FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

0905

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.))

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

0910

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray (Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

0915

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Pablo Sobrino (Area Director, Lower Fraser, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

0930

Mr. Cummins

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Cummins

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall (Lower Fraser River Area Chief, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

0935

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

0940

Mr. Cardin

The Chair

Mr. David Bevan

0945

Mr. Cardin

The Chair

Mr. Cardin

The Chair

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)

0950

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

0955

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

1000

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

1005

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. David Bevan

1010

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1015

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

1020

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

1025

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. David Bevan

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

1030

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

1035

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

The Chair

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

1040

The Chair

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Macgillivray

1045

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Paul Ryall

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

1050

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Pablo Sobrino

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1055

Mr. Paul Ryall

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Ryall

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. David Bevan

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1100

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 039

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

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

The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of salmon fisheries management on the Fraser River.

This is really a follow-up on a full day of hearings held on Monday, November 19, on the Fraser River issues in Steveston, British Columbia. A lot of concerns were raised at that meeting and there was a lot of emotion because people were very concerned about their future.

I welcome, by video conference from Vancouver, Paul Macgillivray, regional director for fisheries management, Pacific region; Paul Ryall, area chief, resource management; and Pablo Sobrino, area chief, lower Fraser; and here in Ottawa, David Bevan, director general, resource management.

I might say in beginning that there is some concern on the part of a number of committee members that we're doing this hearing today by video conference. That's for a couple of reasons: departmental costs and time and the fact that the budget liaison committee wants us to do our hearings, if we can, in the cheapest way possible, which in some cases is by video conference. But I will admit that I have concerns myself about doing it by video conference. It isn't the same as the witnesses being here.

I would say, Mr. Macgillivray, that at some point in the future when you're in Ottawa on regular business, we may want to continue this hearing so that we can do it in person.

With that, I'll turn it over to the witnesses. I believe Mr. Macgillivray is going to do a presentation first and then we'll go to questions.

Did you have a point of order to make now or later?

Mr. John Cummins (Delta--South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I can do it now because it follows on from what you've said.

I would like to serve a notice of motion. The matter we're dealing with this morning, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is of some significance for British Columbia. The inept management of the fishery this year, in my view and in the view of many others, cost the economy of coastal British Columbia, and indeed Canada, something in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $50 million. That's this year.

Mr. Chairman, as well, it's our belief that the over-spawning--

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. John Cummins: I have a motion, and I've just given a preamble to set that motion in place.

The Chair: Well, let's get to the motion, then.

Mr. John Cummins: I will be very brief.

The over-spawning will cause dislocation four years from now.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped, as I indicated to you before, that these witnesses would appear in person before this committee to respond to the concerns of many British Columbians. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to.

I would like to make the motion that this committee explore the possibility of a one-day public hearing in Vancouver with DFO officials so that we can explore the management of the Fraser River fishery this past year.

The Chair: Are you making that as a motion, John?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We can talk about that as a full committee in terms of our agenda. Are you saying we should explore the possibility?

Mr. John Cummins: I would like it to happen.

The Chair: Okay, but what is your motion specifically saying? Is your motion saying explore the possibility?

Mr. John Cummins: My motion is that at some point within the next six weeks the committee conduct a one-day public hearing in Vancouver with the DFO officials who are responsible for managing the Fraser River fishery.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Can we take that as a notice of motion and deal with it at the next meeting?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: I'll go to Peter on that point.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): I also have a motion for us to travel to the west coast to the Broughton Archipelago regarding the British Columbia government's lifting of the moratorium on aquaculture sites and concerns about the protection of fish and fish habitat. That ties in with John's.

The Chair: We will deal with those points and where we're at on our agenda at a future meeting.

Turning to Mr. Macgillivray, the floor is yours. We like to keep our presentations, Mr. Macgillivray, to no more than 10 minutes so that we have plenty of time for questions.

The floor is yours. Welcome.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray (Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I'll start with just a comment on the video hook-up. I actually made travel plans to go to Ottawa, to be there in person. Last week John Davis, the regional director general, asked me if there was a possibility of using a video facility. I did make the request to see if that was okay, and heard back late last week that participating by video was okay. I'm sorry if that caused any concerns. That wasn't my original plan, but that's the way it turned out today.

In terms of my travel to Ottawa, yes, I would be pleased to meet in person with the committee. If you picked out some dates, then I could see when I'll be in Ottawa next and see if that works with your schedule.

What I'd like to do, Mr. Chair, is just provide a brief overview introducing the general management approach for salmon very briefly, and then turn to the key issues related to Fraser sockeye management and, in doing that, address many of the key issues that were raised in the meeting that you referred to in Steveston when you were out here last.

The first question I have is, does the committee have copies of the presentation that was put together?

The Chair: No, we don't, not that I'm aware of, Andrew. Do you have them, David?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They're right here.

The Chair: I don't have mine yet.

Go ahead, Mr. Macgillivray. That's fine. We'll sort that out at this end. Thanks.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: In terms of the general overview of the salmon fishery, essentially the way this fishery operates is we establish, before the season starts, conservation objectives for target stocks, which are expressed in terms of either escapement targets, a desired number of spawners, or harvest rate goals, which involve taking a percentage of the expected return. That's for directed harvests.

We also, particularly in recent years, have had very strict limits on by-catch. Selective fishing has been aimed at reducing incidental catch.

Based on those conservation objectives, we try to look for fishing opportunities that are consistent with an explicit allocation policy that was developed a couple of years ago--in 1999 it was released--and conduct fisheries according to our selective fishery policy. So there's a policy framework that is used to identify fishing opportunities.

One more point on the general approach is that, unlike many fisheries where there's a total allowable catch set before the season and the season unfolds according to that catch, there's a very heavy in-season emphasis in salmon fisheries. We have a pre-season forecast, but there's new information on many salmon, such as Fraser River sockeye, that comes in on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis throughout the year, and that's used as the basis for management decisions on which fishing opportunities are made available.

With respect to Fraser River sockeye, there are over 50 tributary systems that contribute to the Fraser River sockeye returns. We've broken, for management purposes, those 50 or more tributary systems into four stock groupings. They're grouped according to run timing. There's a graph on the bottom of the first page of the presentation I'm going through that identifies those four runs. You'll see, working from left to right, that the early Stuart is the first returning aggregate. Second is a grouping called early summer. Third is mid-summer, and that's the big volume of fish we saw in 2001; the mid-summer run is where we have the largest harvestable surplus. And finally, there's the late run sockeye.

Another point in managing Fraser River sockeye in particular is that under the Pacific Salmon Treaty there's a Fraser River panel that's responsible for the in-season management actions within certain areas. There's a heavy emphasis on Canada-U.S. cooperation in managing Fraser sockeye.

With respect to the events of 2001, what we're faced with, as you can seen on the graph on page 1, is low returns expected for early Stuart and early summer sockeye runs; also, low returns of late run sockeye combined with a problem on late run sockeye. For several years now the late run sockeye have been migrating into the Fraser River earlier than typical periods and have been susceptible to a parasite and have had high mortality rates, with a lot of fish dying before they reach the spawning grounds.

That issue in itself was serious enough in 2001 to prompt the Pacific Salmon Commission to write to both Canada and the United States highlighting that they had grave concerns for the late run sockeye and asking both countries to be very careful in managing those runs.

With respect to the pre-season forecast for Fraser River sockeye, I mentioned we have a range that we use for planning purposes. It's a fairly broad range. In 2001 we expected the total return of Fraser River sockeye to be between 6.8 million and 12.8 million fish. As I said, that's what's used for pre-season planning purposes. We update, in season, the run forecast with respect to the different run timings. You see that the majority of those fish were expected to return in the mid-summer grouping.

¿ (0915)

That left us about a three-week opportunity to target fisheries on the larger summer runs while meeting conservation constraints for the weaker sockeye runs as well as for Thompson River coho, which have been in a low state for several years now. So we're protecting Thompson coho as well as the weaker runs of sockeye.

There's a brief overview on page 2 of the handout that goes through some of the in-season activities and decisions on fisheries. I think in that I wanted to highlight the particular in-season features of the management, because this does address many of the questions that were raised in the Steveston meeting.

In late July, the in-season estimate of summer run sockeye was about six million fish. Accordingly, we started commercial fisheries in Johnstone Strait and Juan de Fuca Strait. Fraser River gill net fisheries were also planned at that time but could not proceed until the early summer stock had cleared the lower Fraser River.

In early August, the run size estimate of the summer stocks dropped to five million. We had a decrease in the run size to five million. This run size was large enough to allow us to continue with what we call low-impact fishing opportunities, and on that basis pilot sales and recreational fisheries proceeded in the Fraser River, and a Fraser River gill net fishery was planned.

On August 8 the run size estimate again decreased. It went to four million on the summer run stocks. As a result of that there was no more commercial allowable catch available.

