EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 3, 1996

.0903

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to call to the table Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister from HRDC. Is she here?

Mr. Gordon McFee (Acting Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): She's about five seconds away.

The Chairman: Okay.

We also have with us Gordon McFee, Doris Beeman and Mike Wood.

Colleagues, we're on a tight schedule this morning. We'll have the HRD officials for one hour only, from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. We have two other groups. We have to finish at 11:30. People have planes to catch at 12:30.

If need be, we can bring the HRDC officials back, but as for this morning, we are very tight. We have one hour allocated for these witnesses, and we'll stick as close to that as we possibly can.

Ms Smith is now with us.

You've received the documentation on the regulations for fishermen's employment insurance. Everybody has those, so we'll turn the meeting over to Ms Smith.

Ms Norine Smith (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting us here today to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about the fishing regulations.

.0905

I thought I might use some of the documentation in the package that was provided to the committee yesterday as source documents for an overview about what's in the fishing regulations. This package you received yesterday has, on the left-hand side, the material that was provided to members of Parliament who have fishers in their constituencies.

The Chairman: These documents were given to us last week?

Ms Smith: No, yesterday.

The Chairman: These were given to us this morning.

Ms Smith: There should be four pieces of paper in these documents. On the left-hand side there's a letter to members of Parliament from Minister Young and an information paper on the fishing regulations. That material was provided to members of Parliament with fishers in their ridings and to quite a large number - something in the order of 100 to 150 - of industry representatives and provincial government departments interested in the fishery, to give them basic information about the contents of the fishing regulations.

Then on the right hand-side of the package there's another letter from parliamentary secretary Bob Nault and highlights of the fishing regulations. That was provided to the same group of MPs, provincial governments and industry representatives on September 19, the day on which the fishing regulations were tabled in the House of Commons. I thought I might use the highlights piece as the working document for giving a quick overview about the regulations.

A first principle in the reform of the fishing regulations was that all of the measures in the overall reform of the employment insurance program were imported into the fishing regime. So in terms of the general parameters of the insurance program, fishermen are covered by exactly the same rules as everybody else.

I'll quickly run through the list of features of the reforms in Bill C-12 that would apply equally to fishermen.

There are things such as the basic benefit rate of 55%, the intensity rule, the first dollar coverage of insured earnings, the reduction in the maximum insured earnings to the annual level of $39,000, the reduction of the maximum weekly benefit to $750 a week, the family supplement for claimants who are in families with low annual incomes, the clawback that would apply to claimants who have high annual incomes, the $50 minimum on earnings while on claim before the weekly benefit is reduced, the premium refund for those workers who earn less than $2,000 a year, and eligibility for the employment measures under part II of the act. That last would be for anybody who is on insurance or has been on insurance in the last three years, or for women who've been on maternity or parental benefits in the last five years. Those are the things that apply to everybody.

The fishing regulations primarily relate to the way in which the insurance system needs to be geared towards the specifics of the fishing industry. There was one central principle behind the changes to the fishing regulations from that point of view, and that was to implement very many of the recommendations contained in the report of the Cashin Task Force on Incomes and Adjustment in the Atlantic Fisheries.

.0910

There are basically three categories or three broad groupings of changes to the fishing regulations. The first was to move the system from one based on weeks of employment - which was very cumbersome, very artificial, led to very complex rules around allocations and averaging, and different rules for different types of fisheries, etc. - to one that's much simpler, based on total earnings in the fishing season or in the qualifying period.

The entrance requirement on total earnings is to vary between $2,500 and $4,200, according to the unemployment rate. That is comparable to the entrance requirements of 420 hours and 700 hours that would apply to claimants in the regular insurance program, if one assumes an average minimum wage of about $6 an hour.

The entrance requirement for new entrants and re-entrants is set at $5,500 - again comparable to the rate for regular beneficiaries at $6 an hour. There are a number of corollary changes that derive from the fact that we're moving to an earnings-based system. For example, the elimination of the best 10 weeks provision for fishermen is no longer necessary, because they can count all their earnings. It doesn't matter when it happens - mid-season, shoulder season, it doesn't really matter.

