, where the licences stay in harvesters' names but are really owned by the processing company. If they didn't do that, they would have been out of business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Stirling, I would just like to take you back to a question that Mr. Parker asked in regard to the impacts of dragging. In one sense I am surprised by your answer and in another sense I am not. Is this your position or is this the association's position that dragging does not have a destructive impact on ground bottoms and stocks?
MR. STIRLING: All gear, any kind of gear that you want to put in the water, is going to have an impact. The FRCC has looked extensively at this question; this is the independent body that looks at groundfish conservation. It has basically said that all gears are capable of impacting on conservation, mobile gear potentially more so than other gears because of the volume of the fish involved. Any gear that you abuse is going to have some deleterious effect on the resource. Should we ban bottom trawling because it comes in contact with the bottom? No, I don't think we should, and that is the association's position and I think the position of probably anybody who is involved with that type of gear.
MR. SAMSON: We all know of the American study that is coming out, which I haven't had a chance to review yet, but I look forward to doing it soon. Is it your position that even though science does come out and say, look - I think the American study made the statement that there is no form of development or no other industrial activity which is having as disastrous an impact on the bottom of the ocean as dragging is having, both scallop-type dragging and mobile-gear dragging. From the comment you just made, is it the association's position that even though science does come out and say this is having a disastrous effect, the association still sticks to its guns that we are going to keep dragging regardless of the impact it is having?
MR. STIRLING: This is one study, which I have yet to read. We certainly wouldn't take a position based on one study. I mentioned some other studies a minute ago that have been done by BIO. We will certainly take a look at this study and have some dialogue about it and update ourselves on what information is available out there. You mentioned scallops, for example. If you are going to ban all gear that has any contact with the bottom, well, then you are basically wiping out the scallop fishery. There is no other way to get them up off the bottom; you have to have contact with the bottom. I don't think anybody is suggesting that we should shut down the scallop fishery here or anywhere else in the world.
MR. SAMSON: I wasn't suggesting that either, but I know right now there is a lot of concern in smaller inland waters other than heavily-used areas like Georges Bank where with scalloping, basically, there is no control and once you have a licence you can basically go drag. It is mostly open season now; that is the main concern for lobster fishermen and others, especially in inland waters where there is only a small quantity of scallops and one has to drag for a full day to catch a minute quantity compared to what is caught off Georges Bank. I think Georges Bank is an exception in that the grounds are so rich in certain pockets that, basically, you are faced with an abundance of scallops. One of the concerns is that in the other areas throughout Nova Scotia where the abundance is not there, a scallop fisherman has to drag for a full day to catch a crateful of scallops. I guess that is one of the impacts there.
You mentioned that this is one study, but I think you would agree with me that for years now, the debate has been going on on the mobile-gear sector, especially from the fixed-gear sector, which mainly includes hook and line, and trawling. Certainly that has been a concern for a long time and that debate has been going for many years, long before this study ever took place. I think it is safe to say right now that most of the members of your association rely heavily on the mobile-gear sector for their products. So my question would be, has the association been undergoing any sort of consultations or out-looking thoughts, I guess, as to if in five years DFO bans any sort of mobile gear, trawling for groundfish, has the association looked at all at other more environmental means of fishing or other forms of fishing other than the mobile-gear sector?
MR STIRLING: I guess the answer to your question is, yes, we have been actively participating in consultations on this issue for some time. I mentioned the FRCC process which we actively participated in. That report has been around for a couple of years now and you might want to take a look at that because again, basically, what it says is that all gears have a place in the fishery. There are species that you can't catch with fixed gear, so you are either not going to fish for them or you have to fish with mobile gear. But there are improvements that can be made in all gears, I think, to make them more conservation-oriented, rather than sort of saying we are going to ban this gear. A lot of to-ing and fro-ing that goes on in the name of gear is really just as much about allocation as it is about gear and who gets the fish.
If at some point in time it were demonstrated that one gear or another was particularly harmful from a conservation point of view, sure, we would look at switching gears or modifying the gear. I think it makes more sense to look at modifying the gear rather than simply switching to another gear. That is something that is ongoing all the time. I mentioned just a little while ago that we are looking at technological developments that will potentially reduce the amount of time that the gear spends on the bottom, that sort of thing.
MR. SAMSON: You made the statement that there are some species which can't be caught by fixed gear. I am just curious, other than scallops and silver hake, that I can think of, what other species cannot be caught by fixed gear?
