FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 13, 2001

• 0913

[English]

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

I have a bit of an explanation before we begin to hear witnesses. The steering committee met and we do have some proposals for a future agenda. If we have time at the end of this meeting, we'll deal with that. Otherwise, we will deal with it Thursday morning, because at this point in time we have no witnesses.

Committee members will know the witnesses we have this morning are not the ones who were originally planned. We had planned to hear from the Auditor General on aquaculture and on the Auditor General's report. The individual who did the work is sick, had an operation, and won't be available for some time.

• 0915

Then I sent an e-mail to committee members early last week saying we would hear from DFO on enforcement. Last year the minister announced new moneys for enforcement. I suggested to them we wanted to hear where they're at, an explanation of where the money has gone, and how many enforcement officers are in place, etc. The department indicated they would prefer to be better prepared and would come forward perhaps next week, if that would be all right with the committee.

Then I decided we would ask some fishermen who are on the water and know first-hand the difficulties with not having enough enforcement. I know it's short notice for committee members and there have not been any briefings prepared. On my own accord, I invited four fishermen before the committee, two from New Brunswick and two from Prince Edward Island, to spell out in detail the difficulties they are seeing on the water with enforcement. I think that will put committee members in a better position to be able to question the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when they come forward.

That's the explanation for the changes in the agenda for the committee. Before I start, are there any questions?

We have four witnesses before us this morning from the Maritime Fishermen's Union: Ron Cormier, who is president, has been before the committee a number of times; Bruno Robichaud is from New Brunswick as well; Francis Morrissey is a fisherman from Tignish; Johnny Arsenault is another fisherman from Prince Edward Island.

Gentlemen, we'll have the Maritime Fishermen's Union start first. We'll go through both presentations and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Welcome, and thank you for coming on short notice.

Mr. Ron Cormier (President, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to address the protection issues that have suffered because of government cutbacks in the last ten years or so. It is short notice; we just found out late Friday afternoon. We didn't get a chance to really prepare a fully detailed presentation. We did write some notes, and I'll read off my notes. It won't be lengthy, but there are a few issues I would like to address.

Conservation is the cornerstone of our fishing industry. For years the fishing industry has put conservation mechanisms in place to secure a viable fishery for the future. We have seasons, number of traps, minimum size, and carapace size in lobster. We introduced a rectangular escape mechanism a few years back. We're doing some V-notching now. We even have some areas where we don't have any fishing on Sundays. It is not written and it's not a condition of licences; it is a mutual agreement among fishermen that we do not fish on Sundays. We've accepted this. It's an unwritten law between fishermen. The bearing females are thrown in the water. All these issues and all these mechanisms for conservation cannot be jeopardized.

For years the Maritime Fishermen's Union, through our annual convention, has put forth resolutions asking the federal government to increase funding for protection, to no avail. We haven't seen protection become any better than it was for the last ten years. It has been at a standstill. This is a major concern.

The first point I would like to make is there is a serious lack of officers patrolling our land and water. For example, I fish in zone 25 in the fall season. Zone 25 would be from Escuminac in mid-New Brunswick, way down to Cape Tormentine. For the south side of P.E.I., Mr. Morrissey might be able to elaborate on that.

• 0920

On our side, the New Brunswick side, in the last 10 years we've seen anywhere from 6 to 10 officers for 632 fishermen. And there are what, approximately 200 officers on your side? So there's so doubt that there's a lack of officers.

We've heard some officers saying, “Well, our hands are tied. We don't have any fuel for the boats. We can't go out if there's no fuel. We're limited; overtime is limited. The budgets are just not there.”

So you can have all the conservation measures you want, but if you don't have the proper enforcement for those conservation measures, basically they become worthless. The department's idea of increasing enforcement is to turn a few part-time officers into full-time officers, while the need for protection has skyrocketed, thus putting the lobster industry at risk.

All the infractions that go against the conservation measures we have in place today are left at the discretion of our judges. We're not certain that the judges understand and realize the social and economic value that this fishery brings to our coastal communities, because sanctions are minimal at best in most cases.

I've been fishing for 15 years, and I remember not too long ago, a little over 10 years ago, a few got caught doing something to the resource illegally—in other words, poaching. You would get one hefty fine and probably lose anywhere from a couple of days to the first week of fishing. Gentlemen, ladies, that hurts, right in the pocketbook. If you miss the first few days or the first week of fishing, you're going to pay, and pay dearly.

That seemed to have curtailed the illegal activities, but for some reason the court systems in the last 10 years are not seeing it that way. They're getting very minimal fines, a so-called slap on the wrist. It's not enough of a deterrent for them, and that has to change.

One point that can't be ignored is that there has been a Supreme Court decision that has given aboriginals in the country access to fisheries. In Burnt Church, the situation has seen a huge number of protection officers patrolling these areas in the past two years. We've all seen that; we know what it's all about. What happens is it leaves other areas in the gulf very vulnerable to other illegal activities. We've seen this, heard this, and know all about it. When you have all the fishery officers contained in one area—we all know the gulf is pretty huge—it just opens the door for all sorts of illegal activities, and those illegal activities are done for financial purposes.

There are some areas in our zone where the lobster catches have gone down. In some cases, I think they're forced to poach, because it's for money. They're burdened with big payments on their boats. For some of them, it's other reasons. Nevertheless, it has created a huge problem. Fishermen have lost confidence that protection exists.

In the past, it was a small minority of fishermen who poached for their own financial benefit without thinking of the consequences it would bring to others. Today we have fishermen who understand and believe in the importance of conservation measures, but those same fishermen are now beginning to engage in illegal activities because of the lack of protection on our waters and land.

• 0925

Undersized lobster is the main dish on the menu of poachers. There are so many sophisticated ways that the poaching of undersized lobsters can be done that I won't go into details, but they have it to a science.

I can tell you today that we still have people bottling small lobsters on boats. That is unacceptable in an industry that provides so much economic benefit to the coastal areas. It's beyond me. It's still done today. You'll have, in some cases, the gentlemen or the captain bring their lady friends or her ladies aboard the boat, and they'll cook and cook illegal small lobsters, and they'll bottle that. Once that meat is in a bottle, it's hard to measure meat. Is it legal? It's hard to say, and that bottle goes on the black market and is bought. Believe me, it is bought.

We have to put a stop to it. That is why we're asking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to increase funding for enforcement for our waters and land, and we've been doing so for the last 10 years. We're pleading with the committee to put pressure on the department for this, because if nothing changes, we're on a path to the destruction of the lobster industry, and I do believe that can happen.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

Do you want to add anything, Bruno, or take questions later?

Mr. Morrissey, I believe you have a presentation as well.

Mr. Francis Morrissey (Individual Presentation): I'm a fisherperson from Prince Edward Island, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on the crisis we fishers see in the protection branch of Fisheries and Oceans on Prince Edward Island.

As fishers, we are totally amazed at the lack of enforcement we see, but we are constantly told, time and time again, that there is more money being put into the enforcement. If this is true, we do not see it presently.

P.E.I. presently has 17 fishery officers for 4,000 commercial fishers, which is the lowest level of officers-to-fishers ratio in the country.

The problem is the money does not get to the front line of enforcement. We see fishery officers with outdated equipment, no fuel for boats to do patrols in, but see millions of dollars worth of vehicles on the land. Have people forgotten that fishery takes place on the water, not the land?

The problem we have on P.E.I. is that the two patrol vessels that P.E.I. had were turned over to the coast guard. DFO now has to lease these vessels back at inflated prices. Also, these 42-foot fibreglass enforcement vessels are now red and white. Did you ever try to do surveillance work when you can be seen 10 miles away?

The only vessels that DFO has in its control are 18- to 22-foot vessels that are incapable of doing the job.