There is the elimination of the minimum week for the captain. There are also no longer any weekly minimums and maximums for insurability, for anyone who is applying for fishing benefits.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): Why not again?

Ms Smith: Because there is no longer a notion of weeks, there is no longer a need to meet a minimum earnings threshold in a week in order to have an insured period of time, and there's no cutting off of benefits after a weekly maximum has been reached. The minimums and maximums that used to apply in the weeks-based system are no longer relevant.

The second grouping of changes, again reflecting recommendations of the Cashin report, was to provide more flexibility in the period of time in which earnings accumulate and the period of time during which fishermen can draw benefits. So the qualifying period and the benefit periods can move back and forth four weeks earlier or four weeks later. In essence it has created a larger window during which fishermen can select their 31-week fishing season and their 26-week - if I can use the term - ``benefit season''.

The third grouping of changes relates to the length of a claim and the changes to set one common maximum length of claim or maximum entitlement for all fishermen, regardless of the part of the country and the unemployment rate of the area in which they live - that maximum is set at 26 weeks. That is one week shorter than the old maximum in the highest unemployment areas of the country but is significantly longer than the current entitlements in parts of the country such as the lower Vancouver area, where fishermen now might have entitlements of 17 or 18 weeks, something like that.

The divisor: the earnings over the qualifying period would be divided by the divisor that applies to that particular regional unemployment rate. For example, in high unemployment areas the divisor would be 14. Total earnings in the qualifying period would be divided by 14.

.0915

That, in a nutshell, is the nature of the changes. As I say, the fishing regulations by and large concentrate on these features of the insurance regime that are unique to the fishing industry, and in addition, they have a few elements that are required in order to tailor the general reforms of Bill C-12 to the unique features of the fishing industry.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You haven't considered extending that total income concept to other people, such as the fishermen's helpers? It seems to be a very simple way to calculate.

Ms Smith: People who are qualifying for regular benefits?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms Smith: No. They have a contract of service and would fall under the other regime.

The Chairman: Okay. Well, I'd like to compliment you on that particular change. That makes a lot of sense, and a lot of fishermen I've talked to since this has become public knowledge have said that for the first time - some say it's for the first time - we're using common sense as it applies to the actual type of industry they're engaged in. They are quite pleased that they don't have to manipulate the system any more in order to get maximum weeks.

Whatever they get, if it's full season or shoulder season, the total is what matters, not what they might get one week versus what they might get another. For example, a moss fisherman after a storm may get a great load of moss and he has to divide that load into two or three different weeks. So the buyer is under pressure to break the load up, and he's manipulating the system, and the fisherman is, and so on. This wipes out all those kinds of shenanigans and it's pretty straightforward.

So I think it's a very progressive step you've made there.

Are there any questions? Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Good morning. I would like to start by greeting my fellow committee members and our witnesses. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for missing part of the presentation, but, rest assured that I have already read the new fishing regulations.

For once, I must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. For once, common sense won out. I too see in reading the regulations that they facilitate the eligibility of fishers. They could be satisfied with the way in which the benefits have been spread out.

However, these regulations are made under Bill C-12, the Employment Insurance Act. The main result of this bill is that it will hurt people, because it provides for lower benefit ceilings. They have been reduced from $468 last year to $413 at the moment.

Now that I have offered some bouquets, I would also like to mention a few brickbats as well. You said, Mr. Chairman, that the system could not be applied to fishermen's helpers. It is true that the new calculation method based on hours could be helpful for plant workers. However, the number of hours will be used, rather than total earnings, as is done for fishers.

The intensity rule is the thing that most hurts plant workers and fishermen's helpers, who are also covered by the ordinary plan, as well as fishermen who were not fortunate enough to earn large incomes. The intensity rule is the famous rule whereby benefits are reduced by 1% for each 20-week period.

.0920

I think you will readily admit that while there are four seasons in Quebec as in Canada, only a certain type of fishing is done in each season. Lobster can be caught in the Gaspé peninsula in May and June. In Nova Scotia, I think the lobster fishery is open in some areas in January. In any case, there's just one season.

