FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 0911

[English]

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

Colleagues will recall that we had had before the committee a number of fishermen from the Atlantic, from New Brunswick and P.E.I., to talk about enforcement issues. A lot of concerns were raised in their presentation about the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out their enforcement policy as mandated.

We have from the department this morning, to talk about enforcement policy, Pat Chamut, Assistant Deputy Minister of fisheries management; Dennis Brock, director general of conservation and protection; and Edmond Martin, director of conservation and protection for the Gulf region.

Gentlemen, welcome. We appreciate your appearing before us this morning. You have a presentation, which we'll go to in a moment.

John.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Just on a point of order, this committee met enforcement people, either just before or just after we went to the west coast in the last Parliament, and extracted a commitment, a promise, that we would receive the protocol between DFO enforcement and the RCMP in terms of a response. To my knowledge that has never been fulfilled.

Before we launch into another enforcement session, I want to ensure that we address that question today as well as.... If you can add to my knowledge base, that would be appreciated.

The Chair: At the moment, John, I can't. I'm going to have to go back and look at the minutes.

Mr. John Duncan: We can certainly ask that question of our witnesses today, if that protocol does indeed exist. We had extracted a commitment that this would be in our domain.

The Chair: Yes. Then we'll do that immediately. It will be the first point following the presentations.

Mr. Chamut, I imagine you're starting off.

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. My colleagues and I are pleased to be here this morning to talk about the program we call “conservation and protection”, or C and P.

I would like to make a presentation of about 20 minutes. I have hard copies available of the material I will be presenting on the slides. I think that has been circulated.

What do I intend to discuss today? First, I'd like to describe the mandate and authority of our conservation and protection program. Second, I'd like to summarize some of the main program components that make up our C and P program. Third, I want to give you some information on the resource profiles we have across the various regions.

• 0915

Then I'd like to talk about some of the work that's been done on a program that we call C and P “renewal”, which is a program to address some issues within the program. I will conclude by talking about some of the issues we need to address for the future of the program.

The conservation and protection service has a very long and proud history within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, I believe this program dates from the very initial creation of a fisheries department that, in its initial form, was called the Department of Marine and Fisheries. So we have a very long and proud tradition of service to achieve conservation of Canada's fishery resources.

This is a very strong motivation for the people in this program. It is a very key part of our program of fisheries management and it is, obviously, as I think members know and as you've been told by witnesses, a very essential ingredient in our responsibility to achieve sustainable fisheries.

In its essential element, the mandate of the program is to ensure compliance with the legislation and the regulations that relate to the conservation of fish resources and the conservation of fish habitat. Their job is to protect a highly valuable resource that is owned by all Canadians.

The authority for the program is captured under the Fisheries Act. Our enforcement responsibility is authorized by the Fisheries Act, which provides for the authority of the minister to appoint fishery officers. The act conveys to them enforcement powers that authorize them to carry out inspections, to carry out searches, to seize various things. They can seize fish, they can seize fishing gear, they can seize vessels. The act also authorizes them to arrest individuals who are guilty of violations. For the purposes of enforcing the Fisheries Act, fishery officers are peace officers under the Criminal Code of Canada.

As I said earlier, the conservation and protection program is a very essential component of our fisheries management and habitat protection program. We know that our responsibilities for conservation of the resource cannot be achieved unless we have effective enforcement that will provide us with compliance with the rules that are set.

We can set a precautionary total allowable catch. We can set rules and conditions guiding the conduct of harvest activities. We can do all of this in our harvest planning, but at the end of the day we will not achieve our objectives to conserve the resource unless the TACs are adhered to and the set rules complied with. That's the job our C and P program is responsible to carry out.

Looking at our C and P program across the country, we have, at the present time, a total of 644 fishery officers. They operate in a highly decentralized program. About 142 individual offices house our program. These offices are located right across the country. We have fishery officers now working in every province of Canada.

Only a small number of staff members actually work in Ottawa. About 2.5% operate here and provide work in terms of policy development and national program leadership. As well, they carry out standardized national training programs and the like. But most of our staff is located at what we call the “coal face”, doing work in small communities, working with fishermen and ensuring that conservation objectives are achieved.

For most fishermen, these people, the C and P staff members, are really the face of DFO. They represent DFO in small coastal communities and they provide us with the information and the insight into what is going on in some of our inshore and offshore fisheries.

• 0920

More recently we have identified new program responsibilities for C and P officers in inland areas. I'm thinking specifically of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, where we have accepted new responsibilities for habitat protection. We have recently augmented our program to enable us to carry out this responsibility in these inland areas.

In order to ensure that officers are able to do the job they are assigned to do, they need to be well trained. We believe we have one of the best-trained professional groups of enforcement officers, who are responsible for resource protection, of any resource management agency in the world. We have a selection process for individuals that is extremely competitive, based on the competencies we're looking for to ensure that we get the very best and the brightest to do this work.

Our recruitment standards have recently been increased. They now require post-secondary education. The screening and recruitment process is extremely rigorous and highly competitive, because these jobs are very desirable. In some cases, when we have openings for 10 positions it's not unusual for us to have 800 to 900 applications. These applications come from people who meet some very rigorous screening requirements.

The initial training program for new recruits extends over a period of two years. It also includes seven weeks of training at the RCMP depot in Regina. Training is indeed a priority for people in this program. They're continually faced with new challenges, and for our part, we're constantly looking at training needs and providing new training opportunities to try to upgrade skills. Recently we've been engaged in new training programs on habitat. They have to take annual requalification tests. They get training in small vessel utilization and they get training in communication skills and the media. There are programs in terms of cross-cultural sensitivity, first aid, force continuum, and a variety of other training programs that are a regular and continuing part of their responsibilities.

The second thing I'd like to talk about concerns the main program components of our C and P program. I'd like to begin by talking about fishery officers. They are responsible for carrying out a very broad variety of duties. They operate at sea. They operate on the land. They operate in the air. They conduct at-sea patrols and boardings in both coastal and inshore and offshore areas. They're responsible for monitoring landings at dockside to make sure that people are operating within the quotas that are set; that they're complying with licence conditions; and that size limits and other conditions of harvest are being adhered to.

Increasingly they conduct forensic investigations and audits. By that we mean looking at landings information, looking at processing information, and making sure that, for example, some processing facilities are not actually exporting or producing more products than they're actually landing according to our statistics. So a lot of the important work we do is almost based on accounting procedures as opposed to what some might see as normal fishery officer duties.

They also do a lot of patrols inland to deal with habitat management issues and inland lake and river conservation programs. Fish habitat protection is a very important part of their responsibility.

We should also highlight the importance they play in providing information to fishermen that explains government policies and government regulations. They try to work with fishermen to ensure that there is a cooperative and constructive relationship with commercial and other fishermen.

This is simply a collage of some of the people we have involved. You can see in the bottom slide that this is one of our armed boarding crews that operates in the offshore. We also have people doing surveillance on the land and in the water.

• 0925

In terms of at-sea surveillance, we operate from a variety of platforms. We have a fleet of crewed patrol vessels that range from 12 metres to 72 metres in length. All of these vessels are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard.

The vessel you see here is the Leonard J. Cowley. It's the largest vessel in our fleet. It is responsible for carrying out patrols in the NAFO regulatory area, which is outside Canada's 200-mile limit. It is our key platform for ensuring that foreign fleets fishing in the NAFO regulatory area are complying with the rules set by that organization.

In addition to the large vessels that we operate we also have smaller vessels that are used in inshore enforcement operations. These vessels that you see displayed are called “rigid-hull inflatables”. They are very fast. They're highly mobile. They can be trailered from one site to another. They are crewed by fishery officers. This makes them far more efficient in terms of cost, because we don't have to sustain the cost of having a crewed vessel. They have proven to be extremely effective. We think this vessel platform has contributed to our compliance or improved performance in terms of our enforcement activities.