Ask yourself this question: Why is DFO paying $170,000 for a 20-foot Rosborough boat that cannot operate on the open sea, that fishery officers do not want to work on but are not allowed to say so, when a 45-foot fibreglass fishing vessel that is the same as the fisherperson is using can be bought at a cost of $120,000? This 45-foot vessel can also be used for search and rescue.

As fishers in western P.E.I., we have a severe problem with illegal fishing. The department told us that if we helped out and took a stand, they would back us. In 1992 it came to a point where the fishermen took matters into their own hands. We went out, we grappled for illegal gear, and we put a stop to illegal fishing. Since that date we have collected money from the fishermen of the area, who voluntarily pay into a protection fund. We use this protection fund to pay for extra fuel and for patrol boats. If an officer has to work four or five hours extra overtime, we pay for it ourselves because there's no allowance for overtime in the budget.

• 0930

We have no problem about paying into this fund to protect our resources. It's our livelihood. The fishermen are more than willing to, but please, give us some help. The more we put in, the less we get.

Could I ask the committee to examine what the budget for enforcement and protection is in the gulf region as compared with the budget for Scotia-Fundy or Newfoundland? Could the committee look into what happened to the report the deputy minister brought back about the underfunding the gulf region has been receiving over the previous years?

I'd like to comment on some of the things my fellow fishermen from New Brunswick said about under-sized lobsters. Lobster is the mainstay of the fishery. If under-sized lobsters are not left to grow, there will be no fishery. But where is the deterrent when people who aren't even fisherpersons can go into a closed area in a closed season, set 10 lobster traps, and harvest 200 pounds of lobster from those 10 traps? The next day they sell them for five dollars a pound on the black market. That's $1,000. Even if this person does get caught, when he gets to court the judge fines him $500. There's no deterrent to stop it.

If something isn't done to protect the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada, it's going to go the same way as the groundfish industry. You know, 95% of the income of fishermen in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick comes from lobster fishing. Without it, the place would be deserted.

At this time, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and if there are any questions, I'll try my best to answer them. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Francis.

John, do you want to add anything or just go to questions?

Thanks for the presentation, fellows.

Mr. Cummins, do you want to start?

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our guests for appearing here this morning.

There are a number of issues outstanding. And what I would like to do this morning is to get on record your comments on some of the outstanding issues, so people can have a better understanding of some of the problems you're facing.

To start with, you talked about outdated equipment. That there is not enough equipment is, I think, fairly obvious. Maybe we could just put that outdated equipment or inappropriate equipment on record.

Last September I was in the company of some fishermen from Malpeque Bay in P.E.I., and we were basically checking lobster pots to see if in fact they were tagged. None of them were. DFO came out on the water that day to pull untagged traps, and they just had a small boat, I think probably about 24 to 26 feet. They were trying to pull these illegal traps in the bay, and it seemed to me that the vessel was just inappropriate for the job. I wonder if somebody would care to comment on that and on just how widespread that problem is.

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Mr. Cummins, that was probably a Department of Fisheries and Oceans boat called a Hurricane Zodiac. It costs roughly $120,000, and you can't do anything with it. That's the vessel they probably had that day you were out. This is what's being bought by DFO. Who is advising them? They're not listening to the officers who have to work in these things.

Last year, when the situation broke down in Burnt Church, they had to take the only two 42-foot vessels that were in the Maritimes, on P.E.I., over to Burnt Church because all these other vessels they have, these 20-footers, were incapable of doing anything. But we continue to buy them. Last week P.E.I. received one for the western part of P.E.I. at a cost of $170,000. There's not a fisheries officer out there who who wants to get aboard them.

• 0935

Mr. John Cummins: Are those vessels the only vessels they have for pulling illegal traps beyond Malpeque Bay as well, in the gulf proper? If you want to pull a trap and you're a fisheries officer, you've got to do it from one of these small—

Mr. Francis Morrissey: For the last couple of years DFO has been leasing back from the Coast Guard these two 42-foot fibreglass vessels that they owned. That's what they use in western P.E.I. right now.

Other than that, this is what DFO.... My New Brunswick counterpart can tell you what they have on their coast: these 20-foot boats.

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes, he's absolutely right. The vessels they're using on the eastern seaboard of New Brunswick.... I think they have a few 40-footers, but I haven't seen them. I think they've been in Burnt Church for the past two years. They've got those little 20- or 22-foot dinghies, as we call them. Now, if you put that thing in a 15- or 20-knot blow, you can kiss it goodbye. The officers won't go out. We're used to going out in 25-, 35-knot winds with 40-odd-footers. You won't see those people out there.

I remember that in the early eighties there was a program, and we've asked for this program in Moncton. We've asked them to resurrect this program, in which the department hired some fishermen with their boats to police the waters. This was done in the early eighties, and the program worked very well. The boats were like fishing boats, kind of disguised. They were just like regular fishing boats going around, but there were a couple of fisheries officers in the boats.

Now, it would cost less, I would presume, to hire a fisherman with his boat to carry a couple of officers than it would to operate one of those federal ships. It makes a lot of sense to us, and we've asked the department I don't know how many times why this program couldn't be resurrected. I think this would go a long way to improving the policing of our waters.

But as for the little boats Mr. Cummins has mentioned, you can do nothing with those, absolutely nothing. As my friend Mr. Morrissey states, they continue to buy them and it's just a waste of money.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the problems seems to be the amount of illegal activity going on. I know how the west coast was in years gone by, and I guess everybody poached a bit 25 years ago.

The Chair: Not John Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I would never admit to anything like that.

But people got smart over time, and they realized that they were hurting their future. It stopped, but now there's uncertainty in the future, and people are starting to do these kinds of things again.

One of the problems is that in the past, if there was an opening for fishing, everybody knew when it was. When there was activity going on at a time other than during an opening, people knew that whoever was out there was probably up to no good. Now it seems that with these varying seasons and with this expanded food fishery, nobody knows when somebody should be fishing and when they shouldn't. Essentially, DFO has lost the eyes and ears of the community because people just don't know what's going on. Do you see that as a problem now? Is that part of the problem in this poaching business?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes it is. There is no doubt in my mind. It has created general confusion in the minds of officers as to which is which. How you would fix that is beyond me, but I know from the Richibucto area.... Maybe Bruno could address this. He lives close to the Big Cove area, and he sees this on a daily basis, fishing out of season. Do you want to address this?

• 0940

Mr. Bruno Robichaud (Secretary Treasurer, Maritimes Fishermen's Union): Yes, I would like to comment.

When the food fishery begins and they have these traps in the water, you have these people who want to poach. They see this opportunity. They take these traps and they cut their buoys. They haul them a bit away and they throw them back in the water without any buoys and they can catch them back. You just can't see it on the water.

It all happens down there. The aboriginals get pissed off at us, but it happens and it never stops.

That's my comment.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, last question this round.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the points is that when this kind of activity goes on, it seems the department has lost the very people it relied upon for assistance.

Is there a trust now between the fishermen and the department? Do people have faith in the department and the people who are on the ground? Or is that being eroded too because of the problems you're facing? Do people still have faith that these guys, the fisheries officers who you deal with on a daily basis, can do their job? Do you feel confident that they can as well? Or is the system just collapsing?

Mr. Ron Cormier: The system, as far as I'm concerned, is collapsing. The fishery officers tell us their hands are tied. They would like to go out there with a force and have the tools and the mechanisms to take this protection issue very seriously.

We do self-police ourselves to a certain extent. I'm referring to your last question. You can report all you want. I can give you names, a date, a place, but if you don't have the tools to go out there and do something about it, my confidence just goes right out the window.

So I'm not going to even bother. Or like Bruno said a while ago, I'll do it my own way. That's not always the best way, because as far as I'm concerned two wrongs never made a right.

