FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 25, 1998

• 1633

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.)): I would like to start the committee meeting.

We welcome our witnesses, but we'll just ask them to bear with us while we do some housekeeping on different subjects.

As for the west coast report, of course this is a public forum....

I'll have to wait for M. Bernier. I'm waiting until he gets his translation. We have a problem. This is a public meeting. It's probably on FM, and people are probably listening to it, so if we could just refer to six.... I'll just wait for Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier, do you have your interpretation? Mr. Bernier, this is a public meeting and the media are present here, so we can't really discuss the substance of number six.

• 1635

What I'm looking for is the committee's permission to deal with some grammatical errors, errors in syntax. They aren't big errors, they're very tiny errors with commas and misspellings. I'd like to allow Mr. Nixon and the chair to correct these minor changes. We can let you have a look at it, Mr. Duncan, and anybody else who wants to have a look at the changes we're going to do, after this meeting is over.

But we do have a problem with number six. I want to ask the two political parties who have a problem with number six whether they are in agreement that number six can be altered. I'll ask the New Democratic Party, I think, and the Bloc whether number six can be changed in any way, or must number six be removed to meet their requirements?

I wonder if you could keep your comments general so that we're not discussing something we're not allowed to be discussing before it's tabled in the House of Commons.

Yes, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): I'd like to move a motion that we discuss this in camera at the end of our meeting.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, do we have time to do that?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): We would probably end up returning after the vote. Was it your intent to deal with the grammar after the vote anyway?

The Chairman: Yes, the grammar, but number six is more of a problem of removing it.

Mr. John Duncan: But I don't believe we can sort that out without talking about the specifics, and this is the wrong—

The Chairman: Okay. Do members agree that we need to talk about the specifics? Therefore, we'll put it off until after this meeting is over. We can then meet in camera.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): We might have a problem with whether we can get it done. I believe Peter and I have a late show tonight as well.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yvan can more or less speak on my behalf on that. We're in agreement.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll make my position clear, Mr. Chairman, so you know in case I'm not here: I want it removed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's ours as well.

The Chairman: Okay. I can understand the position of the Reform Party, because they were of the understanding that we had already settled on this.

But on your suggestion, Mr. Duncan, we'll deal with this following the completion of the meeting. We'll definitely deal with it before we get out of here. We can probably cut the meeting short so we can deal with it in camera.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. There are basically two schools of thought here. We have three expressions of individuals who want this removed. We already had an all-party agreement to include it, with the exception of Yvan, who was not here.

So the other avenue is that the people can put in points of clarification. They can put in a letter of clarification or a dissenting opinion, as opposed to a removal.

I want you to think about that, because it's sort of like a total reversal after we accepted it. It's a little hard for me to swallow.

The Chairman: Okay. So that's the decision, then. We'll wait and, as Mr. Duncan says, consider the other option that we weren't discussing, and that is a letter to accommodate the report.

So we'll move on to the main subject of this.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Am I to understand that we are going to discuss this matter in camera this evening, after the vote?

[English]

The Chairman: No, we'll be talking about this in camera before the vote tonight. We'll conclude this meeting fairly early in order to go in camera on this very important subject.

I'm sure Mr. Wiseman won't mind having the meeting cut short. He has been waiting here since 3.30.

Does that meet with your approval, Mr. Bernier?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If we could discuss the matter again later, either before or after the vote, then that would be fine.

• 1640

However, there is one thing that I would like to say publicly. I'm not trying to delay the committee's work . I spent the better part of yesterday evening and my entire lunch hour trying to compare the French and English versions of the document. To begin with, there is a very serious problem with the translation. If these problems had been resolved, perhaps I would have had to time to make my committee colleagues understand that we must adjust to recommendation number 6. I wouldn't want to be forced to issue a dissenting opinion because time was short. I'm quite familiar with the substance of the recommendation. It would be unfortunate if it came to that because I didn't have enough time. I merely wanted to state this publicly. I will reserve the rest of my comments for later.

While we are sitting in public, I would like a firm commitment on your part, Mr. Chairman, that you will do what whatever it takes to provide us with a proper written translation. This is a very important document that we are drafting. It deals with the history of the fishery in Canada. This is how things have been since 1867. We are now in 1998 and we are really trying to work as a team.

Had I not had some knowledge of fishery terminology in English and of the expressions used in Newfoundland, the kind of report that we produced would never have been possible. Don't force me to take a stand that I don't want to take. I have put a great deal of effort into this and I would like the Chair to make a firm commitment that he will do what needs to be done to provide a translation. Whether or not Mr. Anderson agrees, we are in the process of rewriting the history of the fishery.

[English]

The Chairman: You have that commitment and we will certainly not conclude anything without your complete approval.

We will now move on to the gentlemen we've invited as witnesses before us today. We have Mr. Earl Wiseman, who's the director general of the international affairs directorate, fisheries management; and Mr. David Bevan, who is the director general of conservation and protection.

Gentlemen, I think you are well aware of why we asked you here today. It is because the committee discovered there were certain observer reports in 1997, portions of which became public, that showed observers were not being listened to. I believe that observers' reports of very serious violations by a particular foreign nation fishing off the Nova Scotia coast were not acted upon by the department. In fact there was an occasion in which the nation had drastically overfished its by-catch. The suggestion is, according to the observers, that Ottawa retroactively increased the by-catch level to meet the amount of fish the foreign nation caught. And even further to that, your department told the observers not to report any further violations by these foreign nations.

That is the charge being made as we understand it by the observers in their report to you. So perhaps we can start with that and have your explanation. You know all the details; you know exactly what we are talking about, so perhaps, Mr. Wiseman, you can start. When we discussed this informally in a meeting before we invited you here, some of the committee members were very perturbed that you had given us assurances the last time you appeared before this committee that this activity was not going on. Of course we now discover, through the Access to Information Act, that in fact it is going on.

• 1645

I want to also mention that you informed the committee that there was a moratorium on fishing in 3L for shrimp and Canadians were not allowed to fish there. We knew that Canadians were not allowed to fish there, but you assured this committee there was a moratorium for foreign nations as well in 3L. Following our meeting with you, in which you gave that impression to this committee, we verified, through fishermen who complained, that foreign vessels were fishing shrimp in 3L. They gave us specific examples. One was of a vessel called the Høgifossur, 356 feet long, and a Canadian scientist was aboard. It had caught, in a short period of time, 200 tonnes of shrimp valued at anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million. This was in zone 3L, in which Canadians are not allowed to fish.

I want you to try to explain to us why there is a discrepancy between what you informed the committee when you were here and this new information we now have.

There's one further point of clarification I hope you can make to the committee. Since certain employees of DFO were given this information we're asking you about today concerning these observer reports, we were informed that two fisheries patrol vessels have on occasion boarded foreign vessels from the EEC and discovered, in one case, a 25% by-catch of frozen groundfish. While waiting for their instructions from DFO, they were told to heave to and await the arrival of an EEC patrol vessel. The EEC patrol vessel came and said there was only a 4% by-catch of groundfish, although the groundfish, according to your employees, was frozen down in the hold, which was not an uncommon occurrence.

The problem is, Mr. Wiseman, the committee members will probably ask our steering committee to call a DFO employee or two to give testimony before the committee, in camera perhaps, concerning these things. We'd like you to just clear this up for us if you can. Is there a procedure we're missing here? Is there something we're not aware of that is common practice and perhaps we're not understanding the intent of the entire operation?

Perhaps we could start with what we know for sure is the case, and that is the observer reports, which I think have already hit some of the media.

Mr. Earl Wiseman (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm glad to have this opportunity—and I'm sure my colleague Mr. Bevan is glad as well—to perhaps try to provide some facts and respond to the questions you have and the issues you raised in your introduction, Mr. Chairman, and also respond to the issues that have been raised in the media pertaining to the reports from observers that were released under the Access to Information Act provision.

I'm going to leave it to Mr. Bevan, because he's prepared a very comprehensive overview of the observer program and how it works, dealing specifically with the irregularities that were noted in the observer reports. He will get into that in a few moments.

You alluded to the fact that I gave you assurances at the last meeting that certain situations were not occurring. This is the list of assertions you've made from the media: observers are not listened to; serious violations are occurring; they're not being acted on; they're drastically overfishing by-catches; Ottawa has ordered retroactive reversal of by-catch limits; and Ottawa also ordered that no further violations be reported.

• 1650

Let me say clearly now, and Mr. Bevan will give you the details, that the assurances I gave at the last meeting still stand. I think when we go through the presentation we have you'll find all those issues are also untrue.

As for the moratorium on 3L shrimp, there is a moratorium on 3L shrimp. There has been a moratorium on 3L shrimp. Last year a scientific cruise was done by one Faroese vessel, the Høgifossur. No Canadian scientist was on board. This was a scientific cruise which was conducted in stages over the year in 3L, doing sets in random survey plots. We had some concerns about the scientific design, which we did discuss with the Faroese and did protest. The Faroese research cruises are not being held this year.

That was done as a scientific research cruise, which is not considered a fishing activity that's covered by a moratorium. Fishing activity took place, for example, on flatfish stocks which are under moratorium, using Fishery Products International vessels under contract to the Government of Canada to do scientific cruises. Those kinds of activities go on. That's how you find out what is out there, in addition to the scientific cruises that are undertaken on a routine basis by Department of Fisheries and Oceans or other international scientists. So that is not something which should be considered out of the ordinary.