The at-sea patrols do things like monitor areas that are closed. They monitor boundary lines. These are fishery boundary lines. They can also be Canada's international boundary. They do things like pull illegal gear. They conduct boardings to ensure compliance with all of the regulations and licence conditions under which fishermen operate. Obviously they're also looking for people who are not authorized to fish at all, people without licences.

The offshore enforcement program in the Newfoundland region deals with coverage outside 200 miles. It does include boarding and inspection of the foreign vessels operating on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap.

Another part of our program is aerial surveillance. Despite the signs that you see on that particular plane, those planes are not owned by DFO, and neither do we have pilots working for the department. That aircraft is on contract with Provincial Airlines, operating out of St. John's, Newfoundland.

We have a budget of approximately $8 million a year that is dedicated to air surveillance. As a resource management agency, we have, we believe, probably the most sophisticated air surveillance platform in the world.

This plane that you see has state of the art equipment for radar and navigation. It has data management systems that allow real-time communication. It also has developed photographic systems that are unique.

This plane can cover a swath of about 200 miles in terms of radius. It operates from about 20,000 feet, and in fact has the capability of being able to take photographs of vessels from very long distances. Later we can perhaps supply you with copies of photographs that have been taken from a distance of five miles. The individuals who are fishing illegally do not even know the plane is in the vicinity. The photographs are of such quality that you can actually see the individuals and identify them. It has proven to be a very effective platform. We're very pleased with the work it has done on our behalf.

We also work with the Department of National Defence. They provide long-range patrols using the Aurora aircraft. These patrols are frequently carried out in the North Pacific, where we work with other parties, the U.S. in particular, to ensure that there's not an incidence of high seas drift net activity in the North Pacific.

We also use these vessels on the east coast and particularly in the north. These are important elements of our program of identifying what's happening at sea, and it's a very important extension of our responsibility for sovereignty.

• 0930

The planes themselves are used for patrolling areas that are closed, for patrolling our boundary. They help in detecting illegal fishing gear. They particularly are helpful in identifying where to deploy patrol vessels, because we can then, instead of searching at sea for where the vessels are fishing, identify where they are with the aircraft and then direct the patrol boats so that there's less time wasted in getting to the area where the fishing is occurring. They're also important for use in monitoring pollution. They've been used to help identify things like illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

So these are important beyond the value that we place on them with respect to fisheries surveillance.

Another part of our C and P program is that we use at-sea observers. These are independent, contracted individuals who have certification from the department. They're responsible for monitoring compliance with regulations on both foreign and Canadian fishing vessels.

These individuals do not have enforcement authority, but what they can do is monitor what's happening and report suspected violations to fishery officers. Those individuals can then follow up on the reports that have been made.

These people also have an important role in gathering scientific information that is very valuable for our stock assessment and fisheries management program. All foreign vessels that are fishing in Canadian waters, inside the 200-mile limit, would be fishing with Canadian authorization. They would be required to carry Canadian observers and pay all associated costs.

In our observer program, the costs are actually shared on the domestic fleet. They're shared between fishermen and DFO.

Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about satellite tracking, which is increasingly being used to help us in our monitoring and surveillance activity. We can now track vessels in real time from a patrol boat or a shore station. These devices that are put on vessels also allow a two-way data communication link. It allows us to get up-to-date catch information on what's happening with these particular vessels equipped with transponders.

We have implemented a number of pilot projects, and we're continuing to explore this as a very important augmentation to some of our more conventional enforcement methods, but we already have found that it does serve as a very effective complement to our normal and more routine enforcement activities.

I want to also talk about the C and P program across the country in the six regions that make up the departmental program. We do have six regions, as you'll see here—the Pacific, the Central/Arctic, which has a very large geographic span, the Laurentian, the Scotia-Fundy, the Gulf, and Newfoundland. In each one of these regions we have fishery officers carrying out conservation and protection functions.

I know the committee is interested in the budgets associated with these activities. We've tried in this slide to provide an overview of the funding that is used and the distribution of resources across the C and P program in the department.

You'll see that, in total, we have 644 fishery officers operating out of 142 offices. The amount of money that is dedicated to their activities is about $68 million.

Now, the budget figures that are there are for things like salary, capital expenditures, and the operation and maintenance expenditures to support the C and P program. These figures do not include moneys that are dedicated for vessels operated by coast guard. I believe another $12 million is dedicated to vessel or platform support.

The Chair: Perhaps I can interrupt for a second, Pat, because this came up the other day. In terms of the coast guard, do you have to pay a lease from DFO for that? We were told the other day by fishermen that there is an internal lease that has to be paid, which is very costly for some of these platforms, applied against DFO.

• 0935

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I don't think I'd characterize it as a lease. I think it is essentially providing money for the service provided. So we have a budget for vessel or platform support within fisheries management, and that money, in turn, is provided to coast guard to acquire vessel time for such things as conservation and protection and at-sea surveillance activities. The money we have for that purpose is about $12 million.

The Chair: Okay. I'm sure we'll come back to that during questioning anyway. Thanks.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Okay.

I'd now like to talk about the C and P renewal program. This program was initiated to address a number of concerns we've had and others have had with the program. I'd like to just go back and talk a little bit about the circumstances we faced in the mid-1990s and the features we were very concerned about with respect to our C and P program.

We had an aging workforce. We knew from reports that had been done that we had inadequate supervision in the field. The program was not adequately integrated with other departmental programs. We had very poor capability to collect data and analyse it. All of this was on top of a requirement that we cut budgets to meet program review targets.

C and P renewal was the strategy we adopted, with a number of objectives. We wanted to ensure that any budget reductions that were taken were done in a strategic manner. Second, we wanted to implement some organizational changes that would improve the overall integrity of the program, and the effectiveness, and deal with some of the concerns illustrated in the preceding slide.

Our strategy to achieve budget reductions and program renewal had a number of different elements. First of all, we wanted to maintain the fishery officer cadre. We did not want to see a reduction in the number of personnel responsible for our C and P program.

Second, we wanted to resume recruitment of new officers, because we had not brought about any recruitment for a number of years. We decided that we would take the majority of cuts from the money dedicated to the large patrol vessel fleet. In other words, the approach was to eliminate some of the older and oftentimes wooden-hulled patrol boats crewed by professional seamen. So the cuts were largely taken in the patrol vessel fleet. Part of the savings that we achieved from doing that were reinvested into the program to improve its effectiveness.

We also undertook to implement some organizational changes, particularly to address the problem of supervision at the field level. We also invested in improving our capability for data analysis associated with some of our enforcement activities.

The other thing we really wanted to do was to reduce the administrative duties of fishery officers, to allow them to do the job that they are in fact hired and paid to do. We found that a very large burden of administrative duties was imposed on fishery officers. We wanted to find ways to eliminate that, to put them in the field with a greater degree of frequency.

Finally, we wanted to move from reactive enforcement to a more strategic approach that would include closer cooperation with the fishing industry.

We talk here about some of the things we have done. With respect to recruitment, this displays the new fishery officer recruits we have trained since 1993. You can see that the last time we had a recruit intake was the early nineties, 1993, and we went for a number of years without any new recruits. This was at a time when a lot of our officers were aging. We recognized that we really needed to get on with strengthening the human resource capacity of this program.

Over the last four years, as you can see, we have stepped up our recruitment. We have a total now of 203 new recruits who have been brought in since 1998. That has been of benefit to the program, because we now have a very strong complement of very energetic, highly trained, and very dedicated young people working within the program.

• 0940

Within our program we've also updated our training program and introduced improvements. As I mentioned earlier, we have introduced competency standards in our recruitment program to make sure we get candidates who have the very best mix of skills for the job.

As well, as a result of additional funding, we have converted some of the seasonal fishery officer positions to full-time positions. During the early nineties, when the program suffered budget reductions, a number of positions were downgraded from full-time to seasonal. We thus had quite a number of people operating for only six months to eight months of the year.