The Chair: Do you have anything else to add, Francis or Johnny?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Don't get us wrong. I have the most confidence in the world in the fishery officers who are on the front line. These people, most of them, are doing beyond what they're even asked. They have no equipment. But the heart of it is the money is being spent someplace but it isn't making it to the front line where it's needed.

We have an excellent working relationship with the fishery officers, who we deal with on a daily basis. We respect the job they're trying to do. It's not their fault that they do not have anything to work with.

The Chair: Thank you, Francis.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would simply like to clear up certain issues, because this is an area that I am not very familiar with. You stated earlier on that there was a lot of equipment on the ground, as opposed to on the water, equipment that, it seems, is very costly, but is useless to carry out the work involved. This would lead one to believe that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is spending money to purchase things that are not useful, whereas this money could be spent on more useful things. In your opinion, what is this equipment that is on land and that is useless or too costly? You spoke about this a little earlier.

[English]

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Does the fishery officer on the land need a $45,000 Chev Blazer to drive up and down the road with while the patrol boat has no gas, and when a $20,000 plain work truck can do the same job? That's the problem we see as fishermen.

The fishery officers are saying this to themselves. One guy will look at you and say, “Why am I driving in this vehicle? It has every available option known, even the mirror will self-adjust itself when a vehicle comes up behind it in the night, but I don't need it. I'm ashamed to go to the wharf with it.”

• 0945

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you very much. I find what you say extremely interesting.

You stated that 10 years ago or so, the fines were very steep and discouraged people from poaching. Why is it then that we still have not managed to discourage poachers?

When did all of that begin? When did the punishment inflicted become insignificant? If coercion has not worked, even if we were to resort to such means again, that would not get us any further ahead, given that we have not succeeded in eliminating poaching with harsh penalties. Poaching still goes on.

I would like to know how you see things. It is not by imposing $100,000 fines that people will stop poaching. If it pays, if poachers find buyers, then the problem will remain.

[English]

Mr. Francis Morrissey: We don't have a sanction process any more; it was thrown out. So now it's left to the discretion of the court and a judge is appointed and nobody can tell him what to do. Up until four years ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the power to suspend your licence, sanction it. When that process was there illegal fishing was almost nil. There is no deterrent any more. These are going up before the judicial system and the judges, not all judges—the judges in Nova Scotia are taking this very seriously—but the judges in P.E.I. are treating it as a joke.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In the past, the act granted powers to the minister. Has the legislation been changed to remove this power from the minister and to rely strictly on the courts?

[English]

Mr. Francis Morrissey: I don't think there's a tribunal. The only person who has the authority right now to suspend a licence is the judge who hears the case.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But it is...

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, there was a court case—I think four years ago, but I'm not sure of the timeframe.... That power was basically taken away from the minister at the time, so there isn't the sanction on licences there used to be. Is poaching worse now than it was say seven years ago?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Yes, and the reason it is, Mr. Chairman, is that if there's no deterrent, why stop? But if the minister had the privilege, which 90% of the fishermen are asking for, to take my licence or take my boat if I'm caught fishing illegally, the same as if I got caught trying to come across the border with contraband tobacco they'd seize my car.... Where is the deterrent to stop illegal fishing when all I'm going to get is a $500 fine? Let me tell you, if I lose a year off my licence, or I lose a $100,000 boat, I'll think twice before I do it again.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrissey and Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien and then Mr. Assadourian. Mr. O'Brien please.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome. Certainly your comments are striking and very important. Mr. Morrissey, I think you made a comment that the enforcement in your region is not as adequate and so on as it is in some other areas or is not up to par in terms of numbers. You mentioned Scotia-Fundy, you mentioned Newfoundland and whatever. Can you put that into a little more perspective for us, or do you have the knowledge to put into perspective what you were saying there?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: I don't have the numbers in front of me right now because I was notified only Friday night to appear. If you look into—and you people can get the information from Fisheries and Oceans—the budget that's spent in gulf region, which includes New Brunswick and P.E.I., versus the budget funding that's spent in Southwest Nova, Scotia-Fundy or Newfoundland, there's no comparison. You people can get that information.

I'm not running them down, I'm just saying we are not getting adequate protection. It's not Nova Scotia's fault. They're spending money down there that is being wasted too, because if you ask the fishermen, Fisheries and Oceans are running around with a 350-foot icebreaker doing fishery surveillance because the Coast Guard owns all the boats now. They're red and white. You can see the thing coming 40 miles away if you're doing anything illegal.

• 0950

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The Coast Guard is a part of DFO and it's one and the same department these days, right?

A voice: That wasn't the point.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: What wasn't the point?

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The gentleman has just said that the Coast Guard is part of DFO, that it is one and the same department. But when they made their presentation earlier, they stated that the officers had to rent boats from the Coast Guard. So if it is the same department, why must they rent these boats? It must not be quite the same thing. I would like us to be clear on this.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll come back to that point later.

Mr. O'Brien, the floor is yours.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I guess the bigger question here—and it's probably to Mr. Cormier and his union, and certainly to all of you.... We've got Marshall, which has been our way for some time now. We've got poaching, as you are pointing out. We've got the lack of identified enforcement, which has come our way many times through the committee, as you know. Then we've got the fund that you mentioned in terms of trying to assist the do-it-yourselves, which I give you a lot of credit for, because that's extremely important. You have a very small area for an awful lot of fishers, all trying to make it.

Mr. Cormier, when you started your comments, you made the point that the key to it all, and the cornerstone to it all—and I think we all agree to this—is conservation. Putting this all into perspective with the points I made, and many others you made, and all of it inclusive, where are we heading? You made the point earlier, I know, about what this all means. Where are we heading in terms of trying to save...and 20 years down the road have a comfortable biomass of lobster? Can you from your memory, sir, put this in perspective for us? I know the answer. I know what you're going to say. I probably could give you the answer, but I would like to hear it from you in the context of 10 years from now—at the rate we're going.

The Chair: Mr. Arsenault, and then Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Johnny Arsenault (Individual Presentation): As far as we're concerned here, I think we're headed for a real disaster in the future if we don't look after conservation. Conservation is no good if we don't look after the rest of the industry in terms of fines and illegal fishing, etc. We can do all the conservation measures we want, but if we don't follow up with the rest of it, it is not going to fall in place. So that's basically it, in a nutshell. It's just going to be a disaster for the whole fishing industry.

Just look at the groundfish industry... All we have right now there is a few lobsters and a few crabs. That's it. Basically, that's all there is. So that's the whole thing in a nutshell. We have to look down the road something like 20 years. It's not very far away. We're not leaving very much for our next generation.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: In the seventies, the inshore fishermen in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and New Brunswick constantly told DFO that we're heading for a disaster in the ground fishery. We were told that we did not know what we were talking about. Well, our ancestors fished—I'm a fourth-generation fisherman—and they did know what they were talking about. Take the money that was spent trying to get us out of that mess. It's only a tip of the iceberg of what will happen if someone doesn't protect the lobster fishery.

The Chair: Ron.

Mr. Ron Cormier: Mr. Arsenault and Mr. Morrissey are exactly correct in what they stated. In 1995 the FRCC report came out and pointed out then that we were exploiting that particular resource at 85%. If we're doing that now, if we're banging on that resource at a rate of 85%, it doesn't leave much for reproduction as far as I'm concerned. If that 15% or 20% is left to the poachers, the resource is gone. It is finished.

• 0955

Now, we all know how many millions this lobster industry generates in the gulf; it's somewhere over $100 million a year. If that thing starts to decline because of this poaching business, we're going to be in dire straits really quickly. This is why we are asking the government to spend the money in protection more wisely, and to put more, and to listen to people like us, the industry. Because we know, we're out there every day. We know the operations. We know what's going on.