There is a moratorium and there was a moratorium on 3L shrimp.

The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, before you leave that, why, then, would Fisheries and Oceans hire a Danish vessel with a Danish crew?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, it wasn't done by Canada. This was done by the Faroe Islands, as a member of NAFO, fishing outside 200 miles. This was not inside 200 miles. This was done as a member of NAFO conducting research in NAFO waters. We encourage all parties to get more scientific information, to do more research, to understand what the state of the stocks is out there, so our scientists can give the best advice so we can make management decisions so we can understand and conserve the fish stocks.

This was not something we sponsored. It is something another party, within their own rights on the high seas, did sponsor.

The Chairman: And they are allowed to keep the million dollars' worth of shrimp they caught, I presume.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They were, yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, do you have something on this particular point?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I'm very sorry to interject, sir, but what we released was a Canadian observer report. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a ship is outside the 200-mile limit, those aren't Canadian observers—correct?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, no. This was an additional subject we discovered and it was brought up.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry.

The Chairman: It was just to clarify.... Mr. Wiseman had given us assurances there was a moratorium on. I thought since a couple of the committee members had mentioned this, that the Faroese cruise on a Faroese vessel was actually fishing and the Canadian fishermen were very upset that they were out there catching a million dollars' worth of shrimp and Canadians are not allowed to fish.... Mr. Wiseman has just said it was done under the auspices of NAFO, but we are still not allowed to fish there and neither is anybody else. Mr. Wiseman is telling us that was an experimental voyage—approved by NAFO?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Scientific outside the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

The Chairman: Approved by NAFO?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, there's no approval process at NAFO—just as our scientific cruises on stocks of flatfish under moratorium in 1997 in the NAFO and Canadian area took place were not approved by NAFO but the results were submitted to the NAFO scientific council. That was done by Canadian vessels.

The costing of it and how the Faroese government pays for the research, I don't know.

The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, if you make a million bucks on a trip, I don't think anybody has to pay for it. If you have a million dollars' worth of shrimp....

I'm just wondering about the procedure, and then we'll go on to the other subject. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Wiseman, any foreign nation can undertake to go out on our continental shelf, as long as they belong to NAFO, and conduct an experimental fishery, when other people are not allowed to fish there?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Baker, it is our continental shelf, but in fishing we have jurisdiction only up to 200 miles. Canada has jurisdiction for fish stocks only up to 200 miles.

• 1655

The only fish stocks we have jurisdiction over outside 200 miles on the continental shelf are called sedentary species. These are animals that live on, under, or attached to the sea bottom. Fish such as shrimp or groundfish are not sedentary, so they are not under the jurisdiction of Canada; they are under the jurisdiction of NAFO.

The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, can you give this committee your assurance that there was no other foreign vessel out there dragging for shrimp in 1997 or 1996?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I can't recall at this time.

The Chairman: Were the Faroese out there in 1996 dragging for shrimp?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think they did their scientific research in 1996 as well, yes.

The Chairman: Okay, let's move on to the other subject.

Mr. John Duncan: I just want to know this. If they're saying that this is for science, are the results of their science shared with other NAFO members?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Can we have a copy of that, Mr. Wiseman?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes. It was presented to the NAFO scientific council.

The Chairman: For 1997?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: On the same topic, I wanted the report as well as the date that this ship was fishing, if we could. This is for the committee in case we have other ships at other dates. Certainly that would clarify for our committee once and for all—

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Just for 1997? Or would it be for 1996 and 1997?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: If they were all there, I certainly would hope that any scientific reports, with dates, would be filed.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: We'll get you that information.

The Chairman: Let's go on, then. Mr. Bernier, did you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a small technical question. If I understood correctly, you are telling us that we have jurisdiction over crustaceans on the Flemish Cap, but not over other migratory species. How would you categorize shrimp? This is not a species that migrates. Isn't there a gray area here?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, I specifically did not say shellfish or crustaceans. Some shellfish and crustaceans are sedentary, and they do not move very long distances during their life cycle. Other shellfish move considerably over their life cycle. They will maybe walk or bounce off the bottom. Those are not considered sedentary.

A sedentary animal is one that is virtually attached to or living in the subsoil of the bottom. Shrimp definitely swim. They would not be considered sedentary in any way at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Is this why we say this species is not sedentary and that Canada cannot claim jurisdiction over the management of this fish stock?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: International law has been very clear with the establishment of the Law of the Sea that coastal states have jurisdiction up to 200 miles from their coast for fisheries, period. The fishing zones and economic zones are all about fisheries management responsibility up to 200 miles. Anything beyond 200 miles is considered the high seas.

In circumstances where fish may exist inside and outside 200 miles, if they are to be fished outside 200 miles, there's an obligation on the party that fishes outside to cooperate with the coastal state either bilaterally or through international organizations.

In the northwest Atlantic, we created NAFO. NAFO is the organization that legally, under international law, manages the fish stocks beyond 200 miles, not in Canada. Canada is part of NAFO, which has 17 members. We happen to be a coastal state, which gives us slightly more authority under the NAFO convention. But that's how stocks are managed.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I want to understand this explanation. Canada has jurisdiction over sedentary species on the Flemish cap. However, we cannot categorize shrimp as a sedentary species. Is that correct?

Is there are a biologist who can tell us how far the shrimp on the Flemish cap migrate? As far as I know, the shrimp remain in the water column. They do not migrate over great distances, say from Miami to Gaspé.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's not a question of moving this way. Once they leave the bottom and they're not on the bottom, they're not sedentary. So as long as they're moving up and down, they're not sedentary.

• 1700

If we were to try to create a creative definition to make shrimp sedentary, the rest of the world would not accept it. There has to be a consensus reached, or you have conflict.

In 1994 Canada arrested two U.S. vessels that were fishing for Iceland scallops just beyond 200 miles on what the United States claimed was the high seas. Canada claimed those were sedentary species under our jurisdiction. We arrested the vessels. We had some further discussions with the Americans and after a while they agreed they were sedentary species. But it did create some difficulties in 1994.

We have subsequently published a list of what stocks are sedentary. Surf clams are one. Iceland scallops are another. I think some species of crab are another. But there are very few species, and these are animals that do live their lives on the bottom. They're not animals that swim. Once they swim, they're not sedentary.

So our jurisdiction does not cover swimming fish beyond 200 miles. It never has.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I know we're not exactly following your presentation here, but you've led to a line of questioning that I've wondered about for some time.

There are 17 nations in NAFO. How many of those nations have continental shelf that extends beyond 200 miles?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Perhaps the United States and Russia.

Mr. John Duncan: Are signatory NAFO nations fishing on the continental shelf of the United States and Russia as well as Canada, or is Canada the only place where this is occurring?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There are problems of stocks that straddle between the U.S. and Russia, in what's called the doughnut hole in the Bering Sea, which is an area that's beyond the 200-mile zone of the United States and the 200-mile zone of Russia. It happens to be an open area on the high seas that is not within the 200-mile zone of each country. Therefore other countries have fished in there of stocks that are found in the waters of the United States and Russia.

The United States and Russia have worked with others to create an international organization to manage the pollock stocks that exist in that area. Through international cooperation, they've been able to put in place controls for this fishing on the high seas of stocks that do move between U.S. and Russian waters. That kind of situation occurs in a number of places in the world.

Mr. John Duncan: But as far as you know, the only place where other nations are fishing a nation's continental shelf is in Canadian waters, and in this doughnut hole?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Well, there are a number of doughnut-type holes—or they could have different names, loop holes, banana holes, and they're at different places of the world—where it doesn't necessarily mean it's continental shelf, but it's an area of the high seas that's surrounded by 200-mile zones of other countries. Stocks swimming from one country to another country's waters pass through these holes, and can be intercepted by countries fishing on the high seas. Those have led to some problems in the past in other parts of the world.

Mr. John Duncan: Does some of the continental shelf from the east coast of the United States extend beyond 200 miles?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Not on the east coast, no. It's on the west coast, off Alaska I think, that you find the extensions.

Mr. John Duncan: None of the European nations that are signatories to NAFO have continental shelves that extend beyond 200 miles?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I don't believe so. There are not many states with continental shelves beyond 200 miles. I think you'll find it between New Zealand and Australia. You'll find it off the coast of South America a bit, but not in many places.

Mr. John Duncan: So the rules within the NAFO agreement that talk about the treatment of continental shelf beyond 200 miles is really a Canadian problem, or a Canadian circumstance. I mean, that's clear. Okay.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's been a problem since before the finalization of the negotiation of the Law of the Sea. Canada attempted to get the continental shelf accepted by the international community as the extent of zones of countries for fishing. We did not get that. What was decided in the late 1970s was that there would be 200-mile zones as the extension that countries would have authority to manage fisheries within. That became the international norm, and is in the Law of the Sea. It is not something that was decided by Canada, clearly, or by NAFO.

• 1705

Mr. John Duncan: No. We have a very large vested interest here compared to most players, though—virtually all of them.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: We've known and recognized this problem for a long time, which is why we've pushed for UNFA, which I think will be coming before you shortly. That United Nations convention came out of a Canadian initiative to deal with problems of fishing straddling stocks that we felt were not being properly dealt with under the Law of the Sea. We managed to get more clarification over the obligations and responsibilities of coastal states and high seas fishing nations there.