As a result of that, we lost a lot of people to other departments and other enforcement agencies. Those other agencies were able to give these individuals full-time employment. Those were very costly losses. As well, we had a very inefficient use of time, because when the seasonal workers were brought back in the spring the retraining and requalification activities took up a lot of their time.

With the conversion of these seasonal workers to full-time, we've actually achieved the equivalence of 67 additional full-time staff, and we think it's a very important program augmentation.

We've done some other things as well. We've created a new level of supervision at the field level. We have worked hard to try to increase the involvement of C and P staff in developing fish management plans. We are working to develop a more cooperative approach with the fishing industry. We have recognized that there has been a disconnect between resource managers and some of our C and P staff, and also with the fishing industry. As an objective with this new organization we have identified people who will have the responsibility and the leadership role to work cooperatively with other staff in the department and with the fishing industry.

We've also made investments in other areas. We have invested in or bought new equipment in terms of both computers and enforcement equipment. We have new and improved data management systems that provide us with a better ability to evaluate the program.

We have also purchased over 100 program boats, smaller inshore patrol vessels. More recently, funding has been provided to ensure that three coast guard patrol vessels in the Gulf region continue to operate in the coming year.

We believe all of these investments have made a real difference in terms of program effectiveness.

This is a comparative slide that shows how people spent their time in one particular region, Scotia-Fundy. You'll see that in 1994 a very significant proportion of their time was spent on activities other than field work. That was significantly changed by 1999. They now spend more than half their time involved in active enforcement work in the field.

There are other indicators of improved effectiveness. If you look at the number of violations that have been detected, in 1996 we had about 5,500. By 2000 that was in excess of 10,000, which is an 84% increase in four years. We believe that reflects the new staff, the new equipment, and the rededicated effort to enforcement.

In terms of the future of the program, we know there are limitations on the number of fishery officers we can employ and the amount of money available for fisheries enforcement. I think it's self-evident that, like any other agency, if we had more money, or more people, we indeed could put them to good use.

• 0945

We know there are fisheries that receive very limited attention. We develop management plans for over 200 separate fisheries. Not all of these fisheries are monitored, but the decisions we make about priorities are based on an assessment of risk, conservation risk, and we're satisfied that with the staff we have, we have adequate coverage of those fisheries where conservation risks are judged to be the highest.

We believe we have made major improvements but we also acknowledge that more work needs to be done. The type of thing we are currently engaged in is looking at trying to assess our requirements in the midshore and offshore fisheries for larger patrol vessels. We're looking at more extensive use of forensic analysis for enforcement, with more training being provided to officers.

We're looking at how we can use new technologies and use them to improve our enforcement activity.

We're also trying to develop an aboriginal fishery officer program cooperatively with first nations. We think there are advantages to working cooperatively.

We're also analysing some of the alternatives to the current court system—for example, being able to sanction fisheries offences through penalties attached to the fishing licence. We know that might be a more effective form of deterrence than going through the court system, as we currently do.

We're also looking at providing an increased focus on cooperative arrangements between fishermen and the C and P program. There are some good cooperative examples and we'd like to build on those and do more.

Finally, we recognize that enhanced public relations and education programs to ensure that there's a recognition of the importance of conservation and protection is also an important element of the program that we need to do more on.

Mr. Chairman, with that I'd like to conclude. I thank you for your patience. We would be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

I don't know if we want to pursue that protocol, using my time for that, or is that a committee...?

The Chair: Well, ask your question on it, John, and we'll try to give you a little more time on that. It is something we failed to do, I guess.

Mr. John Duncan: It's unfortunate that we don't have a lot of time. This is an important issue, the whole enforcement area.

Part of your presentation referred to the Aurora flights. On the west coast the Auroras fly from my riding. The Aurora flights have been cut way back.

There are three priorities for Auroras. The number one is pilot training. The second priority is dealing with the needs of the crew and their training and upgrading. The third priority, the last priority, is for client services, also known as flights, for other government departments, such as fisheries patrols and so on.

I know that the cuts from 12,000 to 8,000 hours, whatever that range of cuts is, will impact most greatly on things like fisheries patrols. I saw no reference to that concern in your presentation, which made me wonder, is that referring to history or is that referring to the future in terms of the ability to carry out those patrols?

The Chair: Mr. Brock.

Mr. Dennis Brock (Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): We have protected the hours in the Pacific region. There's been no reduction in the Aurora hours that are being used to deploy.... Actually, there will be two aircraft on their way to Shemya, Alaska, probably in the next week to ten days, to work with our colleagues in the U.S. Coast Guard and with our Russian and Japanese colleagues conducting high seas drift net patrols.

• 0950

The reductions in our offshore surveillance with the Aurora have all occurred in the Atlantic, but as you saw in the presentation, the largest component of our air surveillance program is in the Atlantic already. So the loss of the Aurora in the Atlantic region will probably have minimal impact, if any, with respect to the delivery of our programs. We've protected the Pacific completely.

Mr. John Duncan: I can only assume that if our fisheries hours are protected on the west coast, then the hours for the RCMP and other organizations, for migrant observation and that type of thing, are even more seriously impacted. I mean, there has to be an effect somewhere. But that's not for you.... I thank you for that.

We are getting many questions about new fisheries personnel on the prairies—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba. Your presentation indicates 40 enforcement officers. What category are these people? Certainly way more than 40 are at work in new personnel on the prairies. The agricultural community is wondering what has happened, and the coastline communities are wondering why we have fisheries personnel who don't have the resources to put fuel in their vehicles or boats and we have all these new resources running after the agricultural community.

The Chair: That would be in fish habitat, would it, John? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. What category are these employees?

The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I would like to explain, first of all, this new program and then deal directly with the question of the personnel.

As you are aware, I think, the Fisheries Act includes provisions that prevent the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of habitat. It is recognized that there are continuing federal responsibilities to ensure that those provisions of the Fisheries Act are met in inland areas where provinces have been delegated responsibility for fisheries management. So there is a continuing federal responsibility there that has not been effectively discharged for a long period of time.

Recently a decision was made that this responsibility needs to be met. A new program has been identified with new resources. It is now being implemented throughout Ontario and the prairie provinces.

It's my understanding, if I can talk in round numbers, Mr. Duncan, that total of about 200 people are involved in that program. They have essentially two main types of professional qualifications.

First of all, we have a large number of individuals—for instance, biologists and engineers—who are carrying out assessments of habitat projects that may have an effect on fish habitat. They essentially have an evaluative function to make sure that any developments being introduced are not going to be contrary to the habitat provisions of the act.

The second group of individuals is fishery officers. Throughout the inland areas, I believe, 56 fishery officers are now being deployed. We don't have that many yet on the ground, but they are being added to the habitat program. Their responsibility is to carry out some of the surveillance and monitoring activities; to identify where violations to the act may be occurring; and to work with communities and various industry groups to make sure the importance of protecting habitat is understood.

That program is now being implemented with more people being added, starting last year and continuing into the new fiscal year.

Mr. John Duncan: Are you saying that 56 of the 200 are new fishery officers?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: That's correct.

Mr. John Duncan: For the central area.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: That's right.

Mr. John Duncan: How can there be 56 new fishery officers where there's essentially no fish? I mean, how many fishery officers are there in Prince Edward Island?

• 0955

Mr. Patrick Chamut: First of all, Mr. Duncan, there are many people who would argue that there are indeed lots and lots of fish populations in the central part of the country. The importance of protecting habitat there is, I think, equally important. Clearly, activities along the shorelines of lakes and rivers can have a very adverse effect.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, I was exaggerating, and I admit that, but this is a very modest fishery. We have pressing needs on our coastlines. Your presentation made no reference to the question I'm asking. This is a major new initiative in terms of DFO enforcement capability, and it's all kind of just happening.

From a prioritization standpoint, I've heard testimony from a ski developer on top of a mountain, no fish stream anywhere within miles, who had more distraction and more delays built in from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans than from any other government agency.