On August 17 the run size estimate for summer run stocks—and these estimates are provided by the Pacific Salmon Commission, the Canada-U.S. body—increased to five million. Again, this went back to an earlier estimate where there was a commercial fishing opportunity available at that level; however, given the delays and that now we were into mid-August, the presence of late run stocks were a major conservation concern that precluded further commercial, recreational, or pilot sale fisheries.

On page 3 of the handout there are a lot of numbers that I don't propose to go through. Essentially, this lays out in some detail the pre-season forecasts, the current estimates of run size, the escapement goals as well as the preliminary escapement estimates.

With respect to Canadian commercial fisheries on sockeye, we have in British Columbia eight commercial licence areas. Five of those are in southern British Columbia and have opportunities to fish Fraser sockeye. There were very low catches by each of these commercial groups. Their catches of Fraser sockeye were very low in 2001 and this was due to a combination of factors, which I highlighted. There was a very short window of opportunity to target on summer run sockeye based on conserving earlier sockeye runs, the late sockeye run, as well as coho.

There's a summary of catch as well as number of fishing days, but I would like to stress the point that these were not viewed as large catches by any means.

With respect to some of the key issues that emerged during the season, the enforcement and compliance were generally viewed to be good throughout the lower Fraser River. There were specific actions taken on harvesters--first nations, recreational, and commercial fishermen--that required a range of enforcement responses from warnings to charges being laid.

¿ (0920)

In terms of a specific issue, I know a concern was raised about an enforcement agreement that we had with one of the bands on the lower Fraser River, and the intent of that agreement was to deal with some tensions. We had some violence in that fishery in previous years. We had an agreement that clearly laid out our actions, and where there was an intent for first nations members to fish illegally to prompt court cases, then we had an organized enforcement approach and charges were laid against band members in those cases. That type of agreement was consistent with our overall fishing plan and our conservation objectives.

Compensation was another issue that was raised: given the low catches and the lack of fishing opportunities, particularly for the Fraser River gill net fleet, would compensation be paid?

On that subject, I noted that the catches were low, but we did have commercial fishing opportunities for all five gear types in southern British Columbia for some species of salmon, including the gill net fleet in the Fraser River. Although they didn't have a targeted fishery on sockeye, there were some other fishing opportunities provided. Typically, we have in the past provided some financial assistance, both in terms of licence retirement and in some cases fee waivers over the past few years, but we're through that period of fisheries adjustment and restructuring and are trying to get back on a more normal footing for salmon fishing opportunities.

The issue of pilot sales on the lower Fraser River--first nations' pilot sales fisheries relative to other commercial fisheries--again was raised as an issue. As highlighted here, pilot sales are a feature of the aboriginal fisheries strategy in terms of our allocation policy, which states that the sales component of pilot sales will be accorded the same priority as commercial harvest.

I'll conclude by highlighting a few of the key issues we're focused on for 2002. Looking at the operation of the fishery, both in the Fraser River and more generally, there is work going on to try to improve the in-season estimates of salmon returns. That includes suggestions for more low-impact fisheries, for more test fishing to provide a better indication.... I should contrast this. In the past, the Pacific Salmon Commission relied quite heavily on large fishing fleets fishing on significant runs--full-day fisheries by a large fleet--to get an accurate assessment of returns in-season. We've had more limited fishing opportunities in the past three or four years, and it's much more difficult to get an in-season estimate of run size with those limited fishing opportunities. So we're looking at new ways to get better information in season.

We're also looking at more research. There's a commitment to do more research on the issue of late-run sockeye, trying to find out the causes of those late-run sockeye returning early to the river and the resulting parasite problems and high mortality.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I'll stop there and see where we go with questions.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macgillivray.

Just before I turn to questions, I know most members who are here were at the Steveston meetings. I was unable to be there, but later in the week I did stop and meet with some fishermen in the lower Fraser.

I just want to raise this question, because it came to mind when you talked about enforcement issues and the Cheam band, is it? When I met with these fishermen, they were really concerned, because they felt they were not fishing, yet they could see fish going by in totes, caught by people from the first nation. What the fishermen told me was that the charges were laid, but the band kept fishing. I think you allude to it on page 4, that there was an agreement worked out, including notification of patrols.

I personally can't understand that. If you're going to catch people in illegal acts, you don't notify them that you're coming. On that particular point, these fishermen that weren't fishing were fiercely angry. Could you comment on that and explain why? That doesn't seem to me to be good enforcement or good procedure.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I think Pablo Sobrino was involved in that one and he'll comment.

Mr. Pablo Sobrino (Area Director, Lower Fraser, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): First of all, I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have laid quite a number of charges over the fishing season. It is true that despite our laying charges, fishermen then would fish, repeat their illegal activity. This isn't any different from what has happened in the past. We did lay charges and we seized gear.

As for notification of patrols, we did do patrols. The notification had to do with landing on the Cheam reserve and that notification was a matter of a few minutes, as opposed to scheduling something over the next week. It was a telephone call to the band office letting them know we were coming on the reserve. And we observed the illegal fishing and then proceeded to approach the fishermen. So it's not as if we would notify everybody to get out of the water and disappear. So we do carry out patrols as one should, which is within our judgment as opposed to anybody else's.

The Chair: Thank you.

Turning to questions, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm amazed at the inaccuracies in your presentation, but before I get to that, I'd like to offer the people involved in fisheries management the opportunity to advise the committee of their credentials.

Mr. Bevan, you're here as director general, resource management, and I presume to answer some questions. So maybe we'd start with you. Would you briefly advise the committee of your training and experience in fisheries management, and then we could proceed down the list, please.

And please respond with particular reference to the Fraser River, if you wouldn't mind.

Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you. I've had about 25 years' experience with the management of fisheries on both coasts, and now nationally as well, and I'm involved in international fish management regimes.

With respect to the Fraser River in particular, I've spent a number of years in the Pacific region; I started there in 1983 and stayed till 1987, and then I returned again in 1993 and was at that time the director of operations branch, which included the management of the Fraser River fishery at that time. So I've had personal experience with it, as well as working in more of an oversight capacity where the fish management plans and the key decisions are passed through us to the minister for consideration.

¿ (0930)

Mr. John Cummins: So essentially you came into the Fraser River fisheries management as a senior bureaucrat.

Mr. David Bevan: I worked in British Columbia as a director, and then again as a director in 1993. However, as I said earlier, I did have quite a bit of experience on the east coast in the management of a number of different fisheries.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you trained as a biologist, Mr. Bevan?

Mr. David Bevan: I have a Bachelor of Science in biology and a Masters in business administration.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Macgillivray, please.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I started with Fisheries and Oceans in 1982 in Vancouver and worked in policy group, an economic analysis group. My background is economics. I worked extensively on herring fisheries and salmon fisheries through from 1982 to 1988, and then worked for a short time in New Zealand on development leave, and worked in the Atlantic fisheries in Halifax for about two and a half years in the late eighties and early nineties. I worked about a year and a half in Ottawa after that, and I've been back in Pacific region for about the last eight years working most recently, the last two years, as the director of fisheries management in Pacific region.

Mr. John Cummins: What were you doing in the previous six?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: In the previous six, I had a couple of different jobs. In the mid-nineties, I was heavily involved in the salmon restructuring in Pacific region, what's known as the Mifflin plan, involving a round table process in 1995. That lasted for about six or eight months and resulted in a number of changes in the fleet. So that was a primary focus in the mid-nineties. After that I was regional director of policy in Pacific region for a couple of years, and then, most recently, moved into the responsibilities for fisheries management.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Ryall, did you want to elaborate on the question as well?

Mr. Paul Ryall (Lower Fraser River Area Chief, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, certainly I do.

My first experience with Fraser River management began in 1985. I worked for the Pacific Salmon Commission from that date until 1987. In 1989 I joined the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a biologist working in fisheries management and also stock assessments. This was on Vancouver Island, though in that capacity, starting in 1992, I was involved in the management of Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon as a member of the Fraser River Technical Committee. In 1999 I became chief of resource management for the Fraser River, and I am currently involved in this capacity.

As for my educational background, I have a biology degree, a Bachelor of Science, and I also have a Master's in resource management.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Sobrino.

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: I started my career in 1977 with the Canadian Coast Guard. I worked as an officer primarily on the west coast doing search and rescue and those kinds of activities on the water--actually out on the Fraser Delta. Most of my at-sea career was in the Fraser River mouth, the estuary.

Then I was in Ottawa for 10 years. In the year 2000 I was appointed area director of the lower Fraser River after being director of marine programs for the Canadian Coast Guard out here for three years. My job in this capacity is the management of about 170 staff and five of the department's business lines in the lower Fraser area.

As for my educational background, I have certificate of competency as an officer on board ships, as well as a Bachelor of Science in mathematics and operations research.