Mr. John Duncan: Right, but it would be fair to say we're entering into a multilateral agreement as opposed to taking unilateral action on our continental shelf, and I think that's the nub of the issue.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: To take unilateral action at this time would be seen as being contrary to international law, in that the international norm is that 200 miles is the limit.

We attempted to push it further through this process which led to UNFA, and we got some tighter rules, but we didn't get any significant additional authority, or any.... We did not try, because there was no support to push boundaries beyond 200 miles, but we did get further measures beyond 200 miles to provide greater protection of stocks. But that is another issue, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how much time you have.

The Chairman: I don't know. The honourable members.... I'm the impartial chairman. I'm the servant here. I mean, if Mr. Duncan and Mr. Bernier have another question....

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: What exactly do the NAFO rules state regarding fishing activities, whether in Canadian or in international waters? For instance, is there a reference to the food chain in the conservation rules?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Not really. The scientists, though, do, when they present their scientific advice, consider the role of a particular stock perhaps in the food chain. Without getting into a lot of detail, they will, when they look at the mortality of a stock, calculate how much of the mortality would be taken as being a prey to other fish stocks. That is taken into consideration to determine what potentially could be a fishable amount of that stock to be fished. So that is taken into consideration when determining possible fishing total allowable catches for certain stocks.

The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman is recognized throughout all of those countries in NAFO as being an expert on this subject. We should probably call him back sometime to go over these areas.

But I want to get back to the subjects that we asked you to address here today, and to conclude the first subject, and that is that there was supposed to be a moratorium on shrimp. We now discover that one particular nation is out there fishing shrimp and saying these are experimental or scientific voyages. You have no way of knowing, because you have nobody aboard those vessels.

Let me ask you this question, because we get this from the fishermen. I mean, it's fine to say to a Canadian, “Well, you're not allowed out there fishing”. What you've said, though, Mr. Wiseman, is that any nation on its own.... NAFO did not give the Faroe Islands permission to go out there and do these runs on shrimp in 3L. They, upon their own initiative, are doing this. Does this mean that all the nations of NAFO can go out there and do runs on shrimp like this, and drag in 350-foot vessels, and claim that they're just experimental trips?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I did say, and I say again, there was a moratorium. There is a moratorium. This activity is not contrary to the moratorium. The moratorium is for commercial fishing.

The NAFO scientific council has for years encouraged parties to contribute more to science. There is—and I think you recognize as well—a need to understand the fish stocks and the relationships much better. There is a need to do more research throughout the NAFO area and within Canadian waters. Very few parties have put in the money or the investment to do it.

The fact that the Faroe Islands did this—it wasn't done as a big surprise. They did submit plans to the scientific council. They informed everyone what they were going to do, how they were going to do it, what their objectives were, what the grid system was they were going to use, and what their scientific objectives were. They reported on what they found by following the sequence.

• 1710

The data was given to the scientific council and we'll get copies of the report for you. Whether the science was valid or not, I'm not in a position to comment on it. If the Faroese were here they'd probably say “We've been asked for years to get a better understanding of these stocks. We were simply prepared to put some time and effort, with a scientist onboard a vessel, into gathering some more information.”

I don't know whether their catch was worth $1 million, sir. That's your number. Whatever it was worth, it may have been used by the Faroese to fund their research, but how they run their research is their affair. So I think NAFO generally—

The Chairman: You don't know how much they caught at all.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, we do know how much they caught. It would be in the scientific report. I just don't know right now and I haven't done the math to figure out whether it's worth $1 million.

The Chairman: Do you think it was 200 tonnes?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I don't know at the moment what they caught. It's in the scientific report though.

The Chairman: Well, I know how much they caught and it's pretty close to $1 million worth in one particular run over a two-week period.

Anyway, let's go to the next subject. There were three subjects, Mr. Wiseman, that committee members decided in our steering committee we wanted you to address, so please go to the second one and then to the third one.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The second one was....

The Chairman: The reason we invited you here was to answer the charges from observers, contained in these documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, that you are retroactively increasing by-catch quotas and telling observers not to report irregularities. That's number one.

We also want you to address the complaint that we found 25% by-catch of codfish and groundfish in the hold of this EEC vessel when its by-catch is only allowed to be 5%. After reporting it, these Canadian vessels were told to heave to and let those from an EEC vessel board an EEC vessel. They said they only saw 4%, although it was frozen and prepared in the bottom of this very large vessel.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There's a simple answer to both questions, but I'll turn it over to Mr. Bevan, who I think can give you the details.

Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I think it's important, with respect to the contents of the observer reports, to put that into context to understand how we use observer reports and how we interface with observers. I'd like to just take a few minutes if I can to go through a brief presentation of how the observer program runs and fits into the conservation and protection efforts we have so you have some understanding.

As you know from the last time we were before the committee, we have a multifaceted enforcement system—a surveillance net of self-supporting or interrelated functions that helps create a degree of assurance in the Atlantic area. It's made up of a number of components. We described air surveillance last time. There's sea surveillance by the patrol ships, which I'll talk about more with respect to the by-catch issue observers. Sea surveillance is directed by observer reports as well as by air surveillance.

We use satellite tracking in the NAFO regulatory area. We use dockside inspections of a number of fleets, as I mentioned last time, as well as inspections of a number of offshore fleets. Almost all of the Icelandic shrimp production, for example, goes through Canadian ports and it's all inspected. We use radar sets to provide us with another level of assurance that we know what's going on in the area. That is all tied together by CFIN.

With respect to observers, the objectives there are to maintain and monitor compliance with the Canadian regulations by both foreign and Canadian vessels, and to provide the science. So some of the contents of the report, as you'll see, relates to scientific sampling and information.

• 1715

What observers do, then, is monitor regulatory compliance within the confines of their training. They are not fishery officers. They are not regulators. They are there to observe, record and report, and there are some limitations on that. They look at catch rates, by-catch levels and discarding and gear restrictions, in particular, mesh size, liners and that kind of thing. They're used in test fisheries to determine—in domestic fisheries—if they should be open. They look at the area capture and they are used to enforce small-fish protocols. We use observer data to open and close fisheries respecting small-fish protocols, for both foreign and Canadian fisheries where those protocols exist. They're also used to deal with environmental concerns, with oil spills, etc.

And how do we relate to the observers? They're not trained as fully as fishery officers are. They don't have all the information on the nuances of the individual fishing plants, but they are trained in a day-long briefing as to what is usual in a particular fishery. They're also given weeks of training, but they're briefed on the particular fishery that they're assigned to and are told what is usual in that one.

They provide weekly situation reports via radio to the observer company who then passes it on to us. Their role is to observe, record and report, and they're instructed to record everything out of the ordinary. That doesn't mean they're seeing violations every time they make an observation. What it means is that if they see anything that is out of the ordinary they will put it in their reports. The reports are then passed to DFO where they're evaluated by enforcement staff.

With respect to those observations they make, if they're looking at anything that's out of the ordinary it may or may not involve a violation of a regulation. They'll record it whether it is or isn't because they are not fully cognizant of all the rules and the developments in the particular fisheries.

We have immediate reports from observers if there is clear breach of the regulations. If, for example, the vessel on which they're stationed moves out of the legal zone or it's directing for a species that it doesn't have a licence for, they'll call us and we'll take appropriate action. Those are relatively rare occurrences.

Reports are made to DFO by a coded radio message and then we take the appropriate action, which may include boarding the vessel and investigating the complaints, using fishery officers. Again, those reports of clear violations are not common with respect to the observers. As you go through the reports, you'll see that there are number of observations of things that are out of the ordinary or are irregularities, but there are very few instances where we're actually called in for a clear violation.

Follow-up investigations are conducted by DFO enforcement staff and charges are laid if appropriate. In addition to charging, we have a number of options that are used in gaining compliance, and that's the key: we want compliance with conservation standards. We can send fishery officers out on patrol vessels, we can board—and every time we board we always interview the observer before we interview the captain—and we can issue a warning. I'll talk more about that in a second. Or we can bring the vessel to port and lay charges.

Other options that are very useful in enforcing the conditions on the offshore fleet, the foreign fleet, include the fact that we can order vessels removed from the fishery. And that has been done numerous times. I believe you may have reports from the 1990 report which indicate how many Cuban vessels, for example, were removed from the fishery in 1989. We can also, as we did in 1991, stop the entire fleet from fishing. If we find problems on a number of vessels, we can stop the whole thing from being conducted.

And those are extremely quick and extremely efficient means of gaining compliance. It doesn't involve bringing the vessel in and going through the Canadian court system. We have one vessel we arrested in 1994. We're still in court on that vessel. It's out of the fishery, but we're still in court. So these latter methods are a very quick way of gaining compliance. We did one conviction of a Japanese vessel in 1987 as a result of an observer report. They were brought into Halifax for finning sharks.

• 1720

Other issues that observers look at in their trip reports include any unusual circumstances, whether it's biological—fish size, for example—or whether it's compliance. They're reviewed by observer companies following the completion of the trip, and then the observer is also debriefed by the contractor, the observer company. We are notified of any problems and corrective action is taken as required. The observer company will fax us the reports, and again, we have direct contact with observers if there is an ongoing violation. Fishery summary reports are completed by DFO at the end of the season and corrective action is taken if there are ongoing problems.