This has a lot of people very concerned. The prioritization and rationale behind all this is very confusing.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Duncan, it's not my responsibility to deal with the habitat program, but I do know that we have resources dedicated to this part of the country because a number of court cases have pointed to the fact that there's a federal responsibility.

It also has pointed to the fact that if that responsibility is not being effectively delivered, it can have a very, very significant effect on developments, which can be held up in court for a long period of time.

What we're trying to do is be out in those areas, meeting a federal responsibility, and protecting fish stocks that are very important, if not commercially, for recreational anglers as well as first nation individuals. I think what we're trying to do is work with communities and avoid some of the delays that can happen when that responsibility is not properly met.

Mr. John Duncan: A point was just made to me that some provinces, such as Ontario, have the delegated authority to regulate their inland fisheries. So obviously their needs would be quite different, or the federal imposition or whatever you want to call it—that's my view—would obviously be quite different there. I think that's probably where we're headed.

I'd like to change the subject and get on to something that we've been hearing quite a bit about. We've had a lot of licences transferred to native bands. We are hearing from fishermen in Nova Scotia that these boats are fishing often with no natives on board. We understand that the fishing agreements that have been signed by DFO and the bands have provisions requiring natives to be on board these boats.

My question is, why are these provisions not being enforced?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The policy we have taken, based on our interpretation of the Marshall judgment, is that first nations do have the right to earn a moderate livelihood from the fishery. We have met that obligation through providing commercial fishing licences.

Given that this is the first year of this program, we know there are cases where first nations are not yet trained in order to be, or to able to be, successful in implementing their fishing privilege. There are situations where some of these first nations are working cooperatively with commercial fishing enterprises to provide training to enable them to be able to fish safely and successfully.

Now, if there are situations where there are essentially royalty charters—and by that I mean a first nation simply leasing its fishing privilege to another individual—that is not consistent with the policy and that is not consistent with what we had set out to do.

• 1000

If there are situations like that, they will be addressed, but I do want to emphasize that in situations such as you were talking about, many times what people are doing is that they are engaged in working in a training program with non-aboriginal enterprises to try to provide them with that help.

The Chair: This will be your last question, Mr. Duncan. I gave you a couple of minutes extra on the other.

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you're saying about time, but we passed a motion that we were going to restrict the time of presentations at this committee, which would allow us to have more time for questioning. The presentation today probably exceeded that.

The Chair: Doubled it and more.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: I accept that criticism, John, and we maybe should have tied this down to ten minutes. But you've had one question and hopefully we'll get a second round.

Mr. John Duncan: All I can say is that we have agreements that say no person other than a designated person, meaning a native person, may fish, and we're hearing reports that there are no natives on these boats. We don't think you have the enforcement capability to enforce them or that you have any interest in enforcing these agreements. It's always left up to somebody else to try to motivate DFO to enforce the agreements they have signed. That creates a lot of frustration for me.

Perhaps I can put the question another way. Why are the commercial fishery openings getting more and more restricted in size and duration, which makes them easier and easier to monitor, and the aboriginal fisheries are getting longer and longer in duration, and more and more difficult to enforce? Why is there this dichotomy?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Duncan, I would be grateful if you could provide some examples of where that in fact is occurring, because in my experience what we're doing in terms of setting commercial openings is setting the time and the area in a manner that reflects the conservation needs of the stock. Anything we're doing is directly related to this responsibility to make sure that we're not opening up an area where we might get into conservation problems, conceivably because of spawning stocks being available at the time or small fish being available at the time.

There are restrictions placed on harvesting that we do introduce to ensure that our conservation responsibilities are met. I'm not aware of a situation where we are moving in one direction with the commercial sector and moving in a different direction with the aboriginal sector.

In the commercial fisheries where we convey licences to first nations, they fish according to the same rules and the same areas as commercial fishermen. I'm not aware that we have the dichotomy you're talking about.

The Chair: Mr. Roy, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): The Committee recently heard fishermen who told us a number of things, including the fact that there were not enough large boats that can go to sea in bad weather.

Earlier, you spoke about the fleet of crewed patrol vessels of varying length. I would like to know how many boats Fisheries and Oceans has for surveillance operations in bad weather. You also spoke about aerial surveillance, but this can surely not be effective when the weather is bad.

• 1005

How many vessels does Fisheries and Oceans have available in each of the regions for surveillance operations, particularly under bad weather conditions?

The fishermen also told us that, in order to make it more big boats available, Fisheries and Oceans should rent out some of its Coast Guard vessels. The Coast Guard is part of Fisheries and Oceans. In short, Fisheries and Oceans rents boats. That is what the fishermen appear to be telling us.

The fishermen also said that too much money was being spent on land equipment. They talked about very fancy trucks and said that there was not enough equipment for proper surveillance operations at sea.

The fishermen are the people who have to live with this reality, the people who have to put up every day with illegal fishing. Some even said that those who follow the rules are in the minority.

I would like to know what you think about this. In particular, I would like to know how many vessels Fisheries and Oceans has available, for example in the regions you mentioned earlier, namely the Laurentian region, the Gulf region, the Newfoundland region and the Scotia-Fundy region, which is still a problem region because of the European trawlers which, as we know, regularly enter our fishing zones.

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, sir. Let me deal first, if I may, with the issue of the relationship we have with the Canadian Coast Guard, because I think there may be some confusion about that relationship.

The coast guard is a part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The coast guard is the organization that maintains and operates the fleet of large and smaller inshore patrol vessels. The coast guard has a very large fleet and it would not be appropriate for me to try to give an answer here as to how many vessels they have because I simply do not know. It's not my responsibility to manage the coast guard, and I'm just not close enough to their program to be able to answer that definitively.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I think that you misunderstood my question. I want to know how many vessels Fisheries and Oceans has available in the region during the fishing seasons. I have forgotten the number of vessels owned by the Coast Guard. You mentioned the budget earlier. I can no longer remember the exact amount, but I would like to know how many vessels Fisheries and Oceans has available in our regions. What is the Fisheries and Oceans rental budget for vessels?

When I speak about vessels, I do not mean small boats like the ones you showed us. These are perhaps very effective along the coastline, but they are completely impracticable at sea.

I would like to know how many vessels Fisheries and Oceans can use in our regions when the fishing seasons are open. Is it one, two, three or four? And where, precisely, do they go?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chamut, if that question can't be answered specifically, can you get a letter back to the committee with the numbers Mr. Roy is asking for?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I was trying to come to the answer, Mr. Chairman. In my presentation I indicated that we, within the fisheries management sector, have a total of $12 million available for acquiring vessel days from the coast guard. We use that money in various ways to try to get the enforcement coverage we need.

The reason it's complicated is that there are things we have as dedicated enforcement vessels and there are also vessels used that are multi-tasked. They have more than one function. They may do search and rescue and they may assist us in enforcement.

• 1010

I think the answer you're looking for is that we have $12 million within the fisheries surveillance program for vessels, and we have about 12 dedicated enforcement vessels that are large in size. They are not the ones I had pictures of, the small, inshore rigid-hull inflatables. But I want to emphasize that there is a large coast guard fleet, and we can work with them on a multi-tasked basis in order to extend or augment our program.

I hope that answers the question.

The Chair: Our time is up, Mr. Roy. Does that answer the question or do you need further information that we might be able to get in writing?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That is a partial answer. You mentioned $12 million. But in terms of boat days, what does it cost to rent a boat from Fisheries and Oceans? Approximately how much would it cost per day to rent a boat?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brock.

Mr. Dennis Brock: It'll vary with the nature of the platform, but the platform you have there operates at between $10,000 and $15,000 a day. We can provide you with those details, if you want. We can do that in writing. That's not a problem.

The Chair: If you could, that would be much appreciated.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. I found it very interesting. I'm new to this committee. I'm also from a central region, not from the west or the east. So my questions may seem somewhat junior, but I hope you'll indulge me.

On page 2 of your written presentation it states that your mandate was to be responsible for “monitoring” compliance with legislation. In your oral presentation you said you were responsible for “ensuring” compliance. I view the two words as not interchangeable. Ensuring compliance is, in my view, much more important and stronger than monitoring compliance.