¿ (0935)

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

If we could just skim down your presentation here, you explained that the designations early Stuart, early summer, mid-summer, and late run, shown on the bottom of your graph, are not properly placed. You did go over that, did you not?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray.

What do you mean by not properly placed, John?

Mr. John Cummins: Well, by the look of this graph, the early summer extends well into August, which is not appropriate. If you draw a straight line up from the spacing on those names, the positioning is not exactly accurate.

The Chair: Go ahead and answer, Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: The component of early summer is made up of two main timing groups. There's an earlier timing in that early summer group, and there's another group called Scotch and Seymour that migrate a bit later. They do migrate into early August. These charts are provided through the Pacific Salmon Commission staff, based upon average timing. This is the historical record of the return of these stocks.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the record may be accurate, but the spacing looks a little odd to me.

Nevertheless, in point number two under “Fraser River Sockeye Management 2000”, in particular where you mention “extreme conservation concerns over Late run stocks”, last spring the committee had representation from Ian Todd, who was in a senior position with the Pacific Salmon Commission and has worked on the management of stocks in the Fraser River for probably 25 or 30 years--my memory escapes me. As well, we had two people from DFO, both of whom admitted their management experience on Fraser River stocks was lacking.

Mr. Todd suggested that curtailing fishing effort on mid-summer stocks was not advisable because it would simply lead to over-spawning on the fishing grounds, and that these early returning fish would only die anyway--90% of them are going to die. In actual fact, it was counterproductive to curtail fishing effort on mid-summer stocks when these late fish started to appear. The DFO representatives were unable to counter his argument, yet it seems the notice Mr. Todd provided was ignored by the department.

Would you care to comment on this?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, I would.

I was involved back in February 2000 in the Pacific Salmon Commission meetings in Portland, Oregon. There was a presentation made by the salmon commission staff at that time highlighting the concerns they had for the late run sockeye. The commission thought this was a serious enough problem that the commission itself had quite a discussion about what to do with late run sockeye, and the end result was that the commission wrote to both Canada and the United States--again there are copies available of the letter from the Pacific Salmon Commission--alerting both governments to this problem. Subsequently, the commission committed to do some additional research and was asking both Canada and the United States to get involved in additional research to try to understand this problem better.

But in addition to that, the commission directed that they wanted to minimize the mortalities--the impact of fisheries--on the late run sockeye. We were given guidance from the commission to keep the impact on late run sockeye down to 17% or less in 2001. The commission did that with the full understanding that this would result in a possibility of missing fishing opportunities on mid-summer runs. In effect, both Canada and the United States were unable to get their full total allowable catch on mid-summer runs because of some of these constraints.

The direction from the salmon commission seems to be a bit at odds with the advice that you heard from somebody else.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Cummins, we're a little over your time actually. I'll turn to Mr. Cardin, then Mr. Wappel, then back to the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Cardin.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not a fisheries specialists and have had to act as a last minute replacement for my colleague Jean-Yves Roy, the member for Matapédia--Matane, and closely involved in the fishery. Not being a specialist, then, I will ask a question that is related to my personal concerns and perhaps those of others in Canada and in Quebec.

When I was younger, those who studied the way society was developing and used this to predict the future said two things: the third millennium would bring with it the leisure society, and the seas would be our main source of good. Thus, we would be indirectly fed by the fishery.

As far as the leisure society prediction goes, I must say that it was not wrong, in my opinion, because I derive a great deal of pleasure from what I do. I do not know if that is the case for others. Perhaps it is not the same for everyone.

Moreover, as far as having the fishery and the seas as the source of our food, if everyone were to follow Canada's Food Guide, and ate fish, as it suggests—I myself am not fully familiar with it, and when I eat fish it is usually salmon...

So the predictors of the future were telling us some 20, 30 or 40 years ago that we would be eating sea products, and I wonder what fundamental errors must have occurred, either at Fisheries and Oceans, or in the fisheries themselves around the world, that the fisheries are no longer able to respond to this potential demand, to the food needs of the planet, to the needs for fishery products.

I conclude that mistakes have been made somewhere. If everyone ate the recommended portion of fish suggested in the Health Canada guide, we would have even bigger problems of supply and demand for food and for sport fishing, which one thinks of in connection with salmon.

So, has a mistake been made? What would have to be done in future to improve the situation which, as you say in the last lines of your report “ will hopefully lead to a better understanding of the problem and the best way to manage the fishery“?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bevan.

Mr. David Bevan: It's seems to be a fairly general question, obviously, and one that goes beyond just the Fraser River.

First, most Canadian fish is in fact exported. Of our products that are caught, 85% are exported to other countries. Clearly it's not that we can't satisfy the Canadian desire for fish. It's that Canadians have a particular diet and fish is a component of it, but not as large as other types of protein, and therefore most of our products are being exported.

With respect to the global picture, it is clear that globally the catches have levelled off at approximately 100 million tonnes a year. And with aquaculture making up a larger percentage of that, the wild fish component may in fact be diminishing. Further, the FAO has definitely noted that about 25% of the world's fisheries are over-exploited and 50% are fully exploited. There's not likely to be a lot of room for increasing the catches. And indeed, the question is whether the current practices are sustainable.

In Canada we've certainly learned a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. One of the things we have learned is that in any fish management regime there's a high degree of uncertainty. We cannot know with a great deal of precision the exact number of fish in the ocean or predict with more comfortable degrees of precision perhaps the number of returning salmon. As you see from the presentation, there's a large range in the predicted returns. We have to live with that uncertainty and we have to start to make management decisions based on that uncertainty. What we're doing in Canada, then, with respect to how we manage the fisheries is accept the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. We've ratified that, as have other countries. That calls upon us to follow a precautionary approach in the managing of fisheries.

The precautionary approach means that we live with the uncertainty; we act to conserve, given that uncertainty; we do not take high risks with the stocks, as has been done in the past. And we hope that by setting these long-term objectives for the fish management plans, by realizing what unscientific uncertainty does exist, by managing risks in a more prudent and cautious manner, we should be able to maintain the stocks that we're responsible for over the long term, and they should be there for the future for people to use as recreation and as food into the future.

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Do I still have some time left?

[English]

The Chair: For a supplement, yes, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I must point out, however, that I have to leave shortly because the House is about to begin sitting.

When you were speaking of forecasts, the figures advanced ranged from $6.8 million to $12.8 million, or nearly twice as much. In fish management, then, not only must risk be managed, but random chance as well. When the figure ranges from 6.8 to twice that, 12.8, then there is a pretty broad margin being left, taking into account not only risk but also, and especially, chance.

I imagine that the problem affecting these predictions is much further away. The fish are not kept in captivity near your salmon streams. They come from a distance, from the sea I would imagine. So how, in this case, can fish management be improved, as you say, when there is such a large part played by chance in the probabilities?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bevan.

Mr. David Bevan: In general, scientific research has been done. Specifically, perhaps I can leave a bit more detail to the Pacific region on how the figures are arrived at for salmon. But there is scientific research on the spawning stock size--in the case of salmon, that would be escapement--the productivity of the ecosystem, the number of smolts leaving the system and going into the ocean, the productivity of the ocean, etc.

It's generally a very complex situation. It would be like trying to ask a stock broker three years ago exactly what the level of the Nortel stock would be five years out. That's the kind of challenge you're dealing with. Given the amount of money spent on the latter question, they can't answer those kinds of questions. You can see that when we are dealing with a highly complex interrelated ecosystem with a number of factors that affect abundance, we end up with a fairly large range in potential returns.

Our past practice was perhaps to look at the middle of the range and say we can be right half the time and wrong half the time; we'll pick at that level and try to make our management decisions there. Now we're bringing our projections down to about 25%. So if you look at the range from 6 million to 12 million, we're looking at management decisions at a lower level of probability of return. In other words, 75% of the time more fish will come back than what we're using for our preliminary management decisions.

But as Mr. Macgillivray noted, we also make decisions in-season based on real-time data, to avoid taking the risks. But in all fish management, unless you're extremely lucky at being able to get hard data, most of the time we're dealing with samples, projections and models in very complex situations, where ocean conditions could have an impact on the number of fish, etc. So we are now recognizing that degree of uncertainty exists, and we are making sure we factor in the risks and uncertainties as we make our management decisions.

In the past, we took science at face value without asking questions as managers. Now we're saying science assesses risk, and it's our job to manage the risks, in consultation with stakeholders. But that kind of variability will not be something we can completely eliminate, notwithstanding what progress you might make with respect to science.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Wappel.

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

Initially my questions are for the people in Vancouver. Good morning.

In your presentation on page two at the bottom, your last sentence says:

While at this level there was commercial allowable catch available on summer stocks, the presence of late-run sockeye, which were a major conservation concern, precluded any additional commercial, recreational or pilot sale fisheries.

Was there any aboriginal fishery?

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray or Mr. Ryall.