I may have fewer criticisms about what is contained in the fishing regulations than about what is not contained in them. I would have liked to see an exemption with respect to section 15 of the Employment Insurance Act dealing specifically with this intensity rule.

This may be more of a political issue. It may not be up to our witnesses from the department to tell us who can correct this problem, but I would like to look at this issue with them to see how we could present it so that the politicians give it some consideration. I understood that in order to amend this regulation in the House, 30 members of Parliament would have to request it. I understood from the officers at the Table that I could neither add anything to them nor take anything away. I had to request that the whole thing be eliminated. In human terms, I did not see how I could do that.

I would like to ask the departmental officials how we could go about adding this exemption. I think everyone should recognize that since a particular fishery only lasts one season, our fishermen will be affected by the problem of recurring applications. They will be hit by the intensity rule and their unemployment insurance benefits will not be calculated using the 55% factor, but rather the 50% factor three years from now.

Without commenting on the validity of my request, could you tell me how in terms of procedure members of Parliament could introduce such a measure? After that, the Governor in Council will be able to make a decision. I must confess that I was at a loss when I realized how this measure was to be introduced and discussed. I knew that the government was not very interested in reopening the whole discussion about unemployment insurance. So, what can we do and how can we correct this situation? Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Smith.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Perhaps you could wait 30 seconds before answering, because I see Mrs. Wayne is just arriving. I think she might be very interested in your answer.

[English]

I'm just telling the witness that I hope you will have enough time to listen to the answer. I just raised the point about the intensity rule, so you will be able to follow afterward.

Ms Smith: Implementing the suggestion that you're making would require an amendment to the act itself, I believe.

Mrs. Wayne (Saint John): Could I just say this? First and foremost I want to make this clear to all my colleagues around the table. When I asked yesterday and spoke in the House.... You used to be able make an amendment or revoke, with 30 signatures. The government has removed ``amendment'' from it and said that the only thing you can do is repeal the whole act. That's the problem we have.

Sections of this are good, but the rest of it.... The intensity section is the section we have concerns about, and we would like to have debated an amendment to just that section. But they've changed it and taken out ``amendment'' and said you have to revoke and repeal the whole thing. That is our problem, Mr. Chairman. I just want this as a point of clarification.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Bernier is finished then. You've answered his question.

.0925

Ms Smith: I could perhaps comment that the section of the Employment Insurance Act that deals with fisheries regulations is unchanged from before. There was no amendment governing the procedures in the House with regard to those regulations.

Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Chairman, I think that should be clarified. There's a reference to ``they'' changing it. It would obviously require a decision by Parliament that, if it has been made, has been made - not unilaterally by the government or anybody else.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I want to make sure I understood you correctly. My question was: Is there any way of making a change without revoking all the regulations? Is the witness's answer yes or no?

[English]

The Chairman: She said no.

Mrs. Wayne: On a point of clarification, did she say she'd explain to us whether you can amend it or repeal it? Which is it?

Ms Smith: Just repeal it with respect to the regulations.

Mrs. Wayne: Thank you.

Ms Smith: If I could also add clarification, to exempt fishermen from the intensity rule would require, I believe, a legislative amendment, not a regulatory amendment. For a legislative amendment, I presume a private member's bill, for example, could deal with just that one clause.

The Chairman: So you'd need a government bill or a private member's bill to amend Bill C-12.

Ms Smith: Or chapter 23, as it is now.

The Chairman: Then the question would become whether we should repeal the intensity rule for fishermen and leave it in for labourers. Then we get into a whole other ball of wax.

Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: I just want to follow up on the changes as they relate to crew members. I want to follow up on what Mr. Bernier was asking. What were the old rules with respect to crew members on fishing vessels and what are the new rules? How are they different - or are they different?

Mr. McFee: Are you talking about the captain of the vessel, where first of all, the vessel goes out and catches fish, the captain has a certain deduction he or she would make for expenses, and then the rest of the catch would be shared amongst the crew?

Mr. Wells: The way I understand it, there are two sets of rules, one for the self-employed fishermen and one for the crew member who's on a wage, making $6 or $8 or $10 an hour, whatever it might be.