So I'd like you to confirm for me that in fact your mandate is to ensure compliance with the law.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: That is correct, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

In regard to page 4, the selection process, do you have quotas for gender, visible minorities, and aboriginals in your hiring process?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We don't have quotas. We do have targets. I don't want to quibble with words. We currently have a focused effort to try to increase the number of females and increase the number of aboriginals.

If I may, just to amplify, there's a chart that outlines the recruitment. The bar graph shows we've hired 203 new recruits. For example, it's my understanding that about 22% of those individuals are aboriginals, so we're certainly trying to increase our employment of aboriginals, females, and visible minorities.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

Your officers are peace officers under the Criminal Code and some of them have sidearms. Are all of your officers armed?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, they are. They're all armed and fully trained in the use of firearms.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I find the graph on page 16 very disturbing, because what it indicates to me is that as you increase your level of officers and your level of investigation, the level of violations detected increases. What this leads me to believe is that if you had more officers, you'd find more violations. This to me indicates that there is a fair degree of lack of respect for the law.

What are your comments on that?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think the increased violations you see reflects the fact that we've been putting more people, and more effort, in trying to deal with non-compliance in the fishery. I think in some areas there isn't the respect for the rules and regulations that we would like.

• 1015

I think the other point that's important in this is that obviously the solution is not to have more and more fishery officers but to work in other ways to try to find means by which we can achieve compliance. Our objective is not to get an increasing number of violations but to get improved compliance with the rules, because where you have compliance, conservation is more likely to be achieved.

Achieving compliance is going to be done by more than simply trying to identify violations. Obviously you have to have a deterrence factor, but I think there are other means by which we can improve compliance. Working with fishermen, public education, and things of that nature are important complements to the program.

One of the shifts we've tried to achieve in the last few years is to focus increasingly on those sorts of activities, not to diminish the amount of time we spend in the field but rather to complement those activities with working with the community to achieve that basic objective, which is improved compliance with the rules.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I encourage you to do that. To me, an 84% increase in violations detected simply indicates widespread lack of respect for the law. I wish you good luck.

I have one final question on that score, following on from Mr. Duncan.

You indicated that you were trying to train aboriginals to understand the law—I believe that was what you were talking about—in terms of his allegation that there are fishing boats going out without an aboriginal on them when they're supposed to have an aboriginal. Where I come from, you don't need to be able to read and write. All you need to be able to do is understand a language when told that an aboriginal must be on the boat.

What's the problem? Are you disputing the allegation that there are aboriginal-licensed boats going out without aboriginals? Is that not true? If it is true, what kind of education could you possibly need for a simple statement that an aboriginal must be on board?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the perspective you've taken on this.

My comment was to try to explain, when I talked about training and the like, that we're talking about circumstances here where many of these first nation individuals have not been at sea. They've not operated large boats or fishing equipment. We're trying to find ways to provide them with that training so that they can be not only successful but also safe. There's a lot of risk when you have untrained people out working around that kind of gear.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I understand that, but he was saying that there are aboriginal-licensed boats, that must have an aboriginal on them, that are going out without an aboriginal. That's an entirely different issue than how to operate a boat. Is what he is saying incorrect, according to you?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We have indications that there are training arrangements between non-aboriginals and aboriginals. There is a requirement that there be aboriginals on board, clearly, to get the training.

I can't say that I know personally that there are vessels out there with no aboriginals on board. I have heard reports that there are situations where they have only one aboriginal on board, and that certainly doesn't comply with our intent.

I simply am not in a position where I can say Mr. Duncan is absolutely right or wrong. I've heard some of those stories. We are looking into it. It's something we take as being very important.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: In our agreed-upon questioning—and we ran into a dispute on this the other day—it's five minutes for the Canadian Alliance, five minutes for the NDP, and then five minutes for the Liberals. That's the motion I have to deal with.

Mr. Lunney or Mr. Duncan, whoever is taking five minutes....

Mr. John Duncan: I want to follow up the line of questioning we had here.

It seems you would want to prove me wrong if I'm wrong. I will say right here that there are groundfish boats with aboriginal licences that are going out every day of the week from Yarmouth with no aboriginals on them. I hope you can prove me wrong.

• 1020

I would like to make a comment on the Auroras. The answer was a great answer for the west coast. If I were from the east coast, I'd be quite concerned about that answer.

On the west coast—I don't know how it is in other places—there are summer rescue stations that I understand have been cancelled for this year and in future. We've had them, and they've been very useful. They're in isolated places, with inflatables.

I found out about this by accident. Is this correct, and what's the rationale?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I regret that I can't answer that question. That would be a responsibility of my colleagues from the coast guard. With the concurrence of the chair, we can undertake to review that question and get a response coming for you from the coast guard, if that would be okay.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney, there are about two minutes left for you.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to raise an issue that has to do with the Heiltsuk and the spawn-on-kelp fishery on the west coast.

There's a big problem there with fishing licences being bought up. At least one licence was bought at the price of $2 million, and it affected somebody in my riding. Their price doubled.

The Heiltsuk were given seven licences, as I understand it. Six and the one that was bought made a total of seven licences for spawn-on-kelp. I understand this year they've increased the catch from 48,000 to 144,000 tonnes because they've gone to open pond. I think those are the figures I got the other day.

There's definitely an increase this year in what they're being allowed to take, but I understand from the other licence-holders—39 licence-holders pay $5,000 per licence in order to have observation and enforcement—that the Heiltsuk are refusing observation and enforcement.

It seems to me this would put the fishery at considerable risk when you have people taking on a fishery they haven't had a lot of access to, and without the enforcement that others are obliged to undergo. Would you comment on that, please?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'd be delighted to provide you with a full briefing on it, but I'm sure, if I tried to do that here, members of the committee would interrupt me because I would be going on too long.

The issue here is that there is an increase in the amount of production that the Heiltsuk are authorized to harvest. As you know, the Heiltsuk are unique amongst aboriginal people in B.C. in that they have an aboriginal right to harvest and sell spawn-on-kelp. It's a decision that came out of the Supreme Court.

This year we have in fact authorized them to harvest a further 96,000 pounds of spawn-on-kelp production, and that is being done in such a manner that there is no additional impact on the herring resource. In other words, by converting from closed pond to open pond, they're effectively using the same amount of herring, so there is no increase in the amount of herring mortality associated with this.

The concern that is being expressed, which I'm sure you are hearing, is that the increased production of 96,000 pounds may have an effect on the market in Japan. That is something we are certainly looking at. As part of the interim arrangement that was made with the Heiltsuk, we agreed that we would carry out a market study to assess the impact, and that will give us the understanding of whether or not this increased production is having that consequence.

The Chair: We're going to have to—

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The final point—

The Chair: A final point?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: —I'd like to make, if I may, on the issue of refusing enforcement is that this is not something that is acceptable to us. We clearly have a responsibility to ensure compliance with licence terms and conditions, and we will in fact be ensuring that happens.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

You mentioned the independent contracted observers on domestic and foreign vessels. Is it possible to get a copy of an observer report—a recent one, unedited—so that we can have a look at it? I know in the last Parliament we had difficulty obtaining observer reports to compare, to see exactly what they were doing. If it's possible to get some so that we can have a look at them, that would be great.

• 1025

Second, you mentioned 40 officers being in the Central and Arctic region. How many fisheries officers are north of 60° in Canada?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think I would defer to my colleague, Mr. Brock. He may have that information.

Mr. Dennis Brock: I think there are 12, but I will find out for you exactly.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So for an area of over 3 million square kilometres, you have 12 officers. Would you consider that to suffice in any way, shape, or form?