So when we talk to the departments, we want to be listened to and taken very seriously.

The Chair: Last question, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: One final question.

Based on the participation and the seriousness you've shown—we've heard from you repeatedly on this—the kind of interest you've taken in this, with your own funds and so on, have you suggested or recommended anything to the department that there be a giant process of any kind set up to deal with this, Mr. Cormier?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes, we did.

We've been asking the last few years—I don't know if it did come out this year at our annual convention in terms of a resolution, but it has done in the past and we're still asking—that this program we had in the early eighties, where fishing boats were hired, be rejuvenated, be put back in place. This is because from what we hear from our neck of the woods, it worked well. Nobody could see the boats; it was just a fishing boat coming at you. But lo and behold, there were two fishery officers aboard the boat, and a lot of people got caught with their hands in the cookie jar by that.

We're still asking for something like that. We're also asking, of course, for more money, because those little boats we referred to a while ago—those little 24-foot Zodiacs—I'm sorry, but they just can't do the job.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Back to the Canadian Alliance and the regular rotation for five, and then to McGuire for five. John.

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

An hon. member: Hello? That's supposed to be—

The Chair: No, we agreed to the rotation. Yes, we did; the motion is on the books.

Anyway, we'll argue about.... Yes, we did. The motion is on the books.

Can the clerk read...? Order. Can the clerk read the motion we agreed to?

The Clerk of the Committee: From the minutes and proceedings of the first meeting:

On the motion of Bill Matthews, it was agreed that during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated ten minutes for the first questioner for the Canadian Alliance, followed by five minutes for the Bloc, then ten minutes for the Liberals, then five minutes for the Canadian Alliance, then five minutes for the NDP, then five minutes for the Liberals, then five minutes for the Conservatives and if there is a subsequent round, that the rotation be the same except all questioning will be for five minutes.

The Chair: Okay.

John Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is give some quotes from some of the C&P reports. In particular, C&P Western Prince Edward Island—

The Chair: Could we have order? Madam Tremblay, could we have order?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's not fair, anyway.

The Chair: We'll argue about that another time, but that's what was agreed to.

Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I want this on the record; it's not fair.

The Chair: All right, it's on the record.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'll just quote from C&P Western Prince Edward Island, native activity report on Lennox Island—and I'd just like to get your comment on it—and ask you after I read these quotes whether in fact that's your experience and whether either in your conversations with the fisheries officers or in your observations....

• 1000

On the first one the fisheries officer comments at the bottom that it took an incident to get extra officers and patrols onto the bay. Then he says the question is whether it will take another.

In another report the fisheries officer says he's not sure how many traps are out there, because a few people are still setting their traps. There are some other comments, then he says it's difficult to put actual numbers on fishers or boats without being present 24 hours a day.

In another report a fisheries officer says a phone caller said someone was selling lobsters in Tyne Valley from a red car, and that someone was selling from his house. His comment is, “no-win situation”.

Does that reflect the comments you have, your observations of the situation, that fisheries officers are simply responding to incidents reported by other people, that there is a frustration because they don't have the people or the ability to conduct the patrols and to do their observations adequately?

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: I can comment on part of that question. As for the part about Malpeque Bay, I live 50 miles from the area, so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment.

The comment about the fisheries officers not having the resources is true. We're in a slightly different situation on Prince Edward Island; when the commercial fishery went on last year, the native fishery coincided with it. We had no problems during the commercial fishery. The fisherman's group I represent and the Lennox Island Band sat down, we talked face to face, and the commercial fishery went off without any incident.

The food fishery is something I can't discuss, because I'm not close enough to it. So far things have been relatively quiet in the native lobster fishery vis-à-vis the commercial fishery. They've got along fairly well.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, then Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Good evening, everyone.

The Chair: It's morning.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's tongue-in-cheek.

The Chair: It's morning.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I realize that, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing.

Correct me if I am wrong: you would like to see the same penalties adhered to as would apply if you were poaching, say, an animal up in the Yukon in a national park. They take your gun, they take your truck, they take everything away, and they fine you on top of that. You'd like to see the same penalties adhered to within P.E.I. and New Brunswick, for example. Is that right?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Yes. That's the feeling of 95% of the fishers.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mr. Cormier, you mentioned the fact that there was a program in the eighties where DFO worked with commercial fishermen in order to patrol the waters. You said earlier that you started the pool, and some of the fishermen went out and more or less policed themselves. Is that correct?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Not really. I'll let Mr. Cormier comment first.

Mr. Ron Cormier: This seemed to have worked in the past. We're at the point where we're willing to try just about anything, and this has come up again and again and again. Mr. Morrissey has told the committee that what they've done in the past is set up a fund to generate some money for certain activities. Maybe that's the way to go for us guys too. We don't know, but we're at the point where we're trying to grasp at anything to get the protection up and going.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I guess my concern on that, and my caution to you, is the fact that because you live in small communities, everybody knows each other's business. It could pit family against family.

Mr. Ron Cormier: Of course.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What you're doing then is letting DFO off its constitutional responsibility, which is primarily the protection of fish and fish habitat. If DFO are not doing their job, then it's up to us in opposition, and government members, to focus attention on that and ensure that they do. If individual groups more or less take the law into their own hands, there could be trouble. Most of those fishermen are not armed on their boats, are they?

Mr. Ron Cormier: They're not supposed to be.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know that was a leading question. I understand that. It's hard to find arms if you're looking for them.

Mr. Ron Cormier: But let me point out, Mr. Stoffer, the way it ran in the early eighties. You had a boat from zone 25 patrolling zone 23, spring and fall. So nobody knew who was who. In the early eighties you didn't have the big numbers plastered on the boats. A boat was easily disguised, put it that way. So it wasn't as bad as it could have been if you were patrolling your own region. Then you pitted people against people, I would imagine.

• 1005

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I guess—

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey has a point to add here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Oh, sorry.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: The situation in our area in western P.E.I. was that illegal fishing by that 7% of the fishermen was out of control. DFO couldn't do the job without our help. They came to us and asked us. We agreed, as a bunch of fishermen, that we would stop it. We had a meeting on the morning of April 27. Out of a harbour of 140 boats, 110 of us sailed with grapples aboard to destroy illegally set gear. I, my friend, and a few others were the first ones out of the harbour. If the rest of the fishermen hadn't followed to help us, we might as well have kept on going, because we would never have been able to fish again, since these guys.... But when the majority of the fishermen joined in, in one day we destroyed 4,000 illegally set traps. It just changed the system up there. Since that day the catch has gone up, the catches have increased, and so forth.

It's very frustrating. I'm fishing, I'm forty years old now. I started fishing on my own at 18. I've 10 or 12 years sitting on fishermen's boards, fighting, fighting, fighting for protection. When I got frustrated this year, one day I said “I'm fed up with it, I might as well join them and fish it out”, not realizing that my eleven-year-old son was sitting alongside me. He turned around, looked at me, and said “Well, Dad, if you fish it out, what's going to be left for me?” Reality sets in again.

The Chair: Last question, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's quite astonishing that when you speak to DFO officials, as I did during the Burnt Church crisis, they say we have lots of enforcement. But it's RCMP officers. A lot of them are doing the enforcement, not necessarily DFO officers.

My last point is that Burnt Church is going to arise again. Other issues are going to arise again. You're probably going to see more enforcement officers. The ones you have leave your area and go to other areas. When that happens, as you would know, does the illegal activity increase even more?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: It is skyrocketing, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: When George Baker was the chair, we had some fisheries officers before the committee giving a presentation. I wonder, Mr. Chair, if we can invite some fisheries officers. The gentlemen are talking about the front line ones, and if we can interview them in camera and hear their concerns on the inside, I think that would be very helpful, to get their approach to this issue as well.