On boardings and inspections, specifically 15 Cuban vessels in the Scotian Shelf area were boarded. Actually that's not quite true; 15 boardings were conducted on 10 vessels that were operating in the Scotian Shelf area on the silver hake fishery.

The Chairman: There were more than 10 there. There was one fishing its own national allocation and there were 10 on behalf of Canadian companies.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It was the same boat. It fished its national allocation and then it switched back to fishing for developmental quota.

The Chairman: So how many vessels were there in total?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I believe there were 10 boats, but one would say 11 licences.

The Chairman: So there were 11 licences and 15 vessels.

Mr. David Bevan: No, 10 vessels and 15 boardings.

The Chairman: So 15 boardings, 11 licences, and 10 vessels.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

Of the 15 boardings, five were a result of review by DFO of observer reports. They weren't the kind we mentioned earlier, where the observer was calling DFO in because of their view of an ongoing violation. These were boardings that occurred after we had reviewed the observer report, so they were targeted to specific vessels.

As a result of those, two written warnings were issued. One was obstruction of a mesh in a trawl. Specifically what happened there was the bottom chafer that protects the net was several meshes too high. It was not clogging the end, but it was two meshes too high on the net. And the small mesh was marginally undersize: it was 59 millimetres instead of 60 millimetres, as required. The problems were corrected and we took no other action with respect to those particular boardings.

Warnings are issued, as I mentioned earlier. That's a tool we use frequently, both domestically and in the international arena. When we have a fisher who is fishing within the confines of the licence but there's some minor variation—for example, a net may not be exactly as required or they may be on the edge of compliance—we will warn. That's considered an official enforcement action because of what we do with that warning: it's noted on the vessel's licence and in the inspection report, and if there are any repeated problems, that will result in charges, or expulsion of the vessel in the case of foreign vessels. They're regularly issued to Canadian fishers in the same manner, as I mentioned earlier.

With respect to the 1997 trip reports, which have been given to the clerk, a number of issues were raised, and I'd just like to go through those quickly.

There is non-reporting of fish taken for the crew's consumption, and that's something that happens not just on foreign vessels; it happens on Canadian vessels as well. In this case small amounts of fish are involved, certainly nothing like the normal quota. However, that notwithstanding, we did ensure that the catch reports were adjusted accordingly and felt that was adequate action in response to that issue.

Overpacking of silver hake is a minor discrepancy. There's a possibility that the misreporting, if I can use that term, may have been an under-reporting of up to 200 tonnes, in other words, they caught less than they reported by 200 tonnes, or it could go as high as 80 tonnes over, in other words, they reported 80 tonnes less than they actually caught. That's in the context of a 12,000-tonne catch. They didn't catch their quota. They didn't meet their quota in that case.

So this is an issue that they're packing too much in some boxes and too little in others. It's still under investigation, but again, it's extremely minor in comparison to the total catch. As well, they're well under their TAC and they're not going to exceed their TAC, notwithstanding whatever happens as a result of the investigation.

• 1725

Product weight tolerances are noted. Those are specifically related to the product weights. In other words, if they say they're packing 16 kilos and they're packing 15 kilos, that's an issue related to the accuracy of the product labelling. It is not, however, something that relates to management of the fisheries. They're required to record the catch accurately and generally are doing so.

Other issues that were raised: An observer was denied access to the fish freezer, and that is something that should be corrected and would have been corrected had that problem been identified to DFO early. What happened in this case is the observer didn't tell us until after the trip. The vessel had already left and we didn't have a chance to work with the vessel or the shore captains to get that problem corrected, but it would have been.

Hauling the shooting gear outside the licensed area: In this case what the fishermen were doing was going outside the box in which they're confined, starting to shoot the gear as they steamed back toward it so that the net hit the bottom as they entered the open area. That is illegal. They were thinking they were complying with the regulations. They were not. They were warned about the requirements and subsequently corrected their action. Again, the nature of the offence was minor and we didn't go further with charges.

Non-avoidance of set gear: This one is difficult to comment on from here because we don't know how well marked the gear was, etc., or what the observer was seeing. We do intervene on behalf of Canadian fishers in these cases. What we do is provide the evidence so they can work out an arrangement with the foreign vessels and the companies to be compensated for gear. That's something that has been common for a number of years, in Nova Scotia for example.

Mesh obstruction: Again, that's the bottom chafer not attached properly. This is not a liner. It's not something such as was going on outside the Canadian zone in the early 1990s. This is a minor technical infraction. Again, corrective action was taken through warnings.

Escapement hold for separator grate: They have a grate on their nets required to allow the escapement of large fish, a Nordmore grate type of arrangement. The grate wasn't properly attached so it wasn't functioning at full efficiency. The captain was warned and corrective action was taken.

High by-catch: This one will be no doubt talked about. The TAC was 150,000 tonnes. The total catch last year in Canadian and foreign catches was 15,000. The Cuban vessels caught around 3,000 tonnes of that. So there was a tremendous amount of TAC left over. That TAC was set, the by-catch was set to allow the silver hake fishery to continue in order to allow part of that product to come to Canadian plants. The fact is that we did allow that level of by-catch knowingly.

What we had done was change the level, and we did inform the observer companies that it had gone to a new level to allow that fishery to be prosecuted. The by-catch was given on a fleet-wide basis, but the observers, because they work on a particular vessel, maybe were saying.... One of two things could have happened. They either didn't know about the change, or if they did, they were looking at it from the vessel they were on, not from the fleet. They would have reported excessive catch not knowing the overall by-catch of the fleet.

That's what we think has happened in respect to those reports. Again, this is a situation where we wanted those silver hake opportunities to exist to allow them to catch the fish and bring it into Canadian plants for processing. We didn't want either Canadians or this operation—it was a Canadian quota they were fishing—to be shut down because of the by-catch when there's so much room in the TAC.

For your further information, it might be of interest to know what's going on in the area at 12 o'clock today. The air surveillance from today indicates that we had foreign activity inside and outside our zone. It's hard to see, but there are three vessels on the tail, one on the Scotian Shelf—that's a Cuban—one Cuban fishing in the box area, which is this strip here, because they're confined to that area, and a number on the—

• 1730

The Chairman: What's he fishing?

Mr. David Bevan: He's fishing silver hake. These people—

The Chairman: With a by-catch of squid?

Mr. David Bevan: I don't know that.

The Chairman: There are no squid there at this time of year, so he doesn't need one. Go ahead.

Mr. David Bevan: These vessels are likely fishing turbot and skate.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are they Spanish?

Mr. David Bevan: They'd be EU probably.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Look at all the ships. No wonder there are no fish.

Mr. David Bevan: It seems I've gone too far here.

The Chairman: You said there were three on the nose fishing groundfish. Were they turbot quotas?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I don't think you mentioned turbot, did you?

Mr. David Bevan: There's obviously a turbot quota for the EU. They have a quota for turbot outside the 200-mile limit, and that's what we suspect those vessels are doing. Skate is not a regulated species, so there is no quota currently for skate. They're fishing that as well, along with other unregulated species like grenadier, etc.

The Chairman: Could you hold it for just one second? They're fishing skate. Are they fishing roundnose grenadier, or is this just grenadier?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There is roundnose grenadier, and there's roughhead grenadier.

The Chairman: Yes, but which one are they fishing?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They're mixed. They get a combination of the grenadiers when they get them, but the reports come in by correct species. It's in the data that we provided to you at the end of last year.

The Chairman: What's the Canadian quota for grenadier?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I don't believe there is a Canadian—

The Chairman: There isn't, that's right.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's right.

The Chairman: I was just wondering why they would have a quota when we don't.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They don't have a quota.

The Chairman: I know they don't, but—

Mr. Earl Wiseman: NAFO manages eleven stocks. If you count shrimp, there are actually twelve managed by NAFO control. But any other stock out there is not managed by quota.

The Chairman: There are 26 of these stocks inside and outside the NAFO.

Go ahead, Bill. Did you want to ask just a small—

Mr. Bill Matthews: No, it's just to say that just a couple of weeks ago I met a gentleman who had been to Spain. He said they were serving juvenile turbot in Spain.

The Chairman: Plate-sized?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, plate-sized juvenile turbot. The first thing I said was, well, here we go again. They're obviously out there fishing with liners or whatever, because, you know.... How do you respond to someone who says that? I know the person, so I believe what he told me.

Mr. David Bevan: Recently?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

Mr. David Bevan: They aren't using liners. We haven't found any evidence of liners since the 1995 incidents. Generally, we have had one incident, maybe two, in which we've found small-mesh gear, but that's just been the significant changes in the gear. They're into 130-millimetre now. There are no breaks, so I would expect that the mesh sizes are all right. The issue here could be the retaining of juvenile turbot while calling it something else.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, if I could, there is a minimum fish size that is agreed to in NAFO, and that's thirty centimetres. It's a small fish, but that is the legal minimum size that can be retained. If you take that fish, it's not a very large fish, but it is within the legal measures. In the past, they were much smaller than thirty centimetres. Thirty centimetres is now the legal size.

We think they're also fishing redfish as well in 3L-N. Mr. Stoffer commented about all the vessels there. They are all there fishing legitimate quotas that have been established by NAFO. There is a 20,000-tonne quota for Greenland halibut in 3L-M-N-O.

Excuse me, they're not fishing redfish in 3L-N. They're fishing skate. Mr. Bevan was right.