MR. STIRLING: Redfish. Probably our biggest groundfish fishery at the moment is redfish, which you really can't target with fixed gear.
MR. SAMSON: That is about it, redfish, is it? (Interruptions) trap fishery now for shrimp. Pretty much all your other groundfish species can be caught with your fixed gear sector. Lobster is obviously a fixed gear-type of product.
MR. STIRLING: Lobster is fixed gear, sure. You certainly are not going to fish off Flemish Cap with fixed gear for shrimp, for example. It just depends on where you are fishing. I think there is room in the shrimp fishery for fixed gear and mobile gear. You have to look at what makes sense from an economic point of view, too. If you want to practise 100 per cent conservation without any reference to the economic side of things, basically what you do is leave everything in the water. You don't fish. That is the conservation method but you always have to balance off conservation with the economics of the fishery and the social side of the fishery and the political side of the fishery.
MR. SAMSON: One of my last statements would be, I certainly am not advocating in any way that we don't catch the species. I come from a fixed-gear background, small community. For example, if you look at 100 tons of shrimp, you can catch it with one boat with four men on it in two or three trips or you can put five boats with three men on them who will fish all winter to catch that 100 tons. So in many cases it is coming down to the dollar, which is a concern of mine. For economic purposes and social purposes, fixed gear has proven itself to be overall a better way of going by maximum employment while at the same time controlled harvesting. That has certainly been one of my biggest concerns with the mobile-gear sector.
The only argument that there is economic-wise for that is that you maximize your gains with having your least expenses. That is basically what it comes down to, the mobile-gear sector, whereby your fixed gear is higher expenses, lower gains, maximum employment. That is certainly one of the concerns and I think we are seeing it more and more as a result of the collapse of the groundfish and other stocks which many view as a result of the mobile-gear sector, not simply foreign mobile-gear but we are seeing more and more horror stories coming from off our own coast.
My last question would be the issue of high-grading, what the position of the association has been on that issue.
MR. STIRLING: By high-grading, do you mean discarding?
MR. SAMSON: Yes.
MR. STIRLING: By-catch is a problem, discarding is a problem but not just in mobile-gear fisheries, in fixed-gear fisheries, too. There is fair amount of fish shacked off fixed gear. So, sure, we should be basically doing whatever we can do to, first of all, to minimize by-catch and secondly to utilize as much of the fish that comes out of the water as possible. I think we have to be careful, too, to make sure that we are proceeding on the basis of fairly solid evidence rather than rumour or anything else of that nature. When you sort of look at the facts on this stuff, it doesn't point a finger at mobile gear. I realize there are certain segments in the industry that would basically like to see mobile gear eliminated but I think you will find that basically what they are saying is, eliminate that gear and give the fish to us. Right? So it is fundamentally an allocation question rather than a gear question.
You mentioned economics and economics are a factor. In addition to catching the fish, we have to be able to process and sell it in the international market place. If you have lousy economics to begin with, you can't do that. Now having said that, I recognize that there has to be some balance. There has to be some balance between economics, between the social side of the fishery. I don't think we want to get back to a situation, though, where what is driving the industry is maximum employment because, if we do that, we are doomed. Right? I mean, basically we will end up in the same mess that we found ourselves in three or four years ago. It would be crazy for us to spend all the money that we are spending on buy-back now to take people out of the industry; millions and millions of dollars worth of government money being spent to buy back licences only to do it all over again.
I think we have to have some balance between the economic and the social and we have to have some balance in the fishery in terms of the kind of gear that is being used. It only makes sense; we certainly don't want to forgo fishing resources that are available to us because of some religion on gear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stirling. I realize we have kept you pretty much talking for well over an hour now and we have gone around the table at least once. I am just wondering, are there any other questions, perhaps a quick one?
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I do have a couple of questions, but you had mentioned that you wanted to go on to another area. I am wondering if . . .
MR. STIRLING: It is not critical, so we can stay on this. I can touch on it at the end maybe.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: One of my first curiosities was, what is your background? How did you come to this? Were your raised in the fishery or . . .
MR. STIRLING: I am from Newfoundland originally. I came here in the late 1960's and I have been involved with the association for close to 30 years.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am curious as to what you know about the allocation quotas and whether or not, when the government takes the information from scientists to allocate quotas, there is any consideration of that particular species and where its place is in the food chain because, certainly with the shrimp, I would see a blooming shrimp fishery may have an impact on the recovery of the cod. I am wondering to what extent that information is taken into consideration. It seems that some of what you said indicates that it is difficult for scientists to get a handle on exactly what the biology is on a number of these species. I am curious as to whether that is a consideration.