The Chair: We can look at that, Peter. I think it was about a year ago that we had them before.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: That was a good meeting. I think Mr. Morrissey put his hand up.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: My point was that illegal fishing would skyrocket.

The Chair: Yes. I just wanted that on the record, because we need your comments on the record.

Mr. McGuire, for five minutes.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for letting me on early. I have to go to an HRDC committee in a few minutes.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses here, particularly Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Arsenault, who come from my riding. They come from a particular area on the line off North Cape where there's a separation between the fall season and the spring season. That in itself invites people fishing over the line, no matter which season you're on, so it's an especially vulnerable area, one normally of very good fishing.

As to the poaching that was going on for many years—I think Francis alluded to it—with their spring and fall grappling of traps, I think they had it pretty well under control. All the fishermen joined them. They went out and, as he said, got thousands of traps. Then the amalgamation took place between the DFO fleet and the Coast Guard fleet. A lot of people took early retirements. The greenshirts weren't supposed to be affected under the cuts, back in policy review, but they took early retirements. The number of officers went down. They weren't replaced, and poaching again went back up, not only in that particular area, but in areas where they didn't have a reputation for poaching, for example, West Point, which is across from your area, Mr. Cormier. After dark you would hear the motors start up and go down the shore. They haven't seen a fisheries officer there in years, so it's wide open.

• 1010

Even where normally the pressure from their neighbours would keep people ashore, it doesn't work any more. One guy went out and got away with it, another guy goes out and gets away with it, and then you have everybody going out and getting away with it. So their resource, in particular, is going down in that area—I'm talking about the strait—and it has a lot to do with poaching, with out-of-season.

There was a reference made to the fish guardians, which we had in Prince Edward Island also. I'd like your comment.

I know Francis has met in Mill River with the minister. I've been listening to Francis for years talking about the future of the fishery, how vital the lobster industry is to Prince Edward Island. When we lose it, basically we've lost the fishing industry in P.E.I.

Is the solution more regular fisheries officers, or should we reinstate the guardian program that we had in the past, which I think was quite effective while it was being funded? But of course they lost their funding, too, a number of years ago. Which is the best way to go? Should we have the properly outfitted, trained fisheries officers, or should we go with the fish guardian program, which would supplement what we have there now?

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: You put me on the spot on that one, Joe. It's hard for me to answer.

The guardian program did work well when it was there. It wasn't that costly. The fishery guardian spent a lot of time checking the boats and the catches, and stuff like that. But the problem we have right now in P.E.I. is that we don't have a boat that could take fisheries officers or guardians out to sea. Presently, we're hoping to have this patrol boat back. There's no guarantee it is coming back.

We're fishing in a zone where the Northumberland Strait and the Gulf of St. Lawrence meet. We're at the windiest point in Canada; that's why the wind-test site is there. A 20-foot boat doesn't cut it. But we're constantly fighting and fighting to hold our 42-foot fiberglass patrol boats.

I don't know how many MPs are here. Are you all from Atlantic Canada and Quebec?

The Chair: No, we have MPs from right across Canada.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: To lose the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada is no different from Ontario losing all the auto industry and all the manufacturing sectors. That's how important it is to Atlantic Canada.

There is a lot of money being spent. There's only so much money to go around, but we feel as fishermen that it's not being spent on the front lines, where it should be. How do we get it there? I don't know, but it's sad to see fisheries officers with equipment they don't want but it's being pushed on them because someone up the system made the decision.

The Chair: Thank you, Francis.

Do you have any further questions, Joe?

Mr. Cormier, do you want to add anything on that?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Mr. Morrissey is exactly right. Personally, I think you should have both. One could work well with the other one. But first and foremost, it's the equipment we have out there for our fisheries officers that is inadequate. They can't do their job properly with that. If you would have some kind of program set....

Let's face it, 95% of the people want that poaching out of there, and that number is going to fall. Whether we know it or want it, it's going to fall.

To make it a deterrent, we're going to have to work hand in hand with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and a lot of people are willing to do that, and I think the equipment has to be better used.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have several questions, and I'd like to make a couple of points as well. Hopefully you can reply to them in the five minutes we have.

• 1015

I represent the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which is lobster fishing areas 33 and 34, a huge lobster industry. It's shocking when you're talking about a $500 fine.

I'll give a for-instance for the rest of the committee. Two retired lobster fishermen, out sea duck hunting in a 14-foot aluminum boat, took a couple of traps along and threw them over the side. They were picked up by DFO. They got a $3,000 fine and got the boat and motor seized. The boat and motor are probably worth $2,500 to $3,500. That's a huge deterrent. It might even sound excessive, but it's a huge deterrent to poaching.

I'm not familiar with the guardian process, but I've certainly worked with a number of organizations where we tried to convince regulators to enforce regulations, especially in the forest industry, but the issue is that DFO has a responsibility to be the regulator. You guys don't have that responsibility. It's shocking that industry would be paying overtime for DFO officials and putting fuel in boats to regulate the industry they're supposed to protect to begin with. That's absolutely flabbergasting. I don't know how you deal with that.

You've mentioned the boat issue. They don't have the boats that can handle the wind and the seas, so they can't do the patrols. I don't know how we as a committee can deal with that. We can make a recommendation, and I would assume we would, a solid recommendation directly to the minister from this committee that more money be put into enforcement.

The other issue that was mentioned was the fact about buried females and small or undersized lobsters. It's a bigger issue for conservation to conserve your large buried females versus your small buried females. They're going to lay four or five times as many eggs.

Mr. Ron Cormier: The mortality rate is higher.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's an argument there, but I'd like to hear your comments on it.

The other issue is that there seems to be a misconception, or not a clear delineation, between food fishery traps and illegal traps. Food fishery traps are tagged. We can get into the debate about how many, and all that, but if they're not tagged, they can be pulled. If you don't have the gear to pull them, it really doesn't matter, but they're supposed to be tagged, and any in excess of that can be pulled. So the rules are there, but by the sounds of things, we're not getting any enforcement whatsoever. Anyway, I'll give you a chance to comment on that.

Mr. Ron Cormier: There are a few questions there.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The one I'd like most to hear a reply to is the fact that industry is putting fuel in DFO boats and paying overtime. I have a really serious problem with that. That's not industry's job. You're already paying your licence fees and all your taxes.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: That only happens in western P.E.I. We started it.

We have no problem with it. If it pays for coverage for five hours of extra time the patrol boat is needed and they bill us for the fuel and stuff, we have no problem with that. The way we look at it, it's protecting our livelihood. We're prepared to help.

The Chair: In fairness to Mr. Keddy, it's a good thing if the industry is doing that, but it shows there's a terrible flaw in the system.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely. That's my point.

The Chair: If you're going to enforcement, you have to have enforcement. If the fishermen are going to have to be paying for fuel and overtime, then obviously we don't have the proper enforcement from the department.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: It's not a level playing field, but without it we'd be in a serious situation.

The Chair: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Cormier, and then back to Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Ron Cormier: You're exactly right. You can have all the resources you want—the mechanisms, the fuel, the boats—but at the end of the day, what it all boils down to is that people who are caught aren't prosecuted the way they should be.

For example, last summer we had a particular gentleman who we knew was borrowing other people's gear—we'll put it that way. In our neck of the woods, you're allowed 250 traps. This guy was running 275 traps and people were losing their gear. Where was the gear? What was going on here? We knew this and reported it. We kept secret about it and kept it hush, hush.