They're fishing shrimp and maybe a little bit of cod on the Flemish Cap. There are quotas for cod and there are effort limits on shrimp, but there is legal shrimp activity.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then let me ask you this, Mr. Wiseman: Just for clarification, what observers would be on those ships that are out there at the 200-mile limit? Foreign-nation observers?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, that's very important.

• 1735

Mr. Earl Wiseman: But not quite all. We still do provide some observers. For example, the vessels out there today may be different, but the Norwegians have contracted for Canadian observers, and we have provided Canadians aboard Baltic vessels—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: To cut it short, most of those observers on there are foreign nation observers. How can you honestly sit here in this committee and tell me you know exactly what they are catching? This is the crux of the problem. Those are foreign nation observers. They report to NAFO, not to DFO. How can you tell me—

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, I wonder if you could just hold that question for later. As I read it, there are another 30 vessels we haven't got to yet and it would be interesting just to see.... I presume that is the Flemish Cap. If we could continue....

Bill, did you have something—

Mr. Bill Matthews: No. It's just that there are 31 there.

The Chairman: Yes. There are 12 on the Flemish Cap, 18 on the nose, and three on the tail.

Mr. Bevan, go ahead.

Mr. David Bevan: These vessels are fishing shrimp. There's one Canadian. The rest are from Nordic states, and two or three from the EU.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think there are two from the EU. I believe there are three from the Faroe Islands. There are three from Estonia. There's one from Iceland. There are three from Latvia.

The Chairman: Could I just ask you a question, Mr. Bevan? Could you explain this to the committee? Last year this committee examined the records for 1997. We found somewhere around 45 vessels from Iceland which fished the Flemish Cap for shrimp.

Mr. David Bevan: Not simultaneously; over the course of the year.

The Chairman: In 1997, yes. That's the information that was given us. Do you have the package of information on the foreign quotas?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: You may be thinking of 1996, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Well, 1996 or 1997.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: In 1997 there were, I think, a dozen Icelandic vessels.

The Chairman: It doesn't matter. My question concerns this: Icelandic vessels flying the Soviet flag and using Slovakian crews.

Mr. David Bevan: I don't believe that was the case. There was one vessel which was chartered to another country.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: There was a vessel chartered to Poland but it flew the Icelandic flag. If a vessel flies a flag of another state, that state is responsible for that vessel. So it's not an Icelandic vessel. If it flies the flag of Iceland, it's the responsibility of Iceland and it's an Icelandic vessel. There were no—

The Chairman: If I were to give you the names of the Icelandic vessels which flew those flags, what would you do? Would you report that to NAFO and complain?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No. I—

The Chairman: No, because it's still in the total number of vessels permitted to fish.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think I know what you are saying. Some vessels were reflagged to Baltic countries and they became part of the fleet of those Baltic countries, which did fish under the Baltic country effort system. That's correct. Canadians, anybody, if they want to export.... Canadians have exported vessels. The Icelandic fleet has overcapacity. They are selling vessels, just as we sold many of our vessels, and some went to Iceland.

The Chairman: Let's get back. You are saying that's shrimp fishing there. Is it all shrimp? That's the Flemish Cap you've separated out there, isn't it?

Mr. David Bevan: Yes. This part here is the Flemish Cap. These vessels are fishing shrimp, by and large. These ones here, on the Sackville Spur, etc., are fishing turbot between the 800-metre and the 1,000- or 1,200-metre contour lines. The yellow line here is the 1,000-metre contour line. They are all outside 200 miles, fishing in deep water, predominantly for turbot, with other by-catches of unregulated species.

The Chairman: Is that in 3L?

Mr. David Bevan: That is in 3L. This little tip at the end of the Sackville Spur is in 3M, but this is in 3L and it is a deep-water fishery, targeting on turbot and other deep-water species.

The Chairman: That's part of their 17,000 tonne quota, is it?

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, you called it Greenland halibut. Let's get this straight, because Mr. Bevan is calling it turbot.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: In Newfoundland it is called turbot, that's correct.

The Chairman: How about in Canada?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If you go into a store you will find it called by both names. In larger cities “turbot” is usually the European turbot, not Greenland halibut.

The Chairman: Is it left-handed or right-handed?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I can't recall right now, but I understand your question.

The Chairman: One is left-handed and the other is right-handed.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

• 1740

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. David Bevan: I just wanted to give you an idea of the situation.

With respect to the issue on the by-catch, these vessels are predominantly EU vessels. They fly a flag from one of the numerous EU states. The observers on the vessels are all basically supplied by a British company now, so the people on the vessels are not from the flag state to which they're assigned. In other words, you don't have a Spanish observer on a Spanish vessel, a Portuguese on a Portuguese vessel, and so on and so forth.

The Chairman: So what do you have on the vessels?

Mr. David Bevan: By and large, British.

The Chairman: But they're still EEC member countries.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

The Chairman: So you have EEC observers aboard EEC vessels.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes, just as we have Canadians on Canadian.

The Chairman: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. David Bevan: What happens is that, as I mentioned earlier, we have obviously air surveillance that tells us where these vessels are; we have the satellites; we have the hails that go in from the vessels to NAFO—the whole interrelated surveillance net. We don't rely just on the observers.

As I mentioned the last time I was before the committee, we also board those vessels. We run two patrol ships in the area and the EU runs one patrol ship.

We conduct routine inspections. In the course of those inspections, we may from time to time find what appears to be a problem, or what's called, “apparent infringement”. At that point, we have to call in an inspector from the flag state. We have to contact the flag state. When they come there's a joint inspection. We don't get off the vessel. We stay on the vessel. We've had officers on board vessels this year for up to five days, constantly on the vessels, waiting for the arrival of the flag state because of sea conditions, etc.

This may be what you're talking about in this particular circumstance, because they found a problem on the vessel. They thought there were high levels of by-catch—

The Chairman: Of 25%.

Mr. David Bevan: —and they awaited for the arrival of the EU inspector. They had tried to convince the captain to move more of the catch so that they could complete the inspection, because on the initial sample they had done, there was a high level. They waited on that vessel for five days for the arrival of the EU vessel. When it did arrive, the captain then moved the catch and confirmed that indeed they were within tolerances.

The Chairman: They were 4%.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes. That was confirmed by our officer at the time. He had spent five days enjoying the hospitality—and sleeping on the bridge—while the EU people came, and had done so because of the refusal of that captain to move the hold, shift the load in the hold, and demonstrate that he was in fact in compliance.

The Chairman: So they were directing toward turbot or Greenland halibut, and they had cod in the hold.

Mr. David Bevan: No, it wasn't cod, as I recall.

The Chairman: What was in the hold, Mr. Bevan? Do you remember what it was? Was it shrimp?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, it was simply that they were misreporting unregulated species. They were recording that they were catching unregulated species—skate, grenadier, and so on—to keep the number of Greenland halibut lower, within their quota level. Or that's what the assumption was.

It in fact didn't happen, though. We thought there was a 25% misreporting, or whatever was the number you used, but when the product was able to be properly sampled, there was in fact no significant misreporting problem at all.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. David Bevan: They won't be catching shrimp or cod in this fishery. First off, they're using 130-millimetre mesh, so they can't catch the shrimp. Second, because they're targeting in the deeper waters, they aren't going to be catching a by-catch of cod.

What they do, though, or what we suspect, from time to time, and what certainly happened in the early nineties, is that they will take a regulated species that has a quota, under-report that, and then say it was something that was not regulated, such as skate or whatever, in order to stretch out the quota.

That's what we suspected in this case, and it turned out that it wasn't confirmed when a more thorough inspection was conducted.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave. With your permission, I would like to switch a question that is somewhat related.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Under the 1994 agreement Canada signed with France, referred to, I think, as the procès-verbal, what is the arrangement there for boarding? My understanding is that we agreed that we wouldn't board their vessels and they wouldn't board ours. Is that true? Can you elaborate on that for me?

• 1745

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, each party can board the other party's vessels. They can board our vessels, and we can board their vessels.

Mr. Bill Matthews: It's in the agreement?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely.

The Chairman: We have a Canadian observer aboard when they're fishing in Canadian waters?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

The Chairman: So you have the observer's reports.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, sir, we would have those reports as well.

The Chairman: They're the ones you wouldn't give to us.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I believe you have the ATIP-requested observer reports over there with the clerk.

The Chairman: You mean the ones that were blackened out?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They're the ones that were given to the St. John's Evening Telegram.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What would be edited from the reports?

Mr. David Bevan: That would be the fishing strategy that's used and the catch per tow in a particular area.

What's not edited is the irregularities and all the other material. It's all in there. So it's only the specific proprietary information where a captain has a particular method of fishing. That's the fishing strategy. That's what's taken out.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: However, in response to the letter of the chairman to the minister last year, we did provide all of the catch and the by-catch information that would have come out of those reports and be part of the CFIN system. So we gave you the catch and by-catch reports for all those fleets, and now you have all the comments.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Matthews, before you go, you were the one who asked—so maybe we could just address this right now—that they address the question on the by-catch, these vessels that you were referring to. Those are 2,000 pages of observers' reports, mostly blackened out.

In that particular fishery, the licence that was held by the foreign ship was not a licence to catch squid. According to the observer, the captain said that there was no problem, that the fleet would be receiving amendments. And then the observer said that three hours later he was notified that the fleet had received an amendment, and the by-catch was increased to 49%.