The self-employed captain, if we can use that expression, has special status because most self-employed people don't pay into or get UI. So we have an earnings-based system for the captain, or the self-employed fisherman. Is that correct? But the crew member, making the $6 or $8, whatever the wage, is not under that same system.

Mr. McFee: That's correct.

Mr. Wells: He is under the system everybody else is under, that the constructor worker or someone working in the hospitality industry is under.

Mr. McFee: Yes.

Mr. Wells: You've explained the changes for the self-employed as far as moving away from the hourly system to the wage system. What's changed for the crew member, the hourly worker, the plant worker?

Mr. McFee: If I'm not understanding you properly, please stop me; it's not intentional.

A change has taken place in the industry in that respect over the last few years. It really is not necessarily part of this legislation we're talking about today. That is, in some parts of the country those people have chosen to change their working relationship from the old one, where the sharing arrangement took place that I talked about a second ago, to what we call in the jargon a ``contract of service'', which as you correctly put it just means a regular worker type of thing. They've had their own reasons for doing that, but they've done it.

.0930

So the trite answer to your question is that for people who have chosen to change their working arrangements so they work in a regular contract of service situation, the parts of Bill C-12 that Ms Smith talked about a few minutes ago would apply to them, of course, and the rules that will come into effect in January 1997, the switch to hours and the other topics she mentioned, will apply to those individuals just as they apply to everyone else, because they will be among the everyone else.

What we're talking about in this package, of course, is the people who do it the old way, and that is that they share in the catch, and the items we talked about this morning will apply to them. So you will get situations, for example, where a self-employed captain of a vessel has some people on the vessel who share in the catch and other people on the vessel who may work under contract of service. That's not a new phenomenon. That's been going on for some period of time.

Mr. Wells: Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to get the clarification on the record, if I may.

Mr. McFee: Yes, sir.

Mr. Wells: So in fact we have almost three different categories and then we have the self-employed captain. If he has people getting $6 an hour, they work under the system that applies to everybody else. But if he's working on a share basis, then he is going to be based on the income of the new system that we just described.

Mr. McFee: Correct.

Mr. Wells: So the crew member could in fact be getting a share and these new rules would apply, or he could be a straight employee where the general rules of Bill C-12 would apply.

Ms Smith: That's correct.

Mr. McFee: Exactly.

Mr. Wells: There has been some discussion with respect to the intensity rule. I think we all understand some of the concerns, which we debated quite extensively during the debate for Bill C-12. I don't think it was mentioned, unless it was before I got here, but can you explain how the intensity rule applies to those who may be making less than $26,000 in family income?

Ms Smith: It does not.

Mr. Wells: It does not apply.

Ms Smith: They are exempt from the intensity rule.

Mr. Wells: So if in fact we're talking about anyone in the fishery or in any other industry who is making less than $26,000, the intensity rule does not apply.

Ms Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Wells: I have a statement that I read in an article and I've been trying to understand the point that was trying to be made in it. I'm going to read it to you and ask you if you could perhaps explain it to me. I'm not sure of the source of this; it came during some of the discussions after the introduction. It reads:

One reform which could have significant impact is the elimination of the year-round category for calculating earnings.

Again, I'm reading from a statement:

Under the new rules, claimants can qualify for summer or winter benefits, depending on the season in which their earnings were accumulated. That would mean benefits would be based on a lower income in the case of fishermen who earn money from different fisheries at different times of the year.

I don't know if you've heard that statement, if you understand what they're trying to say in that statement, but could you explain the significance of what is stated here as ``the elimination of the year-round category for calculating earnings''.

Ms Smith: I'll start with a few general comments, and if you want more detail I'll pass the microphone to my colleague Doris Beeman.

But first of all, there are very few year-round fishermen who are claiming insurance under that category, something in the order of 100 people at this point in time. These fishers would be able to qualify for insurance under either the summer or winter benefit period and qualifying period and would be able to choose the qualifying period they want to use according to the ebb and flow of their fishing season. But fundamentally our rationale for eliminating that category is that there were so few fishers still in that category that it added a layer of complexity into a set of rules that seemed to be quite unnecessary.