Mr. Paul Ryall: I can answer that question. There were additional first nation food, social and ceremonial fisheries following that date. They were being managed to stay within the 17% harvest rate guideline or cap on the late run conservation problem. Those fisheries were going to harvest some late runs while they were harvesting the summer runs, which they were targeting.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's stay with you. Did you get a chance to review the evidence that was given in Steveston? Were you there or did you monitor it--any of those three?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I was not there, but I have reviewed the transcripts.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It was mentioned there, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to the allegations made. I'm referring specifically to page nine of the evidence. Do you happen to have a copy of the evidence in front of you, gentlemen?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

If you follow along with me, about halfway down the page Mr. Phil Eidsvik is giving testimony, in response to questions by me:

Typically, the ministers will say that all is well, everything is fully monitored, no cheating. In fact, we had DFO bureaucrats this year saying how wonderful it was, despite the fact that a B.C. TV camera crew went up to the Katzie reserve based on a phone call, bought fish illegally from an aboriginal person there, and put it on the evening news at 6.00 p.m. At the same time, on the same clip, they had the DFO guy denying that illegal sales ever went on.

Do you remember that incident, Mr. Ryall?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I do remember the interview.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is what it says there accurate?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I don't believe that is accurate, no.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What is inaccurate about it?

Mr. Paul Ryall: What is inaccurate?

There was a series of questions put to me by the interviewer. First of all, there were general questions about the management of Fraser sockeye. At the end of it, I was asked about my knowledge about the enforcement and whether there were sales of fish that were not through licensed pilot sales. I said that I was aware of those types of sales and that we were concerned about them. Then there was a question about whether this had happened and how much knowledge I had.

They were general questions. I did not deny that illegal sales had occurred.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So you would agree there are illegal sales?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I am aware of that occurring, yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How many illegal sales would there have been in 2001, according to DFO?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I do not have an estimate of how much of that occurred in 2001.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Why not?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I'm sorry, I missed the question.

The Chair: The question was, why do you not have that information?

Mr. Paul Ryall: That type of information is very difficult to come by. As for the total magnitude, there is a range of estimates, but I don't have any number as far as the catch is concerned--what the illegal sales could be.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Surely that component has to factor into your conservation estimates and how much catch people are allowed to take. You have to have some general idea, I would think, of what the estimates of illegal fishing are.

Mr. Paul Ryall: We do make estimates of those fisheries that occur during unlicensed times. We also during the course...I guess there are two issues here. One is, we do regular monitoring and extensive monitoring of the fisheries in the Fraser River to produce catch estimates. Some of those fish could be sold, but that's different from what's actually being caught.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Tom Wappel: When I asked how many of the 6.4 million sockeye were taken by aboriginal fishers, Mr. Eidsvik answered roughly 1.5 million. Is that accurate?

Mr. Paul Ryall: For Fraser River sockeye, the total number taken in 2001 is about 850,000. That includes pilot sales of about 190,000, and the remainder are food, social, and ceremonial fisheries harvested by Fraser River first nations as well as first nations out on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm sorry. I'm not clear on the answer. What was the total catch of sockeye on the Fraser River in 2001?

Mr. Paul Ryall: On the Fraser River itself there were 482,000 harvested by Fraser River first nations for food, social, and ceremonial. There were an additional 190,000 harvested by pilot sales fisheries. The addition of those two would be the total for the Fraser River harvest.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What is that addition, sir?

The Chair: 672,000.

Mr. Tom Wappel: 672,000?

Mr. Paul Ryall: Yes, that would be correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How many were taken by non-aboriginals?

Mr. Paul Ryall: In the Fraser River itself?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Apples to apples. Whatever number you have there, how many were taken in the same areas by non-aboriginal fishermen?

Mr. Paul Ryall: There were 12,000 harvested by an Area E unlicensed fishery. There was an additional recreational harvest within the Fraser River of about 72,000.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Eidsvik says there was virtually no monitoring by DFO of the aboriginal catch. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Paul Ryall: No, I would not agree with that. Our department does extensive monitoring of the aboriginal fisheries that harvest Fraser River sockeye within the Fraser, as well as on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What about the enforcement of the aboriginal seine fishery? Do you enforce that?

Mr. Paul Ryall: Yes, it is enforced as well. It operates under a licence with conditions attached to the licence for the reporting of the harvest. Enforcement staff do monitoring of those fisheries. As well, there are guardians who are on board those vessels to monitor the fishery as it progresses.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is there self-reporting only?

Mr. Paul Ryall: It's not in all cases self-reporting. There are onboard aboriginal fishery officers or guardians and, as well, C and P enforcement staff do regular checks of those fisheries and audits of the off-loading to confirm the numbers that are being provided to us.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Eidsvik says there was absolutely no DFO monitoring or enforcement of the aboriginal seine fishery and he went on to emphasize absolutely none--zero, nada, not one. He said while the senior bureaucrats would not agree with what he said, people on the water and the ground would. That's why I'm asking you the question. Is it your evidence that that statement is incorrect?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I would say the statement is not correct; that there is regular monitoring of those fisheries.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How am I doing on time, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: You have one question left.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, if there's any time left at the end, could you put me on again?

The Chair: Yes, we'll put you on again, Tom.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

Let me go, then, with my final question to page 8 of the evidence.

You have to understand the context here, gentlemen. We were given a bunch of charts and we were trying to understand those charts. The chart said there were approximately 6.4 million sockeye, and my question was, how many could have been fished commercially? Mr. Eidsvik said: “If you look at previous years, you would see that normally we take about two million to three million. That would leave 3 million on the ground”--I presume he means in the rivers--“which would be an excellent escapement. To take 3 million would not have been the least bit unusual.”

Is that a correct statement of the historical past?

À (1000)

Mr. Paul Ryall: I think that would reflect the historical past, but our problem in 2001 is we had a conservation concern on late runs that was going to severely limit our ability to do the regular, historical fishing pattern on the back end of the run.

Mr. Tom Wappel: In 2001, when I get my second round here, if I get my second round.... I just wanted to know, and you've answered, that what he said was in fact a correct statement of the historical past.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

We'll go back to the Canadian Alliance and the regular questioning order.

Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of issues coming out of Mr. Wappel's questions, and your allegation and suggestion that somehow there was monitoring of these native fisheries is not confirmed at all by the document, “Unsanctioned, Partially Monitored First Nations Fisheries on the Fraser River”, a study done for the department where they say "unsanctioned fishing represents an egregious affront to salmon conservation”. That's talking about these ongoing native fisheries.

In a Pacific region fisheries monitoring paper that was just produced recently, I think in the last week, they say: “Collection by fisheries officers is now inadequate to provide sufficient, complete and accurate accounting of the harvest”. This is talking about first nations' harvests.

Mr. Wappel asked you specifically about the Fraser River seine fishery, which was ongoing at the mouth of the Fraser River at the same you cancelled the gill net fishery in the Fraser River. In that ongoing seine fishery, six seiners fished for about a month at the mouth of the Fraser in Area 20. That's equivalent to the whole seine fleet operating for a day.

Much of this fish was delivered to French Creek Seafoods. Who counted the fish at French Creek Seafoods?

The Chair: Mr. Ryall, I guess.

Mr. Paul Ryall: The collection of the catch estimates from those fisheries is the responsibility of staff from Vancouver Island. They tabulate those and provide them to the salmon commission.

Mr. John Cummins: In fact, nobody counted. At no time was it ever observed that there was an ongoing DFO presence during the unloading.

How many late run sockeye were caught by that seine fleet?

Mr. Paul Ryall: How many late run sockeye were caught? One of the concerns of that fishery was to minimize the impact on late run fisheries. They were fishing in areas toward the end of August that were outside the area of late runs, or moving out of that area. That was one of our concerns for that fishery

I don't have an estimate, but there would have been a very small number of late runs harvested by those fisheries.

Mr. John Cummins: Why would it be a very small number? They were fishing at the mouth of the Fraser River. There was no DFO presence at that fishery.

Mr. Paul Ryall: Estimates of the proportion of late runs and summer runs in that area were collected through scale samples, and provided a proportion of anywhere from 10% to 15%. That led to the small harvest of late run stocks.

Mr. John Cummins: But they were targeting the same fish in the same area the Fraser River gill net fleet would have operated. Some of the fleet obviously would have been in the river, but they were fishing at the mouth of the river where a goodly portion of that Fraser River gill net fleet operated.

You shut them down because of your concerns over late run sockeye, yet you allowed a native seine fishery with six vessels to go on for a month, day in and day out, with absolutely no monitoring, and you tell me you have no idea how many late run sockeye were harvested by that seine fleet. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul Ryall: No. I'm saying there was regular monitoring of those fisheries by DFO staff. Also, aboriginal guardians were on board those vessels, tracking the catches from those seine fisheries.