Do you want Mr. Bevan to address that specific statement by the observer that he had reported seven or eight times to DFO, and DFO informed him that they were notified of the problem until he was told it was no longer necessary to report these problems?

DFO was advised in the situation report of 31/07/97 and in subsequent situation reports until 12/08/97, when I was requested not to continue to report this irregularity.

Mr. Bevan, I wonder if you could address that before Mr. Matthews leaves, because he was the one who brought this to our attention in the observers' reports.

Mr. David Bevan: As you saw, the by-catch for squid by the Cuban fleet operating off the Scotian Shelf was about 3,000 tonnes. That was allowed by DFO. We did increase the by-catch provisions in order to allow the fleet to continue to operate on the silver hake because there was no risk to either stock. They were well below any TAC. The combined Canadian and foreign catches were well below. In fact, the 10% of the TAC—

The Chairman: You mean the 150,000 tonnes.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bevan, Mr. Matthews also requested that you answer this question: that if Mr. Matthews or Mr. Provenzano or Mr. Duncan went out and caught a squid, your enforcer, your officer, would arrest either one of these gentlemen. They require a licence in Canada to catch squid. They require a specific squid licence.

Mr. Matthews' point was—and it's well taken—that whereas Canadians that year, in 1997, were brought to court by fisheries officers and charged for fishing cod and squid, what you're telling the committee is that there's so much of this squid, 150,000 metric tonnes, that you allow the foreign nation to catch more squid because it's all within the total allowable catch, whereas you arrest Canadians for doing the same thing. So could you explain that to Mr. Matthews before he leaves, because he's going to say he wants you back tomorrow and I don't want to bring you back tomorrow.

• 1750

Mr. David Bevan: If you have a licence to fish, obviously you can go fishing for what you have a permit to fish. If you don't have a licence, we will arrest you if you have one fish.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. David Bevan: That's correct. We will arrest you if you start fishing without a licence at all. I hope that's not a question that's being asked. If you have permission through a licence to go after a species, there's also built into the management plans provision for by-catches. And in that case, you'll have what you're directing for plus some provision for a by-catch permitted. You're not going to get arrested for one species or possession of a fish for which you don't have a licence unless it's something like lobster, which you have to throw back.

The Chairman: So you allowed a by-catch, and then you retroactively on this licence that we just read to you—

Mr. David Bevan: Not quite retroactively.

The Chairman: He didn't have the licence when he started fishing, Mr. Bevan. It's there in the evidence.

Mr. David Bevan: We have that all the time in Canadian situations as well, where there are conditions of licence set and those are adjusted as the fishery is prosecuted by the Canadian fleet.

The Chairman: So the logic behind increasing that by-catch to 49%.... I suppose if you went to 50% then it wouldn't be a by-catch any more; it would be a main catch, wouldn't it?

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

The Chairman: But you went there. The logic you used in increasing that to 49% was because there are lots of fish, and the logic you use in making sure we have licences and you arrest us as Canadians is what kind of logic? I'm losing it.

Mr. David Bevan: The same logic would exist if a foreign vessel were to come into our zone, which they don't do any more, because we arrest them. We arrested them in the past, we'd arrest them again. If they come in to fish without a licence, they will be arrested. There's no question about it. If they fish for something that's obviously been directed for and for which they don't have a licence, they will be arrested. If they maintain lobsters onboard, they will be arrested, and so on.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm puzzled by the math. The last time you were here, were you here with the minister?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.

Mr. John Duncan: Maybe it was when the minister was here. We were given a document that said there are 2,000 tonnes of foreign fishing in Canada. That's it. That's what the media has been reporting. That's what the whole world has been reporting. So now I'm looking at this thing here, and unless I'm getting this all wrong there are 150,000 tonnes of squid alone.

Mr. David Bevan: That's not for foreign. That's total allowable.

Mr. John Duncan: Total allowable catch, but the Cubans alone are catching 3,000 tonnes.

Mr. David Bevan: Those are actually Canadians.

Mr. John Duncan: The numbers never add up. All of this leads to total mistrust and total.... Why is everything such a darn mystery and why is this thing being sold?

The Chairman: I wonder if you can explain that, Mr. Wiseman, because you had just said a few moments ago there were 3,000 tonnes caught of a fish called squid and Mr. Duncan is claiming that the minister said that if you add up all the fish that's caught inside 200 miles by foreign nations, it only comes to 2,000 tonnes. So could you explain that?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's quite simple, Mr. Chairman, and I hope it's not that complicated. I think we provided you with all of the documents that give all of these numbers.

You have quotas that are allocated, most of which are left in the water by both Canadians and foreigners because there is very little economic benefit for them to be fished. So the total amount of Canadian quotas that are allocated to foreign countries, that are declared surplus to Canadian requirements—I recognize you don't like that term—are less than 2,000 tonnes in the last few years.

Foreign vessels, though, fishing for Canadian companies have caught....

The Cuban fleet caught 12,000 tonnes of silver hake for Canadian companies, and this 3,000 tonnes of squid was caught for Canadian companies. That fish was owned by Canadians. It's not Cuban fish; it's Canadian fish. But because Canadian fishermen would not fish the fish, we had the most successful Canadian fishery for silver hake last year because of the cross-subsidization of moneys from the foreign fishery. We actually managed to get 10 to 15 vessels fishing and they caught 4,000 tonnnes, the highest level of Canadian catch. This year the TAC is 55,000 tonnes. The highest Canadian catch ever was 4,000 tonnes. That's 51,000 tonnes that's sitting there.

• 1755

The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr. Duncan?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: But I think the point is.... And foreign vessels also caught turbot in area zero as part of developmental programs providing fish to Canadian companies for jobs for Canadian people working in processing plants.

And the Japanese caught fish as part of the licences we give them, but that's not Canadian quota. That is Japanese quota, which belongs to the Japanese and which we can't get our hands on. They fish less than 10% of it in Canadian waters; they fish the rest of it outside of Canadian waters.

So if you added up all of the catches by foreigners, you get a different number, but the amount we actually allocate to foreigners as national quotas, as their fish to catch, has been less than 2,000 tonnes. There's also the French agreement and the French catches and that's separate—

The Chairman: There are a few other things, but does that answer your question, Mr. Duncan?

Mr. John Duncan: It does, but it infuriates me, because the smallest number is the one that the minister's choosing to fly with and it gets repeated and everybody thinks that's all that's happening. And that isn't all that's happening. If you want to talk about possible Canadianization of the fishery, there's a lot more tonnage out there.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Stoffer, you wanted to ask a short one and then we're going right over to the Liberal side.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Actually, I have a whole bunch of questions. But regarding the observer reports, it all looks really fine on this little video of yours, but if they can't be public.... I know this isn't your permission or your way of saying that they should be made public, but if they're not public, they mean diddly-squat.

And all those ships out there right now have foreign observers on them. Right? I can't believe for a second that you would even attempt—although you haven't yet—to tell us that you know what they're catching, what the by-catch is and that everything's according to Hoyle. I hope you're not telling me that, because I would find that very hard to believe.

Lastly, I'm sure that you've already read our east coast report. In that report, on page 29, I'm sure you've read about the foreign ship that was off Black Tickle, the one from St. Malo, France. We don't have a proper answer on that yet. All those ships, except for one, are outside of the 200-mile limit, right? That's for March 1998, but this happened in 1997. Can you assure us right now that as we speak there are no foreign nations illegally fishing inside our 200-mile limit?

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

This is my very last question. You folks have been at this for a very long time. Do you feel you have the resources and the manpower to do your job properly? Yes or no?

Please don't politicize your answer. To me it's very important, because I've been fighting for funding for DFO for a while. Do you have the resources and the manpower to do conservation and enforcement properly?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Please repeat your first question to remind me. You went through a list of four questions. What was the first one again?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The first one was about the observer reports and them not being public, but that's not your domain.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If I may, I will just quickly answer.

The letter from the chairman to the minister asked for catch and by-catch information that you could get out of observer reports. He was given that information. That information was provided by the minister in a letter to the chairman. You now have virtually all of the narrative reports that were released under ATIP.

The minister had offered to provide all of the information to the committee, including the confidential information to be viewed in camera, but the committee decided it did not want to accept it in camera. All of the narrative is there. The sum total of the catches from the observer reports have been provided to the committee as of last year. The only thing you don't have is the individual date for each vessel's fishing activities, which would be regarded as the commercial confidentiality of the owner of the boat, but you have the total of the catches.

The next thing is about foreign observers out there. As Mr. Bevan pointed out in his presentation last time he was here and again today, yes, there are foreign observers there, but they're submitting reports which we see and review. We also board those vessels. And we also have an opportunity to verify what's in their observer reports, to see what's in their log books and to see what we see, which is in the hold of the vessel.

And we have an idea of where they're fishing. We know where they are. Again, part of the presentation made the last time Mr. Bevan was before the committee showed our aerial surveillance. It showed that we're flying over the area virtually daily knowing where these vessels are.

• 1800

So we know where they are, and by the location, we know what they're fishing. We know they're fishing turbot. That's all they would be fishing on the Sackville Spur. There are no cod out there for them to fish, as it's far too deep. There are no flatfish out there—I'm thinking of American plaice, yellowtail—because it's far too deep. They're fishing turbot there.

So we know what they're fishing. We know when they're there and how long they're fishing. We know what the catch rates of the fleets are out there. We can do a pretty good estimate of what the catches are. So all of these things can help verify what's in the foreign observer reports so we can know whether there's some credibility in these reports or not.