Mr. Dennis Brock: As Mr. Chamut said, we would also welcome both additional resources and people, but certainly, given the nature of the fisheries up there, they are very seasonal. The place is frozen for very long periods of time. Yes, an augmentation up there would be very nice, but to my knowledge it's not creating serious problems up there to this point in time.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Just as a supplementary to that answer, we look at things in terms of our deployment of staff, in terms of the conservation risk that is associated with the activities or the area. I think we would believe there is not a significant conservation risk in a lot of the areas you're referring to. We have staff there who do carry out responsibilities, and they do respond to priority concerns. But if you look at the priority, I think it's probably an appropriate prioritization of activity.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm more concerned, of course, about what goes on off Baffin Island and in all those areas—for instance, fishermen from other countries sneaking up there and doing whatever. We don't have the air patrols in order to concentrate on that. We simply don't have the resources in place to monitor every piece of fishing activity that goes on up there. When we were up there, they told us that time and time again. But that's another point.

How many fisheries officers are on Prince Edward Island?

Mr. Edmond Martin (Director, Conservation and Protection, Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): There are 20.

The Chair: Is that right? Were told by fishermen last week there were 17.

Mr. Edmond Martin: There are 20 positions in P.E.I., Mr. Chairman, but I'll just double-check that. We may have some vacancies.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, one concern was expressed by the fishermen who were here. I've never, ever heard of a community that went to the RCMP and said they would buy gas for a police vehicle if they could patrol a neighbourhood at night. Yet we heard from these fishermen on P.E.I. that they regularly go to DFO officers, buy them fuel for their boats, and pay overtime in terms of salaries in order to ask for protection and surveillance of their fishery. They do this on their own. I don't know about the rest of the committee, but I'm absolutely shocked by that statement.

In an answer to Mr. Wappel, sir, you said your objective is that you don't want to have more enforcement officers.

Mr. Wappel, the reason there's such an increase in violations is that a lot of those are repeat offenders. There's a slap on the wrist for fisheries violations. If you're in the Yukon and you shoot a deer or a goat out of season, your truck, your gun—everything—is gone. It's confiscated, it's toast, and you get a huge fine. But if you do the same thing in the fisheries, it's just a slap on the wrist. If they really wanted to enforce fisheries laws in this country, they'd take a guy's boat and licence away, and he would never, ever fish again. Then you would have that drop in that aspect.

So I'm just saying, wouldn't your objective be to have more enforcement? That's what the fishermen are saying. They said a group of them went out in 1993 and retrieved 4,000 illegal lobster traps in one day. They said if they went out again today, they'd catch just as many. If that's what the fishermen are saying....

We know there's a lot of interaction between the fishing groups and the DFO officers. Why is it that you just won't go to the minister or whoever and demand more resources so that you can protect the fisheries and do exactly what you're constitutionally mandated to do, and that's to protect the fish and the fish habitat?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have gone to the minister. We have received additional money, as I think the committee knows, and that money has been dedicated to improving our capacity in the C and P program.

I think the funding has helped us not only to deal with the seasonal fishery officer issue that we were confronted with; it has also provided us with the capacity to deal with additional equipment that was needed to try to upgrade their ability to do their job.

• 1030

In the situations you're referring to, I think you greatly exaggerate. You leave the impression that fishery officers are sitting on the beach with no money to buy gas to put in their boats.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's what they told us.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I don't believe that is in fact the case. I think the situation—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's what they told us, Mr. Chamut.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Please let me explain.

There are situations in which we do have cooperative arrangements with fishermen, and there are situations in which they do assist us. They do provide additional resources that enable us to extend our programs. There are agreements by which they provide money for overtime. There are situations in which they aid us in reducing operating costs, or in which they provide money to help us deal with operating costs, but it's not as if there is no capacity on the part of these officers to get out to do this work.

When we try to work more cooperatively with fishermen, in working together, I think we can in fact achieve a much greater degree of compliance, and we can deal with some of the problems that unfortunately plague this industry.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Tom Wappel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did we get an undertaking to provide us with a copy of an observer report?

The Chair: That's what I took it to be, yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of very precise questions I'd like Mr. Martin to answer.

First of all,

[Translation]

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Martin. My district is in your region. Last fall, you went through some very difficult periods, and there was considerable media coverage.

[English]

There was a lot of media coverage about some difficult spots last fall, and from what fishermen in my riding and people I've spoken to have said, I know your officers acted professionally in circumstances of considerable difficulty. You should be commended for the difficult work you did and the success you had in circumstances that weren't easy.

I want to ask two specific questions. One is about resources for the Gulf region, which is very important in my riding. The second one is about recent charges that may have been laid against specific processing plants that may have been buying illegal lobster.

Am I correct, Monsieur Martin, in understanding that the Gulf region is the only region of the department that does not have a coast guard section unto itself, does not have a coast guard function reporting to the department?

Mr. Edmond Martin: That's my understanding, yes.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I'm correct in understanding also that there's a process of cost recovery within the department. If you, as the director of conservation and protection in the Gulf region, decide you need certain coast guard resources to achieve your conservation objectives, then there's a cost recovery process whereby your branch and the coast guard have a.... I don't want to go into the details of leasing and so on, but there is a cost recovery undertaken, is that right?

Mr. Edmond Martin: I believe Mr. Chamut had answered that question previously, Mr. Chairman. It's a matter of funds for a service provided.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Okay, and that's fine. Therefore, if you're the director of conservation and protection in the Gulf region, and if your regional director general does not have a coast guard unit reporting to him, are you not at a disadvantage compared with your colleagues in other regions when you need to call on coast guard resources to do the job you must do? Does it not remove some flexibility in allocating within a region's budget if you have to go cap in hand to Halifax to ask them, depending on their priorities, to assign resources that you, as director of conservation and protection in the Gulf region, may need?

From some previous discussions with some current colleagues and some former colleagues of yours, I know this was a concern, that the region is a poor cousin to other regions when it comes to having access to those resources, yet there's a big, reasonably sized coast guard base in Charlottetown. Is that accurate?

Mr. Edmond Martin: Yes, there is a coast guard base in Charlottetown. In the absence of having coast guard vessels in the Gulf region, we must rely on the cooperation of our sister regions, and we get that to some extent.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: But other regions don't have to ask other regions all the time for coast guard resources. Within their operational plans they have access to those resources, is that right?

Mr. Edmond Martin: They have access to coast guard vessels.

• 1035

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: In the budget you have, Mr. Martin, and for the good work that your officers did last fall, I can imagine that on a smaller budget, which you may have, or with less flexibility, which your region may have....

Did you find a disadvantage in terms of getting the resources you needed last fall in overtime and extra officers assigned to some of the hot spots that we know about? Was that a process that was entirely satisfactory to you?

Mr. Edmond Martin: During the crisis situation we had last year—the budget for vessels aside—we didn't have any difficulties such as you're pointing out, in terms of overtime or assistance from outside the region, be it overtime, O and M, or fisheries officers.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: No, that does. That's helpful.

Finally, is there a written memorandum of understanding between the director general of the Gulf region and his counterpart in Scotia-Fundy or the Maritimes region about coast guard services? Is there a written document, or is it simply on a case-by-case basis?

Mr. Edmond Martin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Could you check if there is a written agreement between the Gulf region and Maritimes or headquarters with respect to allocation of coast guard resources? I would be very interested in seeing a copy, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, it would be interesting to have it confirmed that in fact it doesn't exist.

Mr. Edmond Martin: We'll get back to the committee on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Would you like one last point?

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I have one final question.

Am I correct in understanding, Mr. Martin, that your department last fall had a number of cases in which some lobster taken as part of a food fishery, taken as part of an allocation given to certain aboriginal communities under the Sparrow decision for food and ceremonial purposes, was traced to processing plants in New Brunswick, which would mean it was sold to various processing plants?

If that is the case, have you laid charges against these plants, or will you be laying charges against plants that process lobster they may have bought illegally?

Mr. Edmond Martin: The answer to your first question is yes. We have found lobsters at the plant level. The answer to the second part of your question is also yes. We will be laying charges because there is a process in place to review these with DOJ, and that was completed last week. We now have the green light to go forward with that.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Good, very good. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Just to follow first on the question of charges against the plants, what about those who supplied the plants?