• 1020

They put a sting together, an operation on land, because the guy was fishing very close to land. I think it took them two weeks. They had video cameras and the whole kit. At the time, there was a total cost of approximately $16,000 in overtime. They had everything there and caught the guy. They brought into court the 20 traps with the tags belonging to different gentlemen fishing around him. The guy received a $1,000 fine. That's all he got, and he put the blame on his helper—it's not my fault. He concocted this story that he found the traps and was in the process of returning them to the owners. It was just ludicrous.

At the end of the day, the traps he had taken from the other gentlemen amounted to five or ten traps. Ten traps can represent a few hundred pounds at the end of the year if you don't have those traps. It's money on your table and food in your family's mouths. That was the result at the end of the day.

You could have everything in place. If you don't have a court system that's going to prosecute these illegal activities, at the end of the day it's worthless.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, you have a last short question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I know it's difficult to estimate this. You made the comment that one day you pulled 4,000 traps in one area. That's not the entire gulf area by any stretch of the imagination, it's just one area.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: It's a ten-mile area.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's what I was looking for.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: This was before the season started.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: When did you do that?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: In 1993, and 110 boats participated.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Of the 4,000 traps you pulled then, certainly there would be more than that illegally set now, if you've had five years of slack enforcement with people looking the other way and no real penalty if you're caught. Could you even attempt to guess how many illegal traps are out there?

Mr. Johnny Arsenault: People used to do it years ago to sustain a living because people didn't understand conservation measures. If it goes the other way again, the way it was years ago, the lobster industry is going to collapse. It will never come back again. It'll just never come back again.

We're always howling and we're always trying to get some money. We're always trying to get more protection. The money doesn't seem to get to us. It only goes so far. It travels to some other destination but we don't seem to get it. We don't see a result. We have to pay extra money out of our own pockets to try to get a little bit more protection.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Assadourian, Mr. Cummins, and then Madam Tremblay.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm sure the weather out there has nothing to do with New Brunswick weather, but thank you anyway for bringing this nice weather to Ottawa.

I have two questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have the answer for the first one, then I will ask the second question.

You mentioned earlier that collectively you made the decision not to fish on Sundays. Collectively, you made the decision to throw back the small lobsters or female lobsters for conservation. You mentioned conservation is the key and it's really the name of the game, as far as I am concerned. You didn't tell us who is not doing conservation. If you can elaborate, individuals, organizations, or groups are not following your initiative. Are they union members or non-union members? What kind of group are we looking at who are not doing conservation? You mentioned 95% of your members, the fishers, are doing it. It is only 5% doing damage to society, you, and the conservation process. That's my first question, if you can elaborate.

• 1025

Mr. Ron Cormier: Those particular people who decide to fish illegally or go against the conservation measures that are in place in the gulf I'd like to think are few. We know it's on the increase. Those particular people have been brought up in a poaching family. For some of them, all they know is poaching. You do this. My father and my grandfather used to do it, so I think it's all right for me to do it today.

Who are they? We know who they are. We have stories. We don't necessarily have visual proof that they are poaching, but we have a pretty good idea of who those people are. This is why we choose as an industry, as the 95%, to tell the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers about those people. If you look at them and check them very closely, they'll probably show you they're fishing illegally. There are illegal activities going on out there.

When I mentioned no fishing on Sundays, it's not everywhere in the gulf that people don't fish on Sundays. We are are a region that encompasses approximately 400 fishermen along the southeastern seaboard of New Brunswick. It has been in place for years that we don't fish on Sunday.

If we see one particular gentleman going out there on a Sunday, he better have a damn good reason. In some cases you can have a breakdown of your engine during the first week of fishing. If you miss that first day, you could be in financial disarray. We'll say this guy has to go out, but it's very few cases. I've seen cases where people go out on Sunday and we go get them—“You get your bum back to the wharf right now or you're going to suffer some consequences”. This is an unwritten law between fishermen and it seems to be working very well.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As my second question, can you describe your relationship with aboriginal people? Are they allowed to join the fishermen's union? If they are allowed to join the union, what's the ratio of the aboriginal union members to non-aboriginal union members?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Our relationship with the aboriginal communities as a whole in some cases has been very difficult because of the Sparrow agreement, which gave them the right in 1991-92 to fish for food and ceremonial purposes. We've always seen their fishing for food as a disguise for a wide-open commercial fishery. They've sold lobsters on the black market for years and years. I think it has put a strain on our relationship with aboriginals.

I have to also say that with some aboriginal people we have a good working relationship because there are some who want to fish commercially like us. I'd say a lot of them, but I can't give you a direct percentage. They want to fish within the dates of a commercial fishery. They want to use the same rules and regulations that have been put in place by the industry for years. We accept those aboriginal people who want to fish commercially into the union. They're very few, but we do have paying members through the union and they're fishing commercially, just like us.

As a union, we've always kept the door open for consultation and dialogue. It's still open. The only way I think we're going to come to grips with these circumstances today is with dialogue.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Those aboriginals who can fish commercially from the union with you, can they also fish for ceremonial purposes?

• 1030

Mr. Ron Cormier: Some of them do, yes. Some of them do choose to fish for food during the commercial season. This is a practice we've always supported and we have no problem with this. It's the out-of-season fishery we have a problem with because of conservation measures, and I could elaborate on that.

This is why we see it as being something good, fishing, or commercial—

The Chair: We'll come back to you later, Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, and then Madam Tremblay.

Mr. John Cummins: I have a point of clarification. I challenge you, Ron, on your interpretation of Sparrow. The Sparrow decision, in my view, did not give natives the right to fish for lobster. Sparrow is an aboriginal right and an aboriginal right has to be something that the community conducted prior to contact with the Europeans. There is no historical record of natives harvesting lobster, or of lobster harvest being an integral part of native society prior to contact with Europeans.

In my view, the harvest of lobsters is not an aboriginal entitlement. In fact, there should not be a food fishery for lobsters, if you wanted to follow the law.

Johnny, you mentioned pulling these 4,000 illegal traps. I'm sure that fishermen don't mind doing that kind of thing if it's going to help the cause, because in the long term they benefit from it. I think the other issue is heavy fines, that increasing the fine would certainly discourage a lot of people from going out and fishing illegally. But then you run into the problem of unequal application of the law. Last year the minister allowed Burnt Church natives to fish 100 traps for 40,000 pounds of lobster. That, I believe, was the original agreement.

Mr. Ron Cormier: It's 40 traps for 40,000 pounds.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, all right, but the first day that number of traps was exceeded and nothing was done about it. This unequal application of the law, does it not pose some problems for the community at large?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Of course, because the perception of the non-aboriginal people, the commercial fishermen, is exactly that. There are two sets of rules here and it divides communities. It sets animosity where there shouldn't be any.

If you look at the whole Burnt Church situation last fall and you look at a summary of events that occurred on a day-to-day basis, you could see the holes in the Department of Fisheries' way of dealing with this. It was very clear to me then that the department showed very low levels of leadership in terms of regulating and protecting the fishery that was in that particular area.

I think where they went wrong, and it's only my personal belief, was to give them 40 traps for 40,000 pounds. I think that was an insult to anybody; and it was definitely an insult to them. If they had given them a reasonable number of traps, I think they would have maybe caught that 40,000 pounds and I'm saying maybe they would have shut her down. But I think they were jumping on another bandwagon and they were politically trying to focus on something other than the fishery at that particular time.

What came out of that little area? We estimate anywhere from 400,000 to 500,000 pounds of lobster once it was all said and done. Because you have to understand that in that particular area in fall lobsters have just finished moulting and are very vulnerable. They feed very quickly. You could have dropped a can of soup with a worm in it and you would have caught a lobster, I think. When you just throw in traps left and right in that area you're going to catch anywhere from 10 pounds to 15 pounds a trap per day; and in some cases they were going out twice a day.