Generally speaking, we're finding that the observers.... When you get down to professional people who are hired to do a job, they tend to be very officious and bureaucratic. They're vigilant and they do their jobs.

This is just like our observers, who have proven in all this material and the information released in the newspapers that they are vigilant. They are doing what they're supposed to do. They're observing and reporting everything they see.

What they see is part of a big picture. They don't see the big picture, they see part of it. It comes back in. It's reviewed. We see the big picture. We can determine whether there's a problem or there's not a problem, and we take action.

The same thing happens with the foreign observer reports. David may want to add a little bit to this, but we can have great confidence in that.

Here's the other thing about the Black Tickle incident. This is an area where officials, I think, have presented the minister with some incomplete information.

One of the difficulties was that when we negotiated the PV, procès verbal, with France, to which Mr. Matthews referred, it was initially to provide access to turbot in area 2, regions G and H. We changed the management unit for squid later on to make it bigger, and we did not inform the minister of that.

We knew, though, that the French were fishing in that area. Not only did we know it, but we provided the minister with a letter to the chairman on December 29 that gave all of the catch and by-catch information from this one French vessel fishing for turbot in area 2. That information was given to the committee on December 29. So the committee had all of the correct information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why would the minister on January 7 write a letter to the editor saying that there are no foreign vessels fishing turbot off Black Tickle?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Because he was misinformed at the time the letter was drafted.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

I had a last question about funding.

Mr. David Bevan: We have finite dollars, obviously. Any enforcement person who's asked whether they can do more with more will tell you that's correct. We have to make choices as to where to direct our efforts.

With respect to the Atlantic, we've taken the decision to direct about $14 million, which includes the Scotia-Fundy area, toward the issue of offshore surveillance and the control of those fleets.

We invested that because they were a major problem in the early 1990s. We want to maintain control. We don't rely on observers alone. That's why we run air surveillance. That's why we board those vessels. That's why we wait for them to haul back and see what they've got in their nets and compare that to what they've got in their freezers and holds. That's why we sent people to Spain to observe offloading.

Those are things that we do because we want to maintain control over that. I'm spending 12% of the national budget in that area. It's a choice we've taken to maintain control.

The Chairman: So there's a total of 34 foreign ships fishing today, right? Are they all factory ships, FFTs?

Mr. David Bevan: There's one Canadian in there, but the other 33 are all factory ships.

The Chairman: They're FFTs, foreign factory trawlers. There are 33 foreign factory trawlers and 1 Canadian factory trawler. Is that the right way to put it?

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

The Chairman: They're fishing right now on Canada's continental shelf?

Mr. David Bevan: That's outside the 200-mile limit.

The Chairman: No, I said it was Canada's continental shelf.

Mr. David Bevan: I don't have the Canadian vessels on there, but there's a whole bunch of Canadian vessels inside the 200-mile limit fishing today as well.

The Chairman: Fishing what?

Mr. David Bevan: They're fishing groundfish off South West Nova.

The Chairman: They're not factory trawlers, though?

Mr. David Bevan: No.

The Chairman: We don't have very many anyway.

Okay, now we're going to go over to Mr. Hubbard.

• 1805

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are we missing anything here? There's catch and there's by-catch, and then most of these ships also have large numbers of throwaways. I could be wrong on this, but you mentioned a 59-millimetre net, which should have been 60 millimetres, fishing silver hake. What would the length of a silver hake be?

Mr. David Bevan: They're a small fish.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: No, we would like to know the approximate size of the average silver hake.

Mr. David Bevan: It's been a while since I've been involved in that.

A voice: It's 28 to 32 centimetres.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So we're talking about a fish that's about a foot in length. A 60-millimetre net would be a little over a two-inch mesh.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So that means practically any fish that size is picked up by that net.

Mr. David Bevan: Well, not—

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Just let me finish. For example, the salmon smolts that go out—little fish of about four to six inches in length—would be picked up by that net. It's my assumption that those little smolts would become throwaways in terms of these factory ships.

Do you have any reports for this committee in terms of throwaways? We have the catches they can keep, we have the by-catches they can keep, but if I were a skipper of a ship and my by-catch was getting fairly high, suddenly my by-catch would probably become a throwaway.

Is throwaway a big problem in what's happening out there in the sea? Do you think certain species are just being extinguished as a result of these little...? I can't believe you're allowed to fish silver hake with a two-inch mesh.

Mr. David Bevan: I should point out where the one vessel is on the map. They're confined to the edge of the continental shelf. It's a box established for them that reduces the chance of by-catch of other species. They also have to have a grid on the net so the larger fish are kicked out; they don't go into the net. The cod end has a 60-millimetre mesh, but before the fish get there, they get kicked out by the grates. And again, they're confined to a specific area to reduce the by-catch problem.

It's part of the job of the observers to record discards. We have a number of protocols inside the Canadian zone, small-fish protocols as well as by-catch protocols, where if by-catch limits are exceeded, the fishery is shut down. We run those kinds of safety steps to reduce that problem.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: A large factory ship would have a load to take home—we'll say 100 tonnes.

Mr. David Bevan: Oh, no. The large factory ship would have much more than that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm just going on the safe side. We'll go to 200 tonnes then.

Mr. David Bevan: Go to 1,000 tonnes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay, 1,000 tonnes on one ship, and we have 30-some of them there.

Mr. David Bevan: They don't have a quota for 1,000 tonnes. They can carry that. Most of those would have a quota of a couple of hundred tonnes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So if they had a by-catch of 5%, what would be your answer to this committee in terms of the throwaway amount of a 1,000-tonne factory ship when they went to go home? How much would be throwaway—other species that they didn't keep and were dead and thrown to the water for the gulls?

Mr. David Bevan: That would apply to the ones fishing outside. I don't have an answer off the top of my head. I think that was provided in the information—

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The captain and the observers report discards. In fact the observers are working with the scientific council of NAFO to do a special study on discards. Discard information is being compiled, and we should have better information at this June's NAFO scientific council meeting.

They generally discard very small dead fish or fish that are not marketable at all. And that's not a significant quantity, because the captains don't want to do that. The captains want to fish to maximize the commercial catch.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So, Mr. Wiseman, there could be a major problem with discards or throwaways.

Secondly on that, are our little salmon that were looking to come back to the rivers of Atlantic Canada a factor in terms of these discards?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I've just reviewed all of the by-catch information that was supplied to the committee by the minister, and while there were a lot of species in the by-catch, I didn't notice any salmon listed at all.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Wiseman, you didn't answer my question. I said in terms of the discards—not the by-catch, the discards.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: We record catches and.... Well, we can't discard in Canadian waters, and these are catches in Canadian waters.

Mr. David Bevan: One thing to keep in mind, though—

The Chairman: Foreign vessels don't have to discard any fish they catch. Only Canadians have to throw away—

• 1810

Mr. David Bevan: No. Actually, it's the other way around. We have to keep all the fish we catch; we want to see it all. Outside the 200-mile limit, foreign vessels can discard fish that are smaller than the minimum size limits.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are you saying then, sir, with all respect, that there's no dumping going on inside our 200-mile limit by Canadian ships?

Mr. David Bevan: No, I'm not saying that. That's why we have observers. That's why we have patrols. That's why we spend the money enforcing that.

The Chairman: Mr. Bevan, I want to get this straight. You say a foreign vessel cannot keep anything over its by-catch limit. They have to—

Mr. David Bevan: No, it's the—

The Chairman: Are you saying they have to throw it away if they catch fish over their by-catch limit?

Mr. David Bevan: Not the by-catch. We're saying they have an obligation, if they are into small fish or into by-catch, to move. But they have permission to discard any fish that are below the size limits set out in the NAFO conservation and enforcement—

The Chairman: They have permission to do it. But to answer my question, do they have to throw away when they get above their by-catch level? You say you just move them, I guess, to another area where the by-catch is not as great. You see, Canadians have to discard their by-catches, as you know, Canadian fishermen in Canadian vessels.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would still like to find out if the small salmon are being caught by some of these vessels and simply thrown out as throwaways. Maybe you can't answer today, but maybe sometime your observers or people could give some evidence, because something drastic is happening at sea with their smolts. This could be the answer with these two-inch meshes.

Mr. David Bevan: I don't know if that would be the case, because if you look at the effort that is currently off our coasts right now, compared to what it used to be, it is dramatically lower than it once was. In the early 1990s there were many more vessels out there than are there currently. We've had up to almost 100 vessels at one time out there in this decade. That's not the case any more. We know, with some degree of assurance, that all of the vessels fishing outside, with the exception on the Flemish Cap, are using appropriate mesh size now. And we don't think that was the case—and certainly we have nets to prove it—before the 1995 agreements.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, did you have a question?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, I have a question.

We're getting mixed messages here from what you're saying and what witnesses are saying in terms of by-catch and discards within the 200-mile limit. What is the official position? I'm hearing one thing from the chairman and I'm hearing another from you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bevan, let me help you, and you can say if this is correct or not. If I catch over my by-catch and I come into port, I'm charged. If I'm a Canadian fisherman and I land in Bonavista and I've caught over my by-catch, I'm charged.