MR. STIRLING: That is a very good question. The term that is being used for the ecosystem approach - and we are just really starting to scratch the surface on that now. There is a fairly substantial workshop in the works for sometime this year. There is a big international workshop on that subject, and the last I heard was there were about 300 people going to France in March, I think. Scientists have always been aware of the inter-relationships, the predator/prey relationship, the competition for food, but it really hasn't been factored into the models. It is a very difficult thing to do.
The other thing that hasn't really been factored into the models very well is the environmental factors. For years - and I guess they are still doing it - they just make certain assumptions, for example, on natural mortality. If you didn't fish anything, there would still be fish dying, but what should that number be? For years I used 20 per cent, but 20 per cent might be right for some species, not for others; it might be right at a certain point in time, not at another point in time. Then temperature information and that sort of thing. I think there is going to be a lot more focus on that, particularly the relationships between species. If you aren't fishing one species, well, then is that species eating a species that you are interested in developing. It may make some sense to fish one species down in order to encourage growth of another.
One of the most interesting sort of statistics that I have seen in that regard is with respect to Georges Bank and this was as a result of a lot of work, a big project that was done by the Americans and we were involved in it too, that sort of looked at the total biomass of fish on Georges Bank. Over, I can't remember the years that were involved, it was four or five years ago versus maybe 20 years before that or something like that, and it sort of concluded that basically the biomass was about the same but during that period of time, there had been dramatic changes in what the split-out of that biomass was. So I think that sort of goes to your point as well.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Something you had mentioned, and Mr. DeWolfe picked up on, the shrimp is a cold water indicator. You said, well, that just means that the water is getting colder.
MR. STIRLING: At some point in time. Yes, it was colder. Maybe at a certain level, too, maybe not necessarily on the surface.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I guess my thought was, so what? What does that mean in the bigger realm? I certainly look at the shrimp and their position as food for cod or wherever but I am just wondering, is the fact that the water was colder at some point significant in the bigger picture for other species?
MR. STIRLING: Absolutely. Many fish species are known to be very temperature-sensitive so if you get even a movement of two or three degrees and it is sustained over some period of time, at a certain level, it can be absolutely critical. Fish move around based on the change in water temperatures. Mackerel, for instance, are sort down off Cape Cod and they come up here in the summertime and when it gets cold, they head south again.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: How much influence does your association have, or do they think they have, when it comes to the allocation of quota? I am assuming you have talks with DFO and so on. I am just thinking about in Mulgrave, trying to get shrimp quota for a plant that was there. I am not even sure if it is closed or what happened with it but I know . . .
MR. SAMSON: It is still operating.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I know there was a fair bit of quota that went to Newfoundland but there wasn't a lot that came here. So I am curious as to . . .
MR. STIRLING: In terms of allocations generally, we sort of speak to that the same as other organizations do but in most of the fisheries now, the allocation keys or formulae are settled out in newer fisheries. Shrimp licences is one example where there is still quite a bit of controversy taking place. In most of the established fisheries, the relative shares have settled out now. Undoubtedly, there are always people who would sort of like to have somebody else's fish and I don't expect that to change in the near future. There is a fair amount of stability on the allocation side now so it is not as - I can remember back 10 years or 15 years ago, there were big allocation battles over groundfish and then Nova Scotia basically, on the groundfish front, lost substantial ground over the years. We used to have significantly more allocations on the Grand Banks and so on than we have now. What will happen when those fisheries crank up again, who knows? In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we have less allocations now than we had previously.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: One more, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to harp on this seal fishery, but . . .
MR. STIRLING: No pun intended. (Laughter)
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: . . . I am curious. Do we have the people or the market? There is a seal fishery in Newfoundland, as I understand it, adult seals. Do we have any fishery for seals in Nova Scotia at all?
MR. STIRLING: Basically, no, but we have different species here. The one that is causing the main problem is the grey seal.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: If we were going to have a seal harvest, are you thinking that that is something that should just go on in Newfoundland or should we harvest grey seals here in Nova Scotia?
MR. STIRLING: No, the notion of harvesting them is a good idea and is consistent with the comment I made earlier, but the problem with grey seals is, what do you do with them from an economic point of view. We are looking at markets in China and that sort of thing.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: To market the whole seal.