Mr. Wells: As for people who were using that, what would they do now? I still don't totally understand it.

Ms Doris Beeman (Senior Policy Adviser, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): At present it's rather complicated for the year-round -

Mr. Wells: I know it is. That's why I'm trying to understand it.

.0935

Ms Beeman: First of all, they require more weeks than anyone else. They require 20 weeks. They must have been fishing, as it says, year-round, in three of four consecutive quarters. And they have to be fishing on specific, designated vessels. It means, though, they could collect at any time during the year. They could apply for benefits at any time of the year, if they have that number of weeks.

We believe that since there are so few, and since they normally would fish during the summer period, they still will be able very easily, I would think, to gain the $2,500 to $4,200 to qualify. They would apply in either the summer or winter benefit period. But most of them would still want to collect, I would think, anytime from October to May.

Mr. Wells: So would that be the reason you increased the envelope four weeks on either end when they could actually -

Ms Beeman: We weren't really thinking of the year-round, but it would help the year-round, certainly.

Mr. Wells: So even though that has been eliminated, there has been flexibility on the other end.

Ms Beeman: Yes, for sure.

Mr. Wells: There are eight weeks of difference, I think. There are four weeks on either end under which they could claim.

Ms Smith: Yes. That was a recommendation, as you probably know, of the Cashin task force. It was in order to better reflect the great diversity of fishing seasons that we find on both coasts.

Mr. Wells: I think you may have said this before Ms Wayne came in. Are these regulations a reflection of the recommendations coming out of the Cashin task force?

Ms Smith: Yes, they are very much so.

Mr. Wells: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To the witnesses, it must be clear that I'm a newcomer here, and I really don't understand all of this just yet. I'm not from the Maritimes or B.C.

However, I can recall last year a CBC documentary revealing that on the west coast - this in particular is what sticks in my mind - captains would take a surplus number of young people on board to take them out fishing. The young people would pay a stipend of some kind to the captain in order to be taken on, even though they might not even work on the ship. In a very short period of time, those young people could qualify for unemployment insurance. That was a very common thing on the west coast.

Under this new plan, is this possible? It is possible for something of this nature to take place in order for a captain of questionable character to increase his own profit by doing something of this nature?

Ms Smith: My first comment would be that the scenario you're describing is fraud. It was not legal before. It's not legal now. It will not be legal at any time in the future. We try our hardest to identify those sorts of questionable circumstances to ensure those people do not qualify for benefits.

Mr. Wells: He said he's not from the Maritimes.

The Chairman: He wouldn't have asked that question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms Smith: We are hopeful that the greatest simplicity in the qualifying rules will help us to better keep on top of that sort of circumstance.

It's fairly straightforward now: did you or did you not have earnings? A lot of the rules that allowed for the manipulation of landings, averaging, allocations and all of that stuff are eliminated, so it will be a little easier to identify those sorts of circumstances.

Mr. Dromisky: This is hypothetical. Do you feel that in a situation like that, under these new rules, the true fishermen who are being hired by a captain to work on a certain boat will watch and be quite concerned if there's a surplus crew? In other words, these guys know how many should be on a certain size of ship and what the responsibility should be. They realize that if there is a surplus among the crew, then their share of the total earnings could be greatly diminished because of these surplus individuals.

Do you feel that the individual true fisherman would have some major role to play in here; in other words, they would complain, report or anything of that nature?

.0940

Ms Smith: I believe there is a clear incentive structure built into these regulations that would indeed put that kind of pressure to play within the system.

Mr. Dromisky: I have just one simple little question. It relates to other people who are seasonal workers. Has there been any thought given to people who are, let's say, in the resource industries, such as logging and so forth, in other parts of the country who can only work during certain parts of the year and who are under a completely different program for employment insurance? Has any thought been given to these individuals with a plan very similar to the ones being introduced here for the fishermen?

Ms Smith: Are you talking about self-employed individuals in these other industries, or regular workers?

Mr. Dromisky: Most of them are employed by a company, but only for a short period of time.

Ms Smith: Those workers fall under the regular benefits regime. There are a number of changes that would be of significance for them that better reflect their work patterns.