Mr. John Cummins: A fisheries officer has to take an oath that he will absolutely in no way benefit from a commercial fishery; that he has no interest in a commercial fishery. The same is not required of these aboriginal fishing officers, is it?

À (1005)

Mr. Paul Ryall: I don't know for sure the answer to that one.

Mr. John Cummins: It's not been uncommon for the aboriginal fishing officers to have been charged with illegal fishing, is it? It has happened.

The Chair: Can anyone answer that question or can anybody explain a guardian, for the benefit of the committee? I know what our guardians are in eastern Canada. Does somebody want to explain that--Mr. Bevan or Mr. Macgillivray?

There are certainly accusations here that there was no presence from DFO, that there wasn't enough monitoring. Was there a presence or wasn't there? If there wasn't, why wasn't there?

Mr. Bevan or Mr. Ryall.

Mr. Paul Ryall: On what a guardian is, I can certainly respond to that. But on the specifics of the coverage in that fishery, I'll have to leave it to my colleague, Mr. Macgillivray, to respond to that.

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. John Cummins: Let me just go on because--

The Chair: Could we have Mr. Macgillivray answer. I'll not take away from your time, John.

Mr. Macgillivrary.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to that particular fishery, we had guardians on board the vessels monitoring the fishery.

On the level of coverage on shore from fishery officers, maybe that's one we could get back to you with. I don't know the details on that right now--the specific dates and the number of people assigned to monitor that fishery--but we did have aboriginal guardians monitoring the fishery.

The Chair: The specific question, which you couldn't hear because the microphone wasn't on, was do these guardians need to take an oath? There's a fairly serious accusation here that these guardians are not doing the work to the same extent as DFO officers.

Do you have an answer to that question?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: The guardians themselves are not full-fledged fishery officers, so they don't go through the same level of training or have the same type of oath you referred to.

I could follow up on that and provide you more detail on the responsibilities and training of guardians, if that would be useful.

The Chair: The other thing we need to know, with respect to that question, is who selects the guardians and on what basis? Perhaps you could provide that information at a later date.

John, back to you. Sorry.

Mr. John Cummins: Do they want to answer your last question?

The Chair: Could you answer my question now? Who selects them?

Mr. Macgillivray, do you know at this point who selects them and under what criteria or do we have to leave it for you to get back to us?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: The first nations are involved in identifying and selecting the guardians who work in their communities.

The Chair: Okay.

John.

Mr. John Cummins: Doesn't it strike you as rather curious that you're the guys who are supposedly responsible for this fishery and yet you allow someone else to select the people who are going to police it? And those people don't report to you; they report to somebody else. Doesn't this strike you as somewhat negligent?

The Chair: I know Mr. Bevan wants in here.

Do you want in as well, Mr. Macgillivray?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, I would comment on that.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Macgillivray, and then Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Okay. I just wanted to stress the point that aboriginal guardians are one component of our monitoring program, not the only component. As Mr. Ryall outlined earlier, we have pretty extensive coverage with respect to guardians in aboriginal fisheries, but this is complemented with the regular fishery officer enforcement in the whole range of fisheries.

The Chair: Mr. Bevan.

Mr. David Bevan: Clearly aboriginal guardians are not fishery officers. Under the Fisheries Act, fishery officers as peace officers have the powers of search and seizure, arrest, etc.; this is not the case with aboriginal guardians. However, they are designated and therefore have to abide under the act and meet certain standards. Even though they are selected by the bands, they have to meet certain standards in order to get the designation. It's not something that might be perceived as carte blanche on the part of a band to put just anyone forward for this kind of designation. There has to be a process followed.

They are put forward by the band for designation by DFO and there are some standards that apply. I'm sure we can provide more information on the process following these sessions.

À (1010)

The Chair: Last question, John, and then we'll have to go to Peter Stoffer.

Mr. John Cummins: There may be standards but whether they apply is the issue. As I said, on the reserve in my own riding there have been instances where these people, supposed guardians of the fisheries...the head of the fisheries association for that band was charged under the Fisheries Act for illegal activities.

Actually, this is one issue that was made very clear by John Fraser in his investigation of the mismanagement of the Fraser in 1994. In his report in 1995, he made it very clear that these aboriginal fishing guardians should report directly to the DFO, not through their bands. Mr. Tobin agreed and accepted this, but it still has not been put into practice.

Now there's another issue on these boats as well, these seines that were fishing at the mouth of the Fraser. Any other fishing vessel duly licensed to fish in the all-Canadian commercial fishery is required to have a revival box aboard. Then if it captures a spring salmon in the entrance of the Fraser or one of these coho, the fish will go into the revival box and will not be released until it's appropriate to do so, until it has revived and the net is out of the water, when the fish can swim away unfettered.

There has been no requirement for revival boxes in these native fisheries, has there?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray or Mr. Ryall, whoever.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, I have a couple points.

One, I want to make sure the distinction is clear that those seine boats operated by first nations were conducting food, social, and ceremonial fisheries and were operating under different rules or guidelines than the regular commercial fleet. s

The standards we've been moving towards--

Mr. John Cummins: They kill the by-catch just as well, though, don't they? The food, social, and ceremonial fishery should not be going ahead if there's a danger to the stocks. You must take action to mitigate this danger. And if you're going to allow the fishery, then there should be revival boxes.

The Chair: Can we let him answer the question?

Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to get to our implementation of selective fishing. We've been working with first nations commercial and recreational harvesters on ways of avoiding non-target species or, as we're talking about now, releasing live and unharmed incidental catch.

We've made a lot of progress in some areas, and the commercial fleet in particular has done a lot of work the last two or three years on selective fishing. We have work underway with both recreational and first nations, and we've seen some progress. We haven't introduced as many measures in the first nations fisheries and recreational as we have in the regular commercial fishery, but that has been a real focus the last couple of years and will continue to be.

We've been experimenting with different types of gear and those seine boats that we're operating. That's one example of how we're harvesting. But we're also experimenting with different ways for first nations to catch their target allocation more selectively, and those experiments are showing some promising results. We may see some improvements there in the next couple of years.

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray, are you telling us there are no revival boxes on these particular boats, whether it's food and recreation or not? Are there no revival boxes there?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: On those particular boats that we're talking about right now, that's true; there were no revival boxes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

You want to know why west coast fishermen get pissed off at DFO? When they get answers like this. I'm sorry to use that language, but when we were out there, you could just feel the pain of these guys who were told time and time again, if we reduce the licences and if you guys stack your licences, and if we charge you exorbitant fees, you'll be fishing.

Also, I'd like someone to answer why, in 1987, there were 7 million fish going up the river and 10,000 boats were fishing, and in 2001 we have almost 7 million fish going up the river and we don't have anybody fishing from the commercial fleet. Why is that?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray, you can try...or whoever.

À (1015)

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I'll answer that one. I think there are two issues here. One is that we did have commercial fisheries on Fraser River sockeye, and in the presentation that I went through, that was outlined on page 3. So although the fisheries were limited, there were commercial fisheries directed on Fraser River sockeye by four of the five fleets in southern British Columbia.

The level of harvest was another issue that we tried to address on page 1 of that presentation. The conservation problems, the way that those four stock aggregates returned in 2001, presented some real challenges from a management perspective and limited the number of fishing opportunities that were available. If there had been a different return of those fish, where we had strong returns on early Stuart, early summer, mid-summer and late summer runs, that would have provided a lot more fishing opportunities, but as we've discussed earlier, those constraints, as a result of trying to manage with three out of four stock groupings posing conservation concerns, limited the number of fishing opportunities.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Eidsvik said in our hearings that we had zero boat days. Not a net was put in the water. Are you saying that he was not telling us the truth when we asked him that question?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: If you look on page 3, I believe it is, in the presentation--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, I'm not asking what your page 3 says. This is what Mr. Eidsvik said, and other people said it as well to us in Steveston. Are you saying that Mr. Eidsvik gave us wrong information? Yes or no.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: If he said there were zero boat days for commercial fleets in southern British Columbia targeted on Fraser River sockeye, that's not correct. As I said, there are five commercial licensed gear categories in southern British Columbia: one seine fleet, two gill net fleets, and two troll fleets. The seine fleet, two troll fleets, and one gill net fleet had directed fisheries on Fraser River sockeye in 2001.

The one fleet that didn't is the Area E Fraser River gill net fleet. Although they did not have a directed fishery on sockeye, an authorized fishery, there was a protest fishery, and there was an estimated harvest of 12,000 sockeye during that fishery. Charges were laid, given that it wasn't an authorized fishery.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: To the best of your knowledge, is there any illegal fishing going on and illegal sales of salmon from the aboriginals to other people within British Columbia or the United States?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, there is, and I think Mr. Cummings referred to a fishery monitoring paper that we released a week or so ago. In there, we highlighted that we think there are improvements to be made in monitoring first nations, commercial, and recreational fisheries throughout the region.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, you just said there were illegal sales of fisheries from the Fraser River. How many people were charged, or at least fined, with illegal sales of salmon?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I don't have all the information in front of me, but for aboriginal fisheries there were 228 charges laid in 2001. I don't have the number of commercial charges that were laid, but I could provide those to the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, a last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

This is my last question, sir.