MR. STIRLING: Well, that is right, the meat, the pelt and so on. I think if there were good economic prospects for greys, you would have seen something develop by now. There is more focus on that and the province has been trying to foster some discussion on that in exploration of markets and so on. Then the more difficult question is, if you do not have a harvest then are you going do some kind of a cull and, frankly, I would much prefer to see something where we were utilizing the resource rather than just simply culling it.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I think in Newfoundland they are trying to establish a market for the whole seal.
MR. STIRLING: Yes, they have a market for it, but that is a harp seal. That is a different seal. So that is long-standing.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: If you were blindfolded and you were going to eat seal, would you know that there was a difference if you had grey seal or harp seal on a plate? The market, does it care that it is a grey seal? The only difference would be that maybe the harp seal's pelt is worth more, as an adult, than a grey seal?
MR. STIRLING: Yes, the primary market for harps is the pelt and then there have been attempts to develop some food market. It is a subsidized market. I might be wrong on this, but I think that the grey seal is an oilier meat than the harp seal. So, I think in order to process it effectively, you have to process it relatively quickly or shortly after you kill it because it's so oily. It's the same as oilier fish that can go rancid more quickly.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: My concern about, at least the fishery harvest in Newfoundland, is that the killing of adults - they have to shoot them, I think, because you do not get right up to them like you would with the pups, if you were killing the white coats. The fact that in shooting them, quite often they do not get the seal and sometimes they don't kill the seal. It does not seem to be the right way to go. At least, with a pup, you can walk up to
them and shoot them which might be certainly better than gaffing them. I don't know that the public would necessarily buy into the adults that you do not get or that you wound. I do not see that as a humane way to establish that harvest.
MR. STIRLING: Yes, there has been some recent study that, again, I am not really close to the seal fishery because it is mostly a Newfoundland fishery, but I have read some of the media reports on that and some questioning as to what percentage of the seals that are shot are actually taken. I presume DFO will be looking at that further, but then you are back into if you don't shoot them, how do you kill them, and there is a lot of controversy about that, too.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: You are talking about the Americans and the people in Massachussets and trying to bargain back and forth. I wonder, when the Americans seem to want something, if ever these are used as levers? I am thinking about the problem on the West Coast with the salmon dispute that went on there, if DFO actually ever uses as a lever, something that is desired on one coast for something that is desired on the other, or do they ever tend to go that way at all?
MR. STIRLING: I think there is a tendency probably not to link too many things together. That is probably a very good example that you are using. Things got pretty hot on salmon between the Americans and the Canadians over the past couple of years. I am not sure that would be particularly advantageous, from our point of view on this coast to be linked into that. To say that there aren't any linkages is obviously not true, but I think you have to be really careful with linkages. I think as far as fish is concerned, as I say, I have been around this industry for almost 30 years and I haven't seen a lot of linkages between West Coast fish issues and East Coast fish issues.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions?
MR. PARKER: I have a short question or two I want to ask. Lobster is a big part of the fishery, especially in southwestern Nova Scotia. I know there have been some problems in the Gulf of Maine area with disease or some type of bacteria. Is that affecting the fishery in your area at all?
MR. STIRLING: I saw a little bit on that again just recently and there were a few stories on it two or three or four months ago.
MR. PARKER: Quite a few fish are dying, apparently . . .
MR. STIRLING: Yes, right, higher mortalities and so on. A lot of that information, I think, is coming out of the University of Maine in Orono. I thought it had resolved itself, but then I saw something else on it just very recently but, no, no evidence of it has shown up in the Canadian fishery.
MR. PARKER: Not in the Canadian sector at all, then.
MR. STIRLING: Not that I am aware of anyway.
MR. PARKER: I read somewhere, I think, up to 30 per cent of their lobsters were dying, they think from this virus or bacteria, whatever it is . . .
MR. STIRLING: I can't remember the numbers now, but the latest thing I saw was, yes, that the mortality numbers or natural mortality numbers were up, but then I saw some other statistics that said that they weren't, so . . .
MR. PARKER: It has the potential to be pretty serious, though, if it spreads or whatever, the bacteria that is among the stock.
MR. STIRLING: Oh, for sure, yes. As far as I know, they haven't zeroed in on - if, in fact the claims are correct - what the cause is. I think there has been some guessing as to what it is.
MR. PARKER: Hopefully they'll get it under control because we certainly don't want it to spread anywhere.
MR. STIRLING: We do not.