For example, this might make it a little easier for them to qualify for benefits if their season is short but they work very intensively during that season. The shift to the hours-based system will allow a 60-hour week, for example, to be reflected as such. Therefore, that's worth about one and a half times what it would be worth now in terms of qualifying.

They have no restrictions on when they can qualify, as compared to fishermen. Fishermen have a qualifying period and a certain season, in essence, in which they are earning money. They have a certain season in which they are allowed to draw benefits.

Workers in these other industries can apply as soon as there is no longer work, so they have a bit more flexibility. So there are a number of features, I think, in the regular system that already provide a fair bit of flexibility to accommodate their work patterns.

Mr. Dromisky: All right. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Stan.

I have a question. Could you explain the old and the new rules for people with fishing claims who have labour mixed in?

Ms Smith: They have some regular employment?

The Chairman: Yes, they have regular employment plus fishing employment. How do you do that now?

Ms Smith: At present, of the total number of weeks required for them to qualify, they need six weeks of fishing. We're talking about seasonal employees now.

Under the new system, they'll have to qualify strictly with fishing weeks as self-employed fisherpersons. However, once they have qualified, once they've gained the minimum dollars to qualify, then they can use the regular weeks to determine the benefit rate. We'll do two separate calculations and then total the earnings for the period. Then the percentage for the benefit rate will be applied to that total.

The Chairman: Is there a chart you can provide?

Ms Smith: There's a chart at the back in the regulatory package that indicates how many fishing earnings they would need to qualify. The regular one would be calculated based on the current regulations for other workers. There would be a rate calculation period and so on, and the same kind of division. For instance, if you had regular work in the qualifying period that also fell into the rate calculation period - it could be up to 26 weeks - then you -

The Chairman: So you qualify as a fisherman first?

Ms Smith: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: If you then work as a labourer under a regular claim, there is some way you lump the two together to come up with total earnings?

Ms Smith: Yes.

The Chairman: It would still be based on total earnings.

Ms Smith: Yes. After you've made the calculation of the total, however, there's a maximum of $750 per week.

.0945

The Chairman: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like an explanation from the department as to whether unemployment insurance, as it relates to self-employed fishermen, would be considered in the insurance scheme to compensate for a temporary job loss, whether it's an income stabilizer or whether it's a social program. How would you classify it? Maybe you would classify it as something else.

Ms Smith: I would classify it as an insurance program that is providing these workers with income during the period of time when there is no work for them. The fishing regime is in exactly the same category as that of any seasonal worker. It is providing them with the income support they need during the time when there is no alternative work.

Mr. Johnston: Since there is no comparable program for people who work seasonally, for instance in agriculture, how do you justify the difference there?

Ms Smith: You're correct that self-employed fishers are the only group of self-employed workers who have access to the insurance program. The reason for that goes way back into history, I must confess, well before my knowledge of the program.

Mr. Johnston: Fair enough.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Chairman, you were stating that we had an opportunity to debate the seasonal section of Bill C-12 and the ramifications on seasonal workers before.

I have to ask this question. We've seen previous bills come in on different subject matters that included the words ``amend or revoke'', which gave members of Parliament an opportunity to amend it if they wished. They would get 30 signatures on regulations, and it could be debated. In this case here, the word ``amend'' was removed. The only thing put in place was to ``revoke or repeal'' the whole thing. We would like to know why. For the fishermen, all those MPs who have fishermen in their areas, and other MPs who wish to be able to speak on behalf of their fishers, this took away our democratic right.

That is what we're saying. We're not saying that your bill is totally wrong, but there are sections of the bill that many of us on both sides of the House have concerns about. It took away the democratic right for us to represent our people. Why is the word ``amend'' not included in this?

Ms Smith: I just clarified with my colleague a technical point about that particular section of the Employment Insurance Act.

There were no changes to the provisions of the act governing the regulatory procedures that apply to the fishing regulations. Those procedures were put into the act in 1990, in Bill C-21 at the time, but there were no changes to those procedures in this act.