Mr. David Bevan: Yes, sir, we have—

The Chairman: I have to throw it away. I have to throw it away and you know that to be a fact. But every single foreign vessel that is fishing and goes over its by-catch and is reported by the observer, they're moved to another area where the by-catch, hopefully, is not as great.

Mr. David Bevan: We have that same.... We're buying small fish and by-catch from them also in Canada.

The Chairman: Is that correct, though, or not? No, but is that...? Yes.

Mr. David Bevan: I want to check on all the.... This is getting complex. It gets complex with inside and outside the zone, etc., and I want to be sure.

The Chairman: It's a pretty simple question. I read it in the observer reports, but if you want to, go ahead.

Mr. David Bevan: I think if you're.... Obviously, if you're directed for species for which you don't have a licence, or you're maintaining over your by-catch limit—

The Chairman: Your legal by-catch.

Mr. David Bevan: —and you're trying to land that, you're going to have some problems.

The Chairman: You don't have to discard your legal by-catch, though, if you're aboard.... You're moved. Is that correct? Yes, sir, you are.

Mr. David Bevan: The same would go for inside the zone, where we have small-fish protocols and by-catch protocols.

The Chairman: That's not in dispute. They don't throw away their fish, but Canadians have to throw them away because if they bring them in they're charged at port.

Go ahead, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, but you indicated that you couldn't discard them within the 200-mile limit. Is that correct or not?

Mr. David Bevan: We have a policy that you're not allowed to throw the fish away.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

The Chairman: Yes, but Mr. Easter, if you're a Canadian and bring it in you're charged. If you're on a foreign vessel, and you can see it in those observer reports, you're moved.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, but you're not allowed to throw it away either.

Mr. David Bevan: You'd be charged for that as well.

Mr. Wayne Easter: You'd be charged for discarding as well.

The Chairman: So what's the result? Is a Canadian fisherman going to bring in his by-catch over the limit and get charged?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Or is he going to discard and get charged? He gets charged either way.

• 1815

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's exactly my point. I don't believe for one second DFO has the capability to see, or even check, if people are dumping their fish illegally inside the 200-mile limit. I don't believe it has the resources and manpower to do that.

The Chairman: We do need to put more money into enforcement.

Mr. Easter, go ahead.

Mr. Wayne Easter: That leads to my question. How do you observe or monitor the discards, or can you?

Mr. David Bevan: On which fleet?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Inside.

Mr. David Bevan: The only way we can do it is to compare observed vessels with unobserved vessels and use air surveillance and dockside monitoring. We board, but with the amount of water out there we have to use comparisons. We can't have observers on every vessel all the time. We do that outside because they are large units and there aren't that many of them. Inside we have 20,000 units and it's something we can't cover that way, so we have to use comparisons.

Mr. Wayne Easter: My question really relates to trust of DFO. In our recommendations as a committee, we dealt substantially with that issue. There are two varying opinions in terms of that issue—supplementary opinion and the main opinion of the committee.

If you look at the FRCC report released today, it is also saying it was struck by the loss of faith many fishers have in the ability of DFO's science to provide answers. We have a real problem here. If the industry is going to move forward, we somehow have to build a working relationship where there's confidence and trust in each other, both in observers and in science in terms of the managing of the department. I want to know your suggestions on how we get there. I will tell you upfront that the fact the minister was misinformed on the Black Tickle foreign fishery hasn't been helpful. We can't have that kind of stuff happening.

You went through your presentation in terms of the observer. We had it the other day from the gentleman in the corner. I personally would like to have confidence in that system, but does it really work the way you're saying it works? If it does, how are you going to convince us and the fishing community we can have some confidence and trust in this system and the way it works? How are we going to move forward to build that?

Mr. David Bevan: We can try to answer that with respect to the system I've been demonstrating over the last two interventions with the committee. There are opportunities to participate in some of the surveillance flights to see the system in action. I would hope that would provide some confidence.

The difficulty we have is we do target the foreign fleets. We're spending 12% of the resources for the country in order to control those vessels because they're very big and have the power to do damage if they aren't controlled.

We have other problems related to the Canadian fleet and we're trying to seek solutions to those through working with the fleet in cooperation and coming out with integrated fish management plans where they have a role to participate in maintaining compliance. We have some distance to go there.

We don't have enough resources to put a fishery officer on every wharf, on every bend of every river, or on every vessel. We have to work with the Canadian fleet cooperatively and we need to foster that.

I think if we can demonstrate we have this issue of the foreign vessels under some reasonable control, we should be able to gain the confidence of people to put restrictions on themselves. But there's also the issue of the science, and I can't speak to that.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I know you can't, but they all interrelate. I'm not asking you to respond to the science, but let's deal with the area you can deal with and let's do it constructively.

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Just very quickly, if you had the liberty to take measures to improve enforcement conservation and protection measures we're taking, or should be taking, in order of priority, what would those measures be and what would you need to implement them?

• 1820

The Chairman: Mr. Bevan, go ahead. You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

Mr. David Bevan: That's a very broad question, obviously, one we're struggling with all the time in the sense that we are directing our resources strategically. What we really need to do, as I mentioned earlier, is work better with the fishing fleets to come up with arrangements where they have confidence and are committed to conservation as the first measure.

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano, the reason—and you're a very good lawyer—is that he need not answer a question on policy or opinion.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I don't have a problem with that.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: This was supposed to be about observer reports, and we have this brown package here now. If the media had not obtained those documents the committee wouldn't have them. I'm saying I think this is ridiculous. Here we have a committee that's following the tail of the media. I know that's not something either one of you can singularly answer to, but I want to register my protest.

The other thing I can say is if a section in there is blacked out, then I have to assume you are both under instruction that you can't talk about the blacked-out section. Once again, I want to register my protest.

The third thing I want to say on that subject is why on earth would Canada enter into agreements with foreign countries where we can't set the rules, where we can't tell them these reports are going to be made public? We got a commitment from you earlier that we can get the research results from the test fishing, but we can't get observer trip reports. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry.

Those are more in the way of comments. Let me ask just one question. Then if you want to cover anything else, you can do it.

What are we doing to ensure the safety of our observers on foreign boats when we see comments such as “filthy”, “dilapidated”, “ unseaworthy” in reference to the Cuban boats? What are we doing about the safety of our Canadian observers?

The Chairman: Before that question is answered, this is a 15-minute bell. I'm in the hands of the committee. Will we allow the question to be answered or not?

An hon. member: If he can answer it in one sentence.

The Chairman: In one sentence?

Does anybody else have one short question? Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a very quick statement.

Gentlemen, as you know, 40,000 people in Atlantic Canada have been devastated by the downturn of the fishery. Unfortunately your presentation today, although very good—and I know you're also employees of the DFO—doesn't go anywhere to help those people in any future of the fishery.

The FRCC report today, our report...those people are just as devastated today. I don't think I'm going to go back there and say observer reports, we're doing this, we're doing that, life is good.... It's not good.

The Chairman: Before we go on tomorrow morning, do you want to meet and finish off our business? John?

Mr. John Duncan: I guess people can't meet tonight, can they?

The Chairman: No, there's a forum dinner for several of the Liberal members here.

Mr. Wayne Easter: On item six, John, let me run this by you. Can we leave the preamble in and discard the recommendation? Are you agreeable to that, or do we have to discuss it? I don't want to get into the specifics of it, but the preamble covers the issue and shows we dealt with it; the recommendation locks us in.

The Chairman: I think you had better wait until tomorrow morning.

Mr. Wayne Easter: If you look at it, I think you will see you will accomplish the same thing with just the preamble in there, without making a recommendation on that point.

The Chairman: That's Mr. Easter's point, but we have two other members who have a problem.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The other members agreed with me they could take it out.

The Chairman: The other members agreed with you.

John, do you want to wait until the morning?

Mr. John Duncan: I don't know that I have the latest draft here.

The Chairman: We had better do this very quickly.

I want to thank the witnesses here. Please don't take some of these questions personally. We think you guys.... Mr. Wiseman has done an excellent job for Fisheries and Oceans over the years. He's an expert, probably the only real expert on fishing in international waters and so on. And Mr. Bevan and the enforcement branch of Fisheries and Oceans have been doing a fantastic job under extremely difficult circumstances of budget cuts and so on. Hopefully those budgets can be increased in a very short period of time down the road.

• 1825

Did you want to add something, Mr. Bernier? We have to go for that vote. It's almost five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We can go vote, but as I see it, you are trying to reassure people. They are not listed in the previous recommendation.

A member: Thank you.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Sirs, you say that the observation system applies even for the shrimp fishery for which no quotas are in place. You practice enforcement. You ensure that the fishers use the right net size and so forth.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Shrimp is managed by effort control, so the number of days and the number of vessels that can fish are the controlling factor, not the quota.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I understand. How long have people been fishing for shrimp on the Flemish Cap?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think 1993 was the first year—1993 or 1994.

The Chairman: Yes, 1993.

Let's adjourn until 9 a.m.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We have a problem at 9 a.m. because of the speaker on the sustainable fishery, which quite a few of us are going to.

The Chairman: Can you come there after, at 9.30? It's a breakfast meeting. You can't go eating breakfast at 9.30 in the morning.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think 9.30 might be fine.

You don't agree, John?

Mr. John Duncan: No, not from what I can see.

Mr. Wayne Easter: All right, 9.30.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll see you at 9 a.m.

An hon. member: We have witnesses from 9 a.m. to 1.15 p.m.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until 9 a.m.