We've heard from an awful lot of people on the west coast, and for that matter the east coast, that the DFO officers on the water do an absolutely great job, but they're not supported at all by those in middle or senior management.

My question to you, sir, is do you have the resources available as we speak to do a proper monitoring of the stocks and of any illegal sales that are ongoing?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray, on this one, we've certainly heard from officers in eastern Canada that they need more enforcement, and that's the kind of information we need for the committee to make proper recommendations.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: With respect to...you're particularly interested in enforcement, as opposed to other activities? Is that the question?

À (1020)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In both.

The Chair: The question was on monitoring and enforcement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I've mentioned that with respect to fishery monitoring, we have, in the case of the salmon fishery, made some changes over the years. But in some of the other fisheries on the Pacific coast, we've gone to--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On a point of order, sir, I don't have much time for my questioning.

Do you have the resources available to do the job of monitoring and enforcement adequately? It's a yes or no question. I don't need to know if you've been improving or what the past is. As we speak, do you have the resources to do this?

The reason I ask this is that when we asked Mike Henderson of the coast guard, he said money wasn't a problem for the coast guard. But when we went out there, everyone told us differently.

So I'm asking you. The officers on the water say they don't have enough money or people to do the job. Are you saying they do? Yes or no?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I'm saying that the view from the field, the view from anybody involved, can be that you can always do more with more resources. So what we do, if we want to provide coverage 24 hours a day--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes or no, sir. I'm just a member of Parliament, and I'm getting ticked off at you. What would a fisherman say? Is the answer yes or no?

The Chair: Peter, let the gentleman answer the question.

Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Come on. Jesus Christ almighty. Just answer the question, yes or no.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: These guys spend thousands of dollars for a licence to get an answer like that?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Actually, I was going to say I don't think it's a yes or no answer. Of course you can always do more with more resources. With the resources we have, we feel we have quite a high level of coverage, both in terms of monitoring catch and monitoring enforcement. Could we do more with more money? Yes, of course.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

This is one of the reasons we don't like video conferences, Mr. Macgillivray. If you could see Mr. Stoffer's body language, you'd see he is a little peeved at the moment.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you. When I concluded my last question, whoever was answering said it was accurate to say there were two to three million caught in years past, but that there were huge conservation concerns in 2001.

Now we heard from a Mr. Mike Forrest, and he told us he was a member of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission for four years, and he was on the Fraser River panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission for some 13 years. Are you familiar with that gentleman?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Ryall.

Mr. Paul Ryall: Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Forrest.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What about the other two gentlemen there?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I asked him specifically, this is on page 19 of the evidence, to pick the sockeye, because the previous witness had been talking about 6.4 million Fraser sockeye in 2001. We picked that one alone. I asked if there was any conservation problem with that species in the Fraser River in 2001, and the answer was one word: no.

Now here we have a gentleman who has ample, I would think, experience dealing with the issue of Fraser River sockeye, and categorically, unequivocally, he stated that there was no conservation problem.

Do you disagree with him?

The Chair: Whoever wants to, just answer.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: If could just clarify, the reference was to mid-summer run sockeye? Is that what Mr. Forrest was referring to?

Mr. Tom Wappel: No, the question was very generally put. I'll read it again. Let's pick the sockeye because the previous witness was talking about 6.4 million Fraser River sockeye in 2001. That is the total. Let's pick that one alone. Was there any conservation problem with that species in the Fraser River in 2001? So it's pretty general. The species is sockeye, the place is the Fraser River, and the time is 2001, and his answer is, no, there was no conservation problem.

Your answer to my previous question was that there was a huge conservation problem, which is why you denied these commercial fishermen the opportunity to fish for all intents and purposes.

I'm asking you, do you disagree with Mr. Forrest's answer?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, I do.

Mr. Tom Wappel: And I want to know specifically why.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Again, the graph that was presented on page 1 of the presentation I think gets at this in some detail. So whereas the summer runs showed a large fishable surplus and provided an opportunity over the course of about two to three weeks to conduct fisheries directed on those summer runs, that's a much more limited fishery than occurred in the past given the conservation concerns for the early runs as well as the grave concerns for the late runs.

This isn't my opinion, it is backed up by the Pacific Salmon Commission, which wrote a letter to both governments, as well as conducted workshops, and has committed, as recently as last week, to do a lot more additional research on this issue. That was the focus of a very serious conservation concern, and given it, combined with concerns for Thompson River coho that migrate up the Fraser River and overlap with some of these sockeye runs, there were very limited fishing opportunities.

So, yes. In fact, there were significant conservation concerns.

À (1025)

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you for that answer.

I want to understand the numbers again. According to Mr. Eidsvik, there 6.4 million sockeye roughly. He said 10% of that, 256,000, was taken by commercial fishers and roughly 1.5 million was taken by aboriginal fishermen. I think you downgraded that number to what?

What did we figure, Mr. Chairman, 762,000, or something like that?

The Chair: It's 672,000.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Sorry, 672,000, is that correct?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Within the Fraser, that is correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm interested in knowing what's the total proportional percentage of aboriginals to non-aboriginals in B.C.?

The Chair: Anybody?

Mr. David Bevan: I don't have the population numbers.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Even in generalities, it would be less than 10%, wouldn't you agree?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Yes, likely.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How is it for ceremonial, etc., purposes such a small population group takes three times the amount of sockeye salmon from the Fraser River as does the entire commercial fishery in 2001? How do you explain that?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I want to make two points on that. One is the salmon allocation policy, which I referred to earlier, lays out priorities. The first priority is conservation. The second priority for harvest is for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, as well as any treaty obligations, and after that are recreational and commercial fisheries.

In practice what happens is, when the run sizes are relatively low, first nations take quite a high proportion of the overall catch. When run sizes are very high and catches are very high, the proportion that is represented by the first nations' catch decreases. So if this year, where the forecast was 6.8 million to 12.8 million, had resulted in a catch of 12 million, then those proportions would be radically different.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, last question.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes, thank you, gentlemen.

I am referring to page 10 of the evidence. I don't want to go into a long reporting, but again Mr. Eidsvik, who by this time was getting a little agitated, was talking about not counting the catch. I asked, him what's your evidence that this is not occurring? He said, we have 470 boats on the Fraser River. They had zero fish catch this year, zero. And I said, but the aboriginal fishery continued? He answered, yes, the aboriginal fishery continued. And you're saying then it was just for self-sustenance, I asked? He ansered, yes.

Certainly there's the pilot sales project. They actually had a commercial sales fishery on the river where they caught 269,000 sockeye and sold them, were allowed to by the department. We on the river caught zero.

Is that right?

Mr. Paul Ryall: The catch numbers for the pilot sales fishery are 190,000. There was not an Area E commercial fishery; that is correct.

You need to schedule these fisheries, and what happened in 2001 is that, given our conservation concerns on late run, we had a small window of opportunity to do harvests. We scheduled a pilot sales fishery, and that fishery unfolded and harvested that number of about 190,000. Subsequent to that, the run size decreased. That decrease removed the opportunities for further commercial harvest, but still left enough room for food, social, and ceremonial fisheries.

À (1030)

Mr. Tom Wappel: They say you allowed 269,000, and you say 190,000. In the pilot project, you permitted the aboriginal fisheries to commercially catch 190,000 and you gave zero to the other fishery. Is that fair?

Mr. Paul Ryall: We gave zero to the Area E commercial fishery. As Mr. Macgillivray said earlier, there were commercial fisheries harvesting Fraser sockeye within the south coast last year that harvested about 295,000 in total.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the gentlemen mentioned that 228 charges were laid in the first nations fishery. How many of those charges stuck?

The Chair: Does anyone have that information?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: I don't have that information. I know there are still 56 charges pending, but I'll have to get more details. Some of them may have been paid as tickets, as fines, but the other ones may have gone to court.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: So you have no idea of the result in the court, whether they were thrown out, whether they had fines imposed, whether there was imprisonment, you name it. We don't know?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: I can get you that information. I'll have to get the details.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: If you had 2001 to live over, what would you have done differently in relation to the Fraser River fishery, if anything?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I'll start with an answer. As we went through in this description, the information we had available on a day-to-day basis.... The decisions on which fisheries to proceed with and which fisheries didn't go ahead were based on the information at hand at the time. In the case where the run size dropped from an estimate of 6 million to 5 million to 4 million, those decisions were based on the information available at the time. So I wouldn't do anything differently.