MR. PARKER: It is a serious thing.
In relation to the lobster fishery again. Some of the fishermen in my area have concerns over it - I am from the North Shore, Pictou County - and also in P.E.I., the carapace size of the lobster and some want it increased and some do not. I know P.E.I. fishermen generally did not and North Shore fishermen did. What do you see as a solution to that, or is there one? It is a conservation measure to increase the stock if you raise the size. Now maybe it is not as big a problem in southwestern Nova Scotia. There is lots of stock there, is there?
MR. STIRLING: Yes, they have different size restrictions. The southwestern Nova Scotia fishery is primarily a live lobster market fishery whereas other fisheries are oriented towards canning and that sort of thing. So there is a difference. But I think the DFO push to increase the sizes relates to southwestern Nova Scotia as well. The problem with increasing the carapace size, of course, is that there are benefits there but there is short-term pain. So
as you increase the size, your catches are likely going to drop initially and then your yield should come up after that. I think there are reasons to be concerned about the harvest levels in the lobster fishery. The fishery just seems to go on and on and on. Maybe it will but if you look at the percentage of the stock that is being caught, removed, on an annual basis, the numbers are high, higher than they are in most any fishery I can think of. The levels of lobster catch over the past several years have been basically double anything historical. It seems to be continuing. The indications I have heard, I am generalizing now, there may be areas where the catch is down, but generally speaking, I think the catches have been good again this winter.
MR. PARKER: One final question. Do you see any new species or new use for present species or any future direction for the fishery that might be real potential on an international market? Is there some underutilized species that another use could be found for? What research is being done in that area to find new things?
MR. STIRLING: Well, DFO has had a focus on what they used to call it underutilized species and then for the past few years they have been calling it emerging species. With the decline in traditional groundfish stocks, there was definitely focus on other groundfish stocks. We have seen a sea urchin fishery develop over the past few years. On the product side, it is ongoing. I was mentioning to Mr. Muir, I think, just prior to the session, the initiative by one of our members - Clearwater - to look at fish in terms of nutritional supplements. They have invested quite a bit of money in that and I think that is based in Mulgrave as well, that operation, or partially in Mulgrave, partially in Halifax. So that is a whole new area, I think, for quite a while, going back to cod liver oil. People have been aware of the nutritional benefits of fish but there is more and more focus on that. You might remember the Omega 3 fatty acids. That was big stuff - it still is - a few years ago. You see more and more reports linking the benefits of eating fish vis-à-vis heart disease, vis-à-vis cancer. So I think there may be a sort of big future in terms of fish as getting more fish into nutritional supplements.
MR. PARKER: What about marine plants? Is there anything new developing there? I know sea parsley was one thing that has come on the market but is there other . . .
MR. STIRLING: Yes, it is a great product. Have you had some?
MR. PARKER: I don't think I have.
MR. STIRLING: No? It is excellent. When you look at the Japanese market, I guess that is where the sea urchin roe was going primarily, or to the Orient - I think there are potential opportunities in terms of sea plants for direct food consumption as opposed to going into other products that could use the foods. That business has been well-established, of course, for quite some time in terms of producing - what? - it is a binder, it is in toothpaste, I can't remember the name of it, but I think there are potential opportunities there in
harvesting seaweed and having dried products. The Japanese use it; the nori that goes around their sushi, that's all seaweed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that pretty well wraps it up, Mr. Stirling. I certainly want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation here. Sorry to keep you talking so long; your voice is still holding up. It was certainly excellent dialogue, and I think you have noted that we are all quite interested in the fisheries in this province and, in fact, many of us come from fishing communities. I live in a small fishing village in Pictou County, and it is an important resource-based industry to this province. It was certainly interesting to hear your perspective on the various topics and, for that, thank you very much. I am sure you will be making presentations down in Yarmouth this week, will you?
MR. STIRLING: I am going to be appearing in Halifax in a couple of weeks. Thanks very much for inviting me. I usually do this about once a year and I think I can safely tell you that this was just as thorough a session as the previous ones.
A final thing on the Georges Bank moratorium question, I hope we can count on your support on that issue which, I think, is embraced by virtually everybody in the fishing industry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will certainly be directing our thoughts towards that important issue. Again, thank you very much.
Members of the committee, we have a couple of small pieces of business to deal with before we adjourn.
[2:43 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:46 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is one more thing on the agenda and it is regarding future meetings. How often do you want them and who would you like to bring in in the new year for consultation. Unless Darlene has something else to add to that, I will open the floor for how often you would like to meet.