A voice: Exactly.

Mr. Edmond Martin: Where we do apprehend those people, we have charged some people of that nature, and we do have other charges coming up relative to that seizure in that particular plant.

Mr. Bill Matthews: In essence, then, you do know who supplied some of the lobster?

Mr. Edmond Martin: Yes, at least in this particular case.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay.

Welcome to the committee, by the way, Mr. Chamut and officials.

First, is recruitment done by a central agency or is it done by each respective region?

Mr. Dennis Brock: It's done by each respective region. We develop the national standards for the recruitment. We develop the competency profiles nationally, and we also train them nationally, but the actual physical recruitment is done by the human resources units within each of the regions.

Mr. Bill Matthews: After the graduation in April—in a month or so, I guess—will there be a continuation of recruitment or is this the end of the program?

Mr. Dennis Brock: No, there will be 62 graduating, as you saw. There will be, I think, about 48 graduating on April 5. The balance will come out in June, and we are probably going to be recruiting in the neighbourhood of 48 more fishery officers in 2000-01.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I saw there was reference there to appropriate skills. Who determines that?

Mr. Dennis Brock: We've done a comprehensive task analysis of what we expect people to do. We've also looked at the direction that we want to move the program, as Mr. Chamut indicated. We want to work much more closely with the fishing industry and the fishing communities. We want to be much more proactive. So we've hired a lot of people with a lot of analytical skills, much better negotiating skills—people who we think will help us move in the direction to become much more proactive rather than constantly reactive.

So our profile is shifting like that of many other police forces. The RCMP have also moved in this direction, basically to proactive, negotiating-skill types of individuals.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, tying into the independent contracted observers that are certified by DFO, I want to just ask a question for a minute about the 3Ps fishing zone, which takes in a good part of the coastline in the riding that I represent.

• 1040

Where we had a moratorium, we saw incremental increases in quota up to 30,000 metric tonnes—10,000, 20,000, 30,000. Last year we received a reduction of 10,000 metric tonnes, back to 20,000 metric tonnes. This year we're going to be reduced to 15,000 metric tonnes, so we're 30,000 metric tonnes back to 15,000 metric tonnes.

There is a body of opinion that feels that a lot of the problems are caused by gill nets, the pressure of gill nets. I'm told that a significant percentage of discarded fish comes out of the gill net that's not counted in the total allowable catch. All we get recorded is what lands at the wharf.

I'm told 30%-plus of fish in some of those gill nets is just not any good, particularly at the bottom part of the gill net. This fish is attacked by predators and everything else. But that 30%-plus of fish that's thrown back into the water, discarded, is not included in what is landed.

My question is, is that recorded by your observers? Would you know, or is there any way to know?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Matthews is right, Mr. Chairman. We are aware that there has been a large amount of discarding in the fishery in 3Ps. I think it's done for a variety of reasons.

One is that there's a price premium on larger fish, and so there's a tendency—or an incentive, unfortunately—for people to discard in order to get the higher price for the larger product. There are also some quality problems, as you mention, in some times of the year where the fish may not be of sufficiently high quality. There is then, again, an incentive for people to discard it.

Those sorts of activities are observed. Where we have observers on vessels, we would see that, although, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, sometimes there may be tendencies in some situations for fishermen not to actually discard to the same degree when there's an observer onboard the vessel. But we do believe we have a problem there, and the report that has been provided to us from the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council introduces a very large number of restrictions on how gill nets are to be used to ensure that we do not have a repeat of what happened last year.

I think I'd like to refer to the other point, though. You asked about whether the discards would be simply lost to our scientific assessment.

Now, discards do not, obviously, count as part of our landings, but we do have an estimate of discards, which our scientists would use in order to calculate total mortalities. So it's not as if the information is totally lost. We sometimes don't have the precision that we might like, but I think we do take discards into account in doing our scientific assessments. We would look at estimates of mortality that would include fishing mortality, so that fish not landed would in fact be accounted for in the total mortality calculations of the stock.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chair: A very short one, Bill.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I just want to pursue what is, I think, a very important issue. We're talking conservation and protection.

When we're up to 30,000 metric tonnes, in my view it's quite conceivable that there were 40,000-plus metric tonnes of cod actually caught in 3Ps. That's my view. I feel very strongly. I've talked to enough fishermen who fish that stock, and I know what's going on. In my view, 40,000-plus metric tonnes of fish actually died, were caught, in that year in 3Ps, but yet we had 30,000 metric tonnes landed at the wharf to process.

My question is, are you considering action, such as gear-type elimination, to rid ourselves of that problem? Because if we eliminated that—over a three-year period that discard and that amount of fish times three—we shouldn't be down to 15,000 metric tonnes this year. We should still be around the 30,000 metric tonnes that we bring to shore and land and process. So I'm wondering if you're seriously considering as a department the elimination of gear types, doing away with gill nets altogether, going strictly to a hook-and-line fishery?

I just wonder what your thoughts are on that. We were so proud when we got back to 30,000 metric tonnes, but now we're back to 15,000 metric tonnes again. To me, it's regressive.

• 1045

Mr. Patrick Chamut: We would certainly agree with the concern. We are extremely disturbed by what we have seen happening in 3Ps. We share the desire to eliminate the discarding problem. In our fishery in 2001 we will be introducing very significant restrictions on the use of gill nets. There will be a very different fishing regime from what we had last year, and there will be more use of hook and line than what we had in practice last year.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Are you just restricting the time they can use them?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: It's the time, and there will be other restrictions that will address the problem that has been identified. We're not yet at the point where we think gill nets need to be entirely eliminated. We do want to take a look at practices in 2001, and then, obviously, we'll make judgments for the future based on what we see this year. But I have to also say that, unfortunately, every gear type has its advantages and disadvantages, and even hook and line can provide some unfortunate incentives for people to discard as well. So it's not as if hook and line is the answer. We're looking at all of these things.

Our objective is to have a fishery that is not only sustainable but also selective. We need to find fishing techniques that will avoid some of the waste and discarding we see. We have certainly identified that as an issue, and we would hope to make some progress on it.

The Chair: Before I go to you, John, I have a couple of quick questions.

I would imagine you have gone through the evidence of March 13, when we had fishermen before the committee. If you didn't, then you should, because what we heard was very worrisome. These are fishermen who are concerned about the very future of their industry. They're saying that if there is not greater enforcement in the fishery, then the lobster fishery itself is going to be destroyed not by the Marshall decision or anything else but by the poaching, some of which is done by fishermen themselves. It was startling evidence.

Pat, it is extremely serious when fishermen have to pay for overtime and buy fuel for boats in an area that is clearly the Government of Canada's responsibility. I can see joint agreements. That's all well and good. But I know what happened on the line off Alberton last year. The minute the big vessel left—not the minute but within a very short time—traps over in the spring zone were down a considerable distance. I went to see it myself. The evidence was really worrisome.

Last year we met as a committee with fisheries officers, and I think it was one of the best committee meetings we ever had. It was an in camera session in Ottawa. What they said concerned us as well. We're getting a different view from fishermen and fisheries officers than we're getting from management at any level. Somehow this thing has to come together so that enforcement is taking place on the water.

The other point I should make as well is that I know oyster leases that haven't seen a fisheries conservation and protection officer in three years. This is terribly serious.

The number we were given in terms of Prince Edward Island was indeed 17.

The last point that was in the evidence—and I went to see for myself—was when Francis Morrissey appeared before the committee and asked this:

Does the fishery officer on the land need a $45,000 Chev Blazer to drive up and down the road with while the patrol boat has no gas...?

So I went into Charlottetown and talked to the coast guard. The coast guard said, we can't do what we should be doing, but look at all those new vehicles out there. Do we need an expensive Blazer or an ordinary truck?