When you look back after the season and see that there was a run size increase in mid-August, then in retrospect you'd think perhaps we could have had additional fisheries early in the month if we had that information available at that time. But essentially what we were focused on was meeting the escapement targets, the conservation goals, using the information we had on a given day in the season to plan fisheries.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: The latter part of your answer is extremely hard to argue against. However, the first part, not having the information, goes back to a question Peter was asking and one that I had written down to ask. Do you have the resources to give you the information you need to properly manage that fishery? That includes guardians, that includes monitoring of illegal fishing and illegal sales and whatever. Do you have the resources to do the job?

Again, I come back to that because in some of our other hearings, it was the straightforward answers from some of the public servants that helped us clean up the fishery a bit. The fishery in this country is in one hell of a mess. Unless we get good, solid information and can convince the minister and others who make decisions, government generally, that the fishery has to be addressed in specific ways, we're going to go from bad to worse and not from a mediocre situation to one that perhaps can concentrate on and look after the people who are supposed to be looked after. That would be the fishermen and those involved in the industry, and not politicians.

Do you have the resources in your department to do a job to make sure this fishery is beneficial to the people who should benefit from it, the people on the ground?

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: I would like to make two points. One is that the information that's available in season to base decisions on is a critical factor. I described earlier that we've run into a problem with weak information in season, because we don't have large-scale fisheries on big stock concentrations that allow us to have a high level of confidence in those estimates.

I've been meeting with fishermen over the past couple of months and with the salmon commission to look at how we can improve our test fisheries. Commercial fishermen are proposing launching low-impact fisheries as well. So rather than send a whole fleet on a given day, where there's a high level of risk, can we mount low-impact fisheries that provide a little bit of a commercial opportunity and at the same time provide more information on that run forecast as the runs move along? I would say there's an area that we could definitely improve upon.

Would it require more resources? Perhaps. The salmon commission has proposed that we dedicate more of the fish available to test fishing. So that's a possibility.

As I said earlier, yes, there's always more we can do. In particular, I would highlight the case of in-season assessments--both test fisheries and assessment fisheries--as something that we could improve upon.

À (1035)

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have a very brief observation, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think Mr. Macgillivray is making some very good points.

With regard to a lot of the people who are involved directly in the fishery, some are being used, but I think more of them can be, because if the people who benefit from it are not going to be honest and involved themselves, well, that's going to make, as I say, your job a lot more difficult and also going to require many more resources. It has to be teamwork. Those benefiting from it also have to make sure they do their part. Maybe everybody has to chip in here. But that's a challenge.

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray or whoever.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: That certainly is a challenge. I know I started to outline earlier what we've done in some other fisheries, and that in fact has been the approach. Different commercial harvest groups have taken on more of the responsibility for things like fishery monitoring and catch reporting.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macgillivray and Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Cummins, five minutes. And I would suggest we be as concise as possible. We only have about 20 minutes left.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you've pretty much conceded that the seine fishery that was ongoing at the mouth of the Fraser--in our view anyway you've conceded; you may not have in your own mind, but that's another story--went on without adequate monitoring, without revival boxes, which are required in other commercial vessels. So the by-catch of this late run fish could have been significant.

Now, the other issue of course is the issue of enforcement with the Cheam Band. You had an arrangement with the Cheam Band where you wouldn't enter into the areas where they were fishing--not coming on the reserve, but you wouldn't come into the areas where they were fishing--without prior notice. You had to consult with the chief before you went. It wasn't just giving notice. It was to consult with the chief before you went. And you weren't going to take the gear out of the water. You allowed the gear to remain in the water. Now, this was at a time when everyone else was shut down because of conservation concerns.

How do you reconcile that with the conservation concerns everyone else has?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Mr. Sobrino is going to respond.

The Chair: Mr. Sobrino, go ahead.

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: The basis of the fisheries agreement with the Cheam was to change the nature of the fishery there in the sense that in the past--for the previous two to three years, ending in 1999--there were significant protest fisheries in that area, with a high impact on fisheries.

What we were trying to do through this agreement was to lower the level of conflict and lower the level of protest fishing that was going on, and we were largely successful in reducing effort on those fisheries.

What happened in fact was, yes, there were consultations with the chief that we were going to be in the area. We didn't lay out when we were going through the area but that we would be making patrols.

The second thing is that when we did come across fishers, we did seize nets that were unattended. As for attended nets, we asked fishers to remove those nets from the water and, by and large, those nets were removed. We collected evidence to proceed with charges at that point and many of those charges are pending right now.

The agreement has had the effect of lowering the level of conflict in that part of the river, lowering the level of fishing effort. We had an estimate last year of what fishing effort was there, and from a fisheries management point of view, it did not impact on conservation because of low effort.

It's not a perfect agreement. We are certainly working to improve it, but the objective was to reduce the high level of protest fisheries in that area due to the conflict with the community there.

À (1040)

The Chair: Could you explain to me what a protest fishery is and who carries it out?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: A protest fishery generally is a fishery where a community or group of fishers wants to protest against the department's decision to close the fishery, and so they will proceed with an unlicensed fishery. An “illegal” fishery, I guess, is the other word for it.

In the Fraser, we had Cheam. We catch individuals as well who are illegally fishing--fishing during a closed time. There was a protest fishery in E area this summer that caught 12,000 fish. So there are commercial fishers as well who proceeded on a protest fishery.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'll challenge your numbers at another time on the catch in the commercial protest.

There's something amiss in your concern about avoiding violence. The job is to enforce the law, and the law says you have to protect stocks that are at risk. So you shut down the rest of the fishery, but to avoid violence you allow nets to stay in the water. That to me just doesn't make any sense. I don't think it makes any sense to anybody on this committee.

The report that was done for the department a week ago that I referenced earlier suggests there are huge problems in reporting on native fisheries and in enforcement, and yet on page 4 of your presentation today, you say compliance in first nations fisheries was generally high. That's in direct conflict to the report we have in front of us here, this report that came out a week ago. So explain some of these contradictions to me.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Perhaps I could answer that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray, go ahead.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: The report Mr. Cummins is referring to deals with fishery monitoring and it covers first nations, recreational, and commercial fisheries--not just salmon, but a whole range of fisheries. What we were commenting on there is that there are gaps. There are gaps in all fisheries--first nations, commercial, and recreational. That paper was intended to establish a framework where we could work with different harvest groups to improve the overall quality of information in each fishery.

Concerning the statements about the lower Fraser, generally for first nations, recreational, and commercial fisheries we believe we have a pretty good overall level of compliance and we have some fairly good catch records from each of the fisheries. In the case of the salmon fishery, the results from all of those sectors--first nations, commercial, and recreational--is not as extensive as it is in some fisheries, so we're looking to improvement.

Generally I don't believe there's a contradiction between the presentation, which talks about compliance in first nations fisheries, and the improvements we're striving to make in all fisheries, for all sectors. There is room for improvement, definitely.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Cummins: Again, the report says “complete catch reports are not received from all first nations salmon fisheries”. That's what it said--that's a direct quote--and it goes on. I still don't understand how you can tell us compliance was high. How can compliance be high when you're not receiving catch reports from all of the first nations involved in the fishery?

The Chair: Mr. Macgillivray.

Mr. Paul Macgillivray: Two points. One is that the report refers to not just the Fraser River but, coastwide throughout the Pacific region, all fisheries. I believe there are similar statements that we don't believe we get 100% returns of commercial sales slips, so there are some gaps in those fisheries. Overall, we believe the level of information is quite good, but there are definitely gaps in each fishery--first nations, commercial, and recreational--that we're attempting to improve the quality of information on.

À (1045)

Mr. John Cummins: Can I just make one quick point on that? I think it's important?

The Chair: You may have one supplementary, and it will be the last one.

Mr. John Cummins: You've paid for this stuff. This is stuff the department has paid for: first nations technical staff, with funding support from the department's aboriginal fishing strategy. Yet it says you're not getting the reports.

The Chair: Is that accurate?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I would like to address the catch monitoring within the Fraser River for first nations. We've had extensive reviews of that monitoring program within the Fraser River, and our assessment is that we are getting good estimates from the Fraser River first nation catches.

As Mr. Macgillivray reported, there are some problem areas, but overall, as a general comment, we believe we are getting good catch estimates from that fishery. Can there be improvements? I think in any catch monitoring there can be improvements.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ryall.

I have two more questioners, Mr. Wappel and Mr. Stoffer. But before I go to that, just on this point, fellows, nobody is saying your job is easy. It's certainly not. I think a number of people in management have alluded to that.

From my perspective, to a certain extent as a bystander, there's certainly a concern that some fisheries are not being monitored or enforced in the same way as other fisheries. Whether it's due to the aboriginal fishing strategy or what, I don't know, but there's a saying in my area, “treating different folks with different strokes”, and that's what it looks like. That only adds to the suspicions that are already there, whether they're real or imagined, and we have to get around that. We're all Canadians; there's the fishery, and everybody should be treated the same, should they not? And if they're not, why are they not?