MR. SAMSON: I would suggest that in light of the fact that the House is not in session and, particularly, as many of us around the table here are rural members, Tuesday is usually not a caucus day, I do not believe, so, I would recommend that we go every two weeks, on Tuesdays.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is your recommendation. Now, any other?
MR. SAMSON: Well, it is tough to change the day because of all the other committees that are kind of in place. So, the minute you change a day, all of a sudden it becomes a conflict for every other committee that we are on.
MR. PARKER: We had a list originally of suggested people to come in and visit us and I am not sure how many are left on that list. Do we need to meet every two weeks? What I am basically coming around to is that maybe once a month when the House is not in session. It means coming in on a day that we normally do not come in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a day to get some other work done in the office for me. So, it is not a problem for me.
MR. SAMSON: I apologize for my other two colleagues from my caucus who are both ministers, which makes it extra tough to try to shuffle all of those responsibilities. Certainly if Mr. Parker is happy with once a month, on behalf of my caucus we will certainly support that.
MR. PARKER: When the House is in session, it is easier to meet. When we are coming in from Cape Breton or Yarmouth, or wherever, it is more difficult.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess, realistically, we have to say that possibly the House will not be in session until after the next election, so, that means that we would only hear from very few presenters if we meet once a month; possibly.
MR. ESTABROOKS: What is that prediction again?
MR. SAMSON: What kind of prediction is that? Did you guys get that on Hansard? Is that down?
MR. ESTABROOKS: I don't think you guys picked that up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One never knows, does one.
MR. SAMSON: I am going to call my campaign manager. (Laughter)
MR. ESTABROOKS: The other thing too, I am substituting today, but I know that my colleague, the member for Hants East, is on the Law Amendments Committee and we are beginning on Thursday to set up our schedule. So, I know it will be at the top of our priority list in our caucus and I am not really sure who is on the Law Amendments Committee from the other Parties.
MR. SAMSON: I think everyone is going to have to pinch-hit with the Law Amendments Committee from every caucus. (Interruptions) Exactly, I think everybody is affected by that. I think all 52 members will end up being in the Law Amendments Committee at some point.
MR. ESTABROOKS: So, that is going to be a very time-consuming process over the number of weeks. So, away we go.
MR. PARKER: I guess I should suggest once a month might be sufficient, because I do not know how many are on our list that we are looking at.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you any idea how many were left?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): . . . I don't have the list; I think we have exhausted most of the list of witnesses . . .
MR. SAMSON: The major stakeholders, the largest industries here, basically, we have tapped into them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we want to then, for the next period, at least for the next couple of months until we get through the Law Amendments Committee, just go with the once a month? It does not have to be carved in stone.
MR. SAMSON: No, you are right. If an emergency comes up, we can always talk about meeting again. We could do like the Human Resources Committee and say every second Tuesday of the month we will meet as a Resources Committee.
MRS. HENRY: The Human Resources Committee meets the last Tuesday of every month . . .
MR. SAMSON: There you go, the last Tuesday. So, we will say the second Tuesday or . . .
MRS. HENRY: So, if we meet the third Tuesday, that way we are not overlapping the Human Resources Committee.
MR. PARKER: Sounds good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is everyone in agreement with that? (Interruptions)
MRS. HENRY: Well, the second-last Tuesday of every month, since the Human Resources Committee meets the last Tuesday . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: It doesn't matter to me to meet more often, that doesn't bother me, but I am closer to the city; I can go for the once a month. My concern is to get the people who would like to see us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also a concern is to get the people in that you, the members of the committee, want to hear. So, the next point of this is that we should consider passing in names or companies that you would like to have to Darlene, so that she can put her plans in place.
MR. PARKER: We will be meeting on February 16th?
MRS. HENRY: The next meeting will be on February 16th and we can hold an organizational meeting just to set the agenda of whatever names come forth. I can book it for the afternoon which will make it a little bit easier for everybody, from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m., if that's acceptable.
MR. PARKER: Is there anybody outstanding on our list that a caucus had submitted before . . .
MRS. HENRY: Anything that is outstanding, I will put together and bring it to the meeting on February 16th.
MR. PARKER: Does that mean that we wouldn't have somebody in here on February 16th?
MRS. HENRY: The meeting, I believe, is just an organizational meeting to put together a list of all the names that are going to come forth between now and then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 2:52 p.m.]