I'm telling you fellows at the senior management level that you have to look at what's happening on the ground down there, because it is worrisome. I'm just making that point. I say look into this and look into it quickly. I know the fishermen who were here. I think we all do on this committee. They've been honest, and they're concerned about their fishery. If more dollars need to be put in, then find them and put them in.

I think the point Mr. Cormier made is a valid one, and I'll just say what he said. He said:

We've been asking the last few years...it has been done in the past, but we're still asking that this program we had in the early eighties, where fishing boats were hired, be rejuvenated, be put back in place.

• 1050

It was related to a discussion where a coast guard vessel painted red and white comes out, and you can see it coming for miles. Somebody is cooking undersized lobsters and bottling them, and they can see it coming. You can't catch them that way. So I would suggest you consider that kind of program where you put a fisheries officer in the fishing boat and catch these guys. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than buying new boats, and the fishermen themselves are going to see greater effort being made.

I know one of the concerns of the enforcement people at DFO is that when they do catch somebody and it goes into the court system, it's out of your control. No question about that. You poach $12,000 worth of lobster, and the judge gives you a $1,000 fine. That's an investment instead of a penalty. What can we as a committee do to change that so that there are sanctions put in place? Does it involve a change to the Fisheries Act? Are there other ways of doing it? What can be done to make the penalty fit the crime?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I would like to begin by indicating that I did read the transcript of the hearing of March 13.

I don't want it to be the view of this committee that I'm not concerned. I'm very concerned when I read about the sort of poaching that's going on, and I can assure you that we are going to be addressing that. It's one reason I wanted Edmond Martin here, so that we can start to look at what are the issues. If there are some gaps, then let's look at how we're going to fix them.

There are certainly some issues associated with patrol vessels. If those rigid-hull inflatables are not adequate to be working in certain parts of P.E.I., then we're quite prepared to look at that.

We've already had discussions about the cost benefit and effectiveness of chartering vessels as opposed to some of the other platforms we use. There's a good argument to be made that you can charter a vessel and it may be far more effective than using some of the traditional platforms we're using. I can assure you we're looking at that.

The issue of penalties is an area where we have a shared concern. I think the issue of poaching and illegal activity in the fishery is sometimes seen as a victimless crime, and there are not the kinds of restrictions or penalties put in place that would actually be an effective deterrent.

In terms of what might be an alternative, I don't think it's my place to talk about interacting with the courts. But one thing I would suggest is that probably the most significant deterrent you can impose would be some sort of sanction applied to the individual's licence. If you have a situation where an individual is a repeat offender and you can attach conditions or penalties to the licence in terms of denying them access to a fishery or restricting the amount of time they can fish in a fishery, I think that will have a far greater deterrent effect than anything else we can do.

We believe that is something that would be desirable. The current concern is that the only way that can be effectively done is by legislative change. I think, Mr. Chairman, you may recall that in previous efforts to amend the Fisheries Act, one of the provisions that was put forward was the opportunity to introduce administrative sanctions, which is something that I think would probably be beneficial.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chair, can you ask if there's a protocol between the RCMP and DFO on response—

The Chair: You ask away.

Mr. John Duncan: I understand you were negotiating with the RCMP for a response protocol. We had a circumstance in the Prince Rupert area where the fisheries department wouldn't respond because they said it was an RCMP issue, and the RCMP wouldn't respond because they said it was a department issue. I forget the village, but it involved a sea urchin fishery, if I'm not mistaken, opening in front of a village, and people in the village complained and harassed the fishers.

• 1055

As a consequence of the fact that no action was taken and a legal fishery was abandoned, there was a commitment on the part of the authorities to come up with a response protocol. We were told that when it was negotiated this committee would be a recipient of the new protocol. We have not heard a response and I would request that response. That probably dates back to 1999.

The Chair: Can you investigate that and get back to us, Mr. Chamut?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I want to make a general comment, if I may.

First, there is a protocol between the RCMP and DFO that generally guides the relationship between the two agencies. In the specific instance that you're referring to, I think there was a question of who is responsible for enforcing or addressing the situation where there may be a disruption to a fishing activity. Is it DFO or is it RCMP? I'm not aware that there has been any work done to develop a detailed protocol dealing with that incident, but we certainly will be able to look at that, talk to our colleagues in the regions, and respond back.

Mr. John Duncan: It's in our testimony. It's quite specific.

The Chair: Ask your last question, if you could, John, and we'll have two quick other questions from Mr. Roy and Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. John Duncan: I didn't want to use my time for that question, but in any case we've heard a lot of concern from this committee. We've heard a lot of concerns from the fishing community. I'm really concerned when we get a presentation that doesn't identify any departmental initiative to address the real problems. Compliance with the law is your mandate. How does this square with the fact that we had the Indian Brook band fishing in Yarmouth last year with no agreement? And they intend to do so again this year.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Very quickly, there is no requirement that the Indian Brook band sign an agreement in order to authorize them to fish. We did provide them with commercial licences and we also provided them with a communal licence to fish for food. Any activities that occurred outside the terms and conditions of those licences was subject to enforcement. As you know, we did have a very large enforcement activity in St. Mary's Bay throughout the course of last summer to ensure that the provisions of the communal licence were complied with.

The Chair: Mr. Roy and Mr. Stoffer, I'll ask you both to ask your questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Earlier, Mr. Matthews spoke about considerable fish dumping in the zone that concerns him. The same thing happens in the zone that concerns me, particularly in connection with snow crab. If a fisherman has permit X, Fisheries and Oceans officers will require him to destroy everything that he is not entitled to fish for. This causes serious problems, particularly for the snow crab, because hundreds of pounds of crab are automatically destroyed by fishermen because they cannot bring them in.

I know that at one point, Fisheries and Oceans had considered the possibility of issuing multiple species permits. Do you intend to go forward with this project? Are you considering granting multiple species permits to fishermen rather than allowing them to fish for a single species and requiring them to dump all others and basically waste tonnes of fish?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chaput, maybe answer that and then we'll go to Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In this case, we are aware that this does occur. The reason is that the individuals are not authorized to fish for snow crab. If they were allowed to bring in the production that they're taking, then there's a very large incentive for them to increase the amount of snow crab and that would occur to the detriment of other fishermen who are licensed to harvest snow crab.

• 1100

We do not, at this time, intend to move towards a permit that would allow multiple species to be taken under the same licence. We think it would be extremely difficult to manage. It would upset all the existing allocation arrangements between provinces and fleets, and we do not think it would be generally acceptable to the fishing community, whose interests would undoubtedly be affected.

We believe there are ways in which fisheries can become more selective, and we think that would be the preferred approach, as opposed to letting everybody catch everything, which we think would cause significant conservation and allocation problems.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, 15 seconds.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

Would it be possible, Mr. Brock, to supply us with information on what the department is doing about the retrieval of ghost nets?

And two, Mr. Chamut, is discarding and dumping of fish an illegal activity?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Stoffer, it depends very much on the specific circumstances. In some cases discarding is an illegal activity, if it is done in the context of what Mr. Matthews was talking about. In other cases, where incidental harvest occurs, as in the case of Mr. Roy, there is obviously a situation where snow crab would be discarded, because it is illegal to bring it on board.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

We are indeed out of time.

Mr. LeBlanc has handed around a notice of motion, which will be discussed at the next meeting, which will be next Thursday.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, it was following up on what I said a week ago. I won't be here on Tuesday, so if the committee is willing, I'll move that next Thursday.

I'm just looking for the committee to give me and any other member who is interested some support for a meeting with officials of the department, after which I can come back to this committee. Then I would be in a position to know and make recommendations to colleagues, if we want to have witnesses on this issue, or something. I'm looking for a way to get some support from the committee whereby I can come back to the committee in a month, because this is an issue that is important to some of us in the gulf.

The Chair: Okay. Anyway, we'll not debate it now. It is on record.

Thank you, committee members and gentlemen, for coming. There are—I'll not go through the list—quite a number of undertakings there that I'm sure you'll get back to the committee on as fast as possible. I do thank you for your participation today.

Meeting adjourned.