We met with the fishermen in Steveston, and there were people there who believe...well, they don't believe; it's a reality. Their job is gone, their livelihood. Their whole life has gone down the drain. Then, when they see somebody treated differently, it only adds to the anger and the frustration, and now we're getting communities fighting. I'm not saying it's DFO's fault, but it's the reality of the world, and we have to get around that, where there's no chance for the suspicion to fester.

Does Mr. Bevan, or anybody, want in? I'm not saying you need to comment on it, but that's the reality of where I see it, and if we don't deal with this question and treat everybody the same....

An example is the revival box, a simple example, but for God's sake, somebody has been treated very differently there. There are by-catches just the same in a food and ceremonial fishery as there are in a commercial fishermen's boat out there. Why are they treated differently?

One of the risks that even I have in saying this is, if you say it, you're thought to be against another race. That's not what I'm saying. We all need to be treated the same here somehow, as Canadians.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on Mr. Cummins--I'm not quite clear, and I just want to understand this--is he correct in saying that the DFO had a deal with the Cheam Band that DFO would notify the chief before DFO would attempt to monitor fishing in areas that were not on the reservation?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: The Cheam safety agreement was designed to let the Cheam Band know that we were going to be carrying out enforcement operations in their area. So, yes, they would know that we were going to be in the area. We didn't have particular times that we had set out; we'd just be telling them we'd be going on patrols in their area.

Mr. Tom Wappel: No, I understand, sir, but my point is, it's not on the reservation; it's on open river--correct?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: Yes, on the water.

À (1050)

Mr. Tom Wappel: Right. And the reason you did this was because of the strong potential for violence, and to decrease tensions. Isn't that right?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: That's correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Suppose there was a strong potential for violence in the commercial fishery. Would you do the same thing to the commercial fishery to decrease the tensions, and notify them in advance that you were coming?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: Yes, when there have been protest fisheries in commercial fisheries as well, we have taken the same kinds of actions, notifying that we were going to be patrolling and enforcing the--

Mr. Tom Wappel: If what you've just said is true, then you've treated everybody the same. Isn't that right?

A voice: That's a lie.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Just a minute. If what you just said is true, then you've treated everybody the same, under the same criteria. In order to decrease tensions and decrease the potential for violence, you said that you would treat the commercial fishery the same way as the Cheam Band. I want to be clear on this. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: I'm saying that when there are commercial protest fisheries, we do have a discussion with those fishermen to advise them that we will be enforcing the fishery.

It's a different approach. Cheam fishing is a situation that essentially is happening over the summer. It used to be an organized, high-intensity protest fishery. It is not that any more. It is occasional fishermen fishing there. It's a different situation in the sense of scheduling a date that happens in the protest fishery.

Mr. Tom Wappel: We're following up on what the chairman just said. I want to be sure you're treating all Canadians the same way. Are you or aren't you?

Mr. Pablo Sobrino: I do my best to treat all Canadians the same way.

Mr. Tom Wappel: No, you don't.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, I just wanted to let you know that we're not going after you. We make recommendations to the minister, and basically what we're trying to do is to get you the additional resources and personnel you require and that everyone on the water says you have to have. I find it very strange that you can't answer a simple yes or no question: do you need more resources? That's what we're trying to do.

I must say if I were the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I were going to go before the cabinet to ask for money for DFO, I would have a very hard time doing so. After listening to these tapes, the finance minister would say, Mr. Thibault, you have lots of money at DFO; go away and don't bother me. If the senior people within DFO are not asking for more resources, how can the minister possibly have any clout in his own department when he goes to cabinet? I just wanted to say that on the record.

Mr. Ryall, I want to ask you a question about a statement made by a Mr. Connolly. He says you phoned the Area E association people to ask if he could direct a commercial fishery for 100,000 nets--in other words, half the net and two hours of fishing for 50,000 pieces of sockeye. He said it was not his job, it was the job of the salmon commission or the Department of Fisheries--meaning your job.

Sir, is it normal practice in DFO for you to ask somebody else to direct a commercial fishery? Is this gentleman's statement correct?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I don't think all the details are correct, but if your question is in regard to whether we consult with commercial fishermen or other groups on the order of their fisheries, the answer is yes. I would normally consult with the Fraser River Advisory Committee about two things--the provision of information about the fishery and how their fisheries could unfold as a regular matter of practice.

The answer is yes, we do consult, so we can order and have well-managed fisheries.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He also goes on to say in the paragraph that you said you were going to try to give them an opening, but at the last second changed your minds. You allowed 50,000 pieces and gave it all to the natives. So you promised the Area E people that they could have the fish, then at the last second changed your minds and gave it to the aboriginal fishery.

Is this true? Did it happen?

Mr. Paul Ryall: Well not quite in that fashion. The general context of the conversation was to look at what options would be available for harvesting a very small amount of fish for the commercial fishery, if it was available. We were looking at options. That was the frame of the conversation I had with Mr. Connolly. Then, once I received the information on the status of the run size from the regular updates we get from the salmon commission staff, this option was no longer available.

But the thrust of the question was that, despite... [Inaudible—Editor] ...available for a fishery for a small number of fish if that number was available.

The Chair: Peter, last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Here's my final question for you, sir. Did you promise the Area E people an opportunity to fish 50,000 pieces? That's the first part. And if you did, why weren't they allowed to fish, and why did you in turn give it to the aboriginal people instead of them?

À (1055)

Mr. Paul Ryall: Well, I did not promise a fishery to an Area E fisherman. I was looking at options if the numbers were available. The run size changes provided through the Pacific Salmon Commission staff removed this option when I was having the discussion with Mr. Connolly.

The run size changed a number of times throughout the course of the 2001 fishing season. On August 8, the summer runs decreased from six million to four million. This removed the flexibility for those types of commercial fishery.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But, Mr. Ryall, it says here that Mr. Connolly said you phoned him and asked if you could direct a commercial fishery for 100,000 nets...for 50,000 pieces.

Did you make that phone call to Mr. Connolly and did you ask him to do that?

Mr. Paul Ryall: I had a conversation with Mr. Connolly about what options would be available to harvest a small number of fish, if they were available. Those options were removed because of changes in run size.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ryall.

We'll have to conclude our questioning. I don't know if Mr. Macgillivray or Mr. Bevan have any last comments they want to make before we close.

Mr. John Cummins: I have a piece of information you can put on the table that's general and relevant.

The Chair: Well, John, we're out of time. We have another committee here. We will probably have the opportunity to have Mr. Macgillivray in at some point in the future.

Mr. John Cummins: Thirty seconds.

The Chair: What's your point?

Mr. John Cummins: On this business of reporting, the Auditor General, in 1999, found that the department had concerns about the quality of data provided under agreements. He said:

We found that it has no clear system for collecting information from First Nations and forwarding it to the Science Branch for compilation. The regional office told us that some bands refuse to provide catch reports on salmon because of complications in treaty negotiations.

I'll tell you, the Auditor General's talking about bands on the Fraser River.

The Chair: Thank you, John. I think that's what a lot of the discussion's about around here today.

Mr. Bevan, a last comment.

Mr. David Bevan: Just in response to your comments earlier, Mr. Chairman, regarding treating Canadians fairly, obviously we are endeavouring to do that as best we can under the Fisheries Act and under the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. We have to respect the rights of aboriginal people. We have to provide opportunities, on a priority basis, for food, social and ceremonial use of the fish. But at the same time, we have to deal with all the other access and allocation decisions we're faced with, in a climate of increasing complexity, in terms of how we have to go about our business, how we have to look after biodiversity, etc. It's not simple.

When somebody calls and asks if they can fish 50,000 pieces and then the world changes on you because the fish disappears, it's not an allocation decision to go from one to the other; it is dealing with the reality of the very uncertain and sometimes unpredictable environment we work in. But all the time, we're trying to be as fair as we possibly can to all the parties.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bevan.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. As I said earlier, we know your job is not easy. We have to find, I guess, better ways of dealing with some of the complexities within this industry.

Mr. Macgillivray, at some future date, when you happen to be in Ottawa, we may have further discussion. I believe there were a number of undertakings from you to gather further information. We'd appreciate DFO bringing that forward as soon as possible.

So thank you once again.

Just for the committee, Mr. Hearn presented a letter to the committee--it has been distributed around here--raising some questions he would like answers to before we travel to Atlantic Canada.

Loyola, I don't see a problem with our getting that undertaking from the department. I'm wondering if it may even be possible to ask somebody from the department to come in, maybe next Thursday, to talk about the NAFO hearings and respond to some of the questions you've raised in this letter.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I raised the questions with the department because it's information we need, and this suggests that maybe everyone on the committee would like to have it. I have no problems with that at all because it is information we should have. We hear about stocks and who gets what, so let's find out for sure. Then we'll know what we're dealing with.

Á (1100)

The Chair: We'll see what we can do on that and be back to the committee on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.