• 1035

We were told by the department that they were going to regulate it, that they had the right to regulate it and they were going to enforce it and we should stay back and let the department do their job. And that's exactly what we've done, and by doing so most of us lost some credibility, because we were told on a day-to-day basis that things were going to happen and they never did.

I can assure you, as president of the union, it will not be done this way this year. And I say that very cautiously. I hear a lot of angry, frustrated people, and we're not going to have that tight rein that we had this year on them. I can guarantee you that. It will be out of our hands.

The Chair: Do you have a quick question, John, or is that it?

Mr. John Cummins: I have a comment. That 400,000 to 500,000 pounds that you estimate is actually a modest estimate, because DFO themselves estimated over 2,000 traps in the water and they were figuring ten pounds a trap per day. So your estimate is a modest one, I would say.

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: You're not inflating at all.

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Mr. Cummins, at the end of the day we have to realize we have a bigger problem in the commercial fishery with illegal fishing than we do with the natives. But there aren't TV cameras there to catch it. They're also catching 20 pounds per trap on the north side of P.E.I. in a closed area and it isn't a food fishery.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I find that the more the clock advances this morning, the more the problem becomes complicated. I would like to ask a question to Mr. Robichaud.

I was watching you when Mr. Keddy asked his question, and you smiled when he said that all of the traps for the food fishery were tagged. You are still smiling. Does that mean that there are a lot of traps in the water that are not tagged?

Could you explain that to me?

Mr. Bruno Robichaud: It is difficult for me to explain. As far as the needs of the food fishery in my region are concerned, they can use 2,000 traps. Given the small number of officers there, it is impossible to ensure that there are only 2,000 traps. It is impossible, and this is what the officers themselves tell us. We know by experience that the traps are not all tagged. There are a good many more than the official number. That is why I was smiling.

Mr. Ron Cormier: I would simply like to give an example to illustrate what Mr. Robichaud has just explained.

This year, in the Chibouctou region, licences were given for 50,000 pounds of lobster. To establish whether or not these 50,000 pounds of lobster had been fished, we used dockside monitoring. Dockside monitoring is a kind of system set up at the dock, and when a boat comes in, the catch of the day must be weighed and shown.

It is probably true that they put 2,000 traps in the water, but according to them, these 2,000 traps were tagged. They started fishing on the 15th of July, or rather in the month of June. The landings went up considerably around the 15th of July. Some days, they pulled out 2,000 to 3,000 pounds. Our commercial fishery opens on the 9th of August. The catches disappeared from the reports on the 7th of August. On the 7th of August, there were no more reports, no more catches. They would have caught only 45,000 pounds. They told us that they had wound down the food fishery and that they were therefore going to remove the food fishery tags, to then put on the commercial fishery tags and reuse the 2,000 traps. Sorry, but that is not what happened. They used the 2,000 traps to catch a surplus during ten weeks and afterwards, they moved on to the food fishery. That is what happened. Instead of 50,000 pounds, they took out approximately 150,000 pounds. This problem will have to be looked at in the fall.

• 1040

We have asked the government, in other words Fisheries and Oceans, to close the food fishery two weeks before the commercial fishery so that fishermen are able to pull their traps out of the water in order for us to see them at the dock. That would ensure equal opportunities for all. That is what I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.

Are there any questions over here? Before we go to you, Peter....

Mr. Morrissey, Mr. Cormier said there are six to ten officers for 632 fishers in your zone. I assume that's lobster fishermen, right?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey, you said there are 17 officers for 4,000 fishers—that's the total fishery, including oyster fishermen, etc.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Oyster, other fishers—

The Chair: I know it hasn't been mentioned.

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes, I didn't understand. It's more than lobster, it's gaspereaux, herring and all the whole kit.

The Chair: Okay. I know in Prince Edward Island one of the areas I get a lot of complaints in is people with oyster leases. They haven't seen a fisheries officer in two years over those leases.

Regardless of what we do as a committee, we're up against a bit of a problem—not a bit, but a big problem in terms of timing. Lobster fishing will be starting in P.E.I. in May. Given this situation—we'll ask this question to DFO as well—how long does it take to put a fisheries officer in place? Assuming the best, assuming we're able to get more fisheries officers, is it possible to do that by spring, given the current scenario?

Mr. Francis Morrissey: It is possible if they're moved for the time being from an area where there's no fishing activity into an area where there is fishing activity. We're all in different zones of fishing. In Southwest Nova, they'll come to an end in May—their spring fishery. Last year we had some fishery officers from Southwest Nova over in P.E.I.

The biggest problem we have on P.E.I. is our patrol boats. These patrol boats are ready to go—they're all winterized—but we were told a week ago there's no funding in place to put them in the water. And they said nobody asked for any funding. So we're sitting there with two patrol boats—fibreglass, which will last for another 50 years—but there's no funding to put them in the water.

The Chair: For fuel and—

Mr. Francis Morrissey: And to pay the fisheries officers. The captains who are aboard these boats were fishery officer captains; they were turned over to the Coast Guard. Now that they're Coast Guard, they are not allowed to carry their sidearm, they can't wear their green uniform, and they're required by Coast Guard regulations to have three people aboard the boat. First, if they were under DFO's C&P, they are only required to have two people aboard the boat.

The Chair: I lost you, Francis. Run that by me again.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: They're 42-foot fibreglass vessels. They're painted red and white.

The Chair: Yes, I know that.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: They used to be grey, the same colour as the fishing boats. When they went red and white, the regulation requires them to have three persons aboard that vessel. If they're under C&P, they are only required to have two persons aboard the vessel. The vessel under C&P can be back to grey where it can blend in with the fishing boats and the captains can be back to fisheries officers, which they always were. It's the same as taking a police officer and putting him on the 401 with a radar gun and a 10-speed bicycle. How can they do surveillance in a red and white boat that you can see coming 10 miles away?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But they don't have to.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: All they have to do is paint it grey.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But they don't have to. Fisheries officers have always been able to use regular boats to do surveillance. They just don't have to use the red and white boats. That's just not the issue. Somewhere or other, the funding still comes back to the issue.

The Chair: Yes, but Gerald, I better not get into that. You know how management manages in this town.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: I'd like for you to look at the cost.

• 1045

The Chair: Part of the things I've said, in terms of a number of departments, that is a problem is that they manage without understanding the industry. This may sound like a good idea in theory, but what these gentlemen are telling us is how it is working on the water. What we're hearing today is that it doesn't seem to be working.

Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Look at the cost of what the Coast Guard charged the fisheries and oceans department last year in P.E.I. for the use of two 42-foot fibreglass boats. One of them was called the 1452 Chevery and the other boat's name is the Howe Point. See what the bill is for their use for three months. You will be astounded at what you see.

The Chair: Just so I'm clear, I will raise this question with the department. I'll ask Andrew, who is here from the department, that when they come before us to have the answer to those questions. This is the bill for the use by conservation and protection officers of Coast Guard vessels; it's really a paper transaction between the two sectors of the same department.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: They billed C&P for the three people aboard that boat, plus the use of the boat and the fuel, plus the replacement cost of the boat down the road. The specific cost of it is virtually what it used to be when it was under C&P.

The Chair: We'll get that answer.

Mr. John Cummins: Just as a point of information on that, Mr. Chairman, you might look at the Auditor General's report, this last one on the fleet management. There he was complaining that just the reverse was true, that fisheries was using Coast Guard stuff at times and not charging appropriately. It is just an awful mess.

The Chair: We'll be hearing on that.

Madam Tremblay and then Mr. Stoffer.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question earlier and you told me that we would come back to it later on. Does later on mean during the course of another meeting or later on today? I am completely confused when I hear that the Coast Guard now comes under Fisheries and Oceans. We hear that for conservation officers to carry out their work, they need grey ships, but they have been painted red and white. We hear that two people are required, but three are being used. And we hear that we must rent these ships! What is going on? A Department is renting boats to itself? What are these absolutely ridiculous rules that are such that it is impossible to do one's job? I would like to understand how all of this works.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Tremblay, we'll have—unless the parliamentary secretary wants to respond—the department answer that when it comes in. They are combined departments, but there are some allocations within, I know.

We are going to run out of time here. Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Keddy, and then we will let it close.

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

What I would recommend, Mr. Cormier.... The Atlantic policy review is happening throughout Atlantic Canada. I would recommend that your organizations and those on P.E.I. appear before those committees and present this case to them as well. The more times they hear it in different regions of Atlantic Canada, maybe it will sink home and somebody on that committee will be able to forward that message.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: There is some problem with that, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Go ahead.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: We have to go fishing in six weeks' time and I have to make my living on the water from the time the ice leaves until it comes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The review is happening right now, in the next 20 days.

Also, while you're looking at the costs, at what it costs for the Coast Guard, what they're charging DFO, it would be interesting to see what the RCMP's cost was to Burnt Church during their surveillance. It would be interesting, because those are two different departments. It would be interesting to see how much RCMP charged DFO for that enforcement during the Burnt Church affair.

When Jack Stagg appeared before us from DFO here last year, I questioned him. He had said that they had estimated about 165,000 pounds of illegal lobsters were caught during the Burnt Church crisis. I asked him where it went and he said he didn't know. I see you smiling, Mr. Robichaud. I was wondering if you guys had a good idea of where that lobster went... I just want to know if you knew where that lobster went, because he seemed at a loss on where it went. I know where it went, but it would be interesting to see what you would say.

A voice: The black market.

The Chair: Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Ron Cormier: I didn't realize that the RCMP was doing any enforcement at Burnt Church. Were they there?

Mr. John Cummins: During that crisis, they were there. Yes, big time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They called it an emergency.

Mr. Ron Cormier: You are absolutely right. It would be astounding—the number of dollars it cost to get the RCMP in there. And how they dealt with it was another story. Let's not get into that right now. But as for where the lobster went, we were told it went for food and ceremonial purposes.

• 1050

You can still buy, today, lobster fished from that area last fall. It's just a matter of making a few calls, getting connected, and today you can buy lobster that was fished out of there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, last questioner.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to make two points and ask a question.

The first point is on the food fishery traps, and I'll make my previous comment again. The traps are supposed to be tagged, and if they're not tagged they can be pulled. If you don't have the officers to pull them, that's a problem; but they are supposed to be tagged. That should be made clear.

Mr. Cummins, you've got some good points on the pre-contact time—whether the first nations on the east coast had a lobster fishery or not. You've got to read your history, because you're wasting a lot of valuable time on that issue and we should move on to other issues. If you want me to point out a few books on what some of the original French explorers said about the lobster fishery, then read them—and let's move on to issues where we can make some headway.

Mr. John Cummins: I'd be delighted to take you on in public on that—any time, any place.

The Chair: Let's question the witnesses here for the moment. We'll get to that another day.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My question is on the licences. The problem we're seeing, in Southwest Nova in particular, is with the first nations' licences and the commercial fishery—and I want to see if it's the same problem you guys are facing in the gulf region. There are a number of royalty charters with a first nations licence—or you may have ten or a dozen—and they're not being fished. The boats are bought, the gear is bought. They've got a non-aboriginal fishing licence, and they'll put one aboriginal on the boat just to say there is an aboriginal aboard. But there's no training, there's no mentoring. These guys are never going to be able to be real participants in the fishery if the system continues the way it is now.

So what we've been arguing for is if the Acadia Band in Yarmouth, for instance, has ten licences, then they should be fishing those licences—same rule, same season as everyone else on the water, not a royalty charter where they hire a non-aboriginal to run the boats and a non-aboriginal crew. They will continue to fish that licence.

Now, people need the jobs, I'm not arguing with that. But the intent of the process is not being put into place. Are you seeing the same problem in the gulf?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And how do you see an end to it?

Mr. Ron Cormier: Well, I think you're absolutely right: the non-aboriginals are taking advantage of this in some areas. I know a few stories. In Richibucto, for example, they're paying a non-aboriginal up to $50 an hour to winterize the boat—$50 an hour to change a hydraulic hose.

I mean, where do you want to learn? I've been fishing for 15 years, and I didn't learn in a school, in a class. I had to go out in the boat—that's where I learned, and that's where they should learn. They're going to have to go in the boats.

If it takes a non-aboriginal like me to train them, so be it. I'd be willing. I'd do it with an open heart if I could make them understand and really teach them how it's done. But after two or three years, if they don't want to fish—well, I'm sorry. You cut the bait, cut your losses, and go home.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gerald, are there any further questions?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just a point of clarification.

The Chair: Mr. Morrissey and then Mr.—

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Just one comment on the native fishery. As commercial fishermen—and I hope the public realizes this—we have no problem with the natives fishing alongside us. I have to thank DFO or the federal government for buying out the licences to give to them. There's no increased pressure on the resource if they buy out the licences in the area and give them to the natives. I have no problem with this. Neither do the rest of the fishermen. It's a good idea. You're putting no more pressure on the resource—if you allow ten new ones in, you take ten out. The fishermen in our area have no problem with this. We have no problem with fishing alongside them. But one thing they'd like: same fishing season, same rules, same regulations. The general public has to know that we do not have a problem with it. Anybody can fish alongside me. As long as they're under the same regulations as the rest of us, there won't be a problem.

• 1055

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

A point of clarification, John?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. In the Shubenacadie case, which is the Nova Scotia case, and in the Indian Brook Band case, and in Barlow, the Department of Justice has taken the position that natives have no inherent right to fish lobster. That position has been provided to court by Professor Stephen Patterson of New Brunswick, who was also the chief government witness in the Marshall case.

The Chair: You've made your point.

Mr. John Cummins: That's the facts.

The Chair: You're almost into the debate with Keddy there. We'll leave that aside for the moment.

I want to thank the four of you for coming and giving us, I think, a very hard and realistic look at what's happening in the water. I'm debating whether or not we should send these minutes over to the department. I'm sure they will be reviewing them.

I would advise the representative from the minister's office and the parliamentary secretary that a number of questions were raised here—including the two boats, the protection dollars on land versus on water, those kinds of questions. I would ask them to inform the department that when they appear before us next week, we want answers.

We also want an analysis of what the department is going to do this spring to deal with the problem. I suggest to the committee that as soon as possible after we hear from the department—though we may have to hear a couple of other witnesses too—the committee prepare a letter to the minister, and probably also to the Minister of Justice, on what seems to be the discrepancy between penalties for illegal fishing in Nova Scotia versus the other areas. That's what I propose for the moment.

Any last points, anyone? Gerald, as long as it's not a point of clarification.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, it's not.

On the penalties in Nova Scotia, I'll give you another instance. Two summers ago, a case was reported in the papers in Nova Scotia of a couple of guys on vacation in a Winnebago. They wanted to make a lobster hoop so they could catch a few illegal lobsters. You just put a little bait in it and simply pick it up. It's not a trap. Anyone can do it.

They staked these guys out, instead of going to them and saying, “Listen, guys, this is against the law. It's going to ruin your vacation. If you do this, you'll get a massive fine and we can seize the Winnebago.” They staked them out for four or five days. Finally, the guys were lucky enough—or in this case, unlucky enough—to catch a lobster, and they charged them. They didn't take the Winnebago, but I remember the fine was excessive for one lobster—it was $1,000 or $1,500. So penalties against illegal fishing in Nova Scotia are definitely enforced.

Mr. Francis Morrissey: Please send the judges to New Brunswick and P.E.I.

The Chair: All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your directness. I think that was a good hearing.

The meeting is adjourned.