Mrs. Wayne: But in 1992 a piece of legislation was brought in with the introduction of regulations. That piece of legislation in 1992 stated that ``a motion for the consideration of that House, to the effect that the order or regulation be amended or revoked'' is to be signed by 30 members. That's what I'm saying.

Ms Smith: Which bill are you referring to? Is that a section in the Unemployment Insurance Act?

The Chairman: I believe it was a member's motion; I don't think it was a government motion at the time.

.0950

Ms Smith: There are specific procedures set out in part VIII, subsection 153.(8) of the Employment Insurance Act. This act sets out the specific procedures that apply to fishing regulations. They're laid out uniquely in this act.

Mrs. Wayne: So in order for us to have a debate in the House of Commons on this, we get the 30 signatures we have to put down saying we want to repeal the whole act, even though in our hearts we don't want to repeal the whole act. We just want to discuss the intensity rule that's laid out, but we have to get our 30 signatures.

Ms Smith: The 30 signatures are relevant specifically to the fishing regulations, not to the act.

Mrs. Wayne: That's right.

Ms Smith: Yes, but this is the way the act is drafted.

Mrs. Wayne: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Harold, we have only five more minutes, so if you want to ask a question, go ahead.

Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. I had to go to the riding last evening and I just got in. The flight was a little late getting in.

I welcome you here this morning. I've certainly read with great interest, and in depth, all of the fisheries regulations. Could you tell me in a simple way what basically is the difference, other than the way of calculation in the fisheries regulations, from the previous regulations brought forward for all other industries, we might say?

Ms Smith: You're quite right that the general parameters of the employment and insurance program as it applies to all other workers also applies to fishers. The regulations, by and large, deal with the specific aspects of the fishing industry and how it is required to tailor the insurance regime in order to operate effectively for this industry.

So, for example, as I was mentioning earlier, all of the rules with respect to maximum insured earnings - the maximum size of the claim, the clawback, the intensity rule, the family supplement - and all of those features of the insurance program and the reforms that were in Bill C-12 apply to fishers as well as to everybody else.

Mr. Culbert: If I might continue, Mr. Chairman, there are changes in the fisheries regulations component of the act now coming forward to reflect revenue earned versus hours worked, as will be the case everywhere else come January 1, 1997. I've talked to a number of people on this. You can equate it very easily or very readily to weeks using minimum wage, or using $6 an hour, or whatever figure you want to use. Is my understanding correct that this minimum would be $2,500 during a season?

Ms Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Culbert: So this week -

Ms Smith: It depends on the unemployment rate of the area at time of -

Mr. Culbert: Yes, I understand. It is $2,500 to $4,200, or whatever.

Ms Smith: Yes.

Mr. Culbert: But this reflects the criteria under which our fishers work. In many cases, although they would certainly be ready, willing and able, because of the quota system or because of the licensing criteria - this is established as, let's say, six weeks or eight weeks or two months or three months, or whatever the case may be for the particular fishery - they have an opportunity, in fairness, to have this revenue during this period of time. Or in a case where it's a multi-licence fishery, of course there may not be a lot of down time, only between the various licensing periods.

So was this really to reflect the reality out there? Is it that fishermen don't stay home because they don't want to work, but only because the licensing period is a certain amount of time?

Ms Smith: Certainly this is one of the positive features of this change. It also just reflects the simple reality that length of time on the boats was virtually impossible to measure.

.0955

Mr. Culbert: Finally, Mr. Chair, are there any other items in this regulation, other than this aspect, that would differ from the other regulations previously introduced?

Ms Smith: There are two other broad categories of changes. One is the notion of a qualifying season and a benefit season that applies to fishers. This is different from the way in which it would work for regular beneficiaries in the flexibility provided there. The second major difference is that there is one common maximum length of claim, a 26-week maximum entitlement for fishers, regardless of the unemployment rate in the area in which they live. There's no variation in the entitlement.

Mr. Culbert: What is this compared to, presently?

Ms Smith: For regular workers it would range between 17 and 45 weeks, I believe, depending on the unemployment rate in the area they were in. It is something like that.

Mr. Culbert: Okay.

Ms Smith: It is actually 14 to 45 weeks.

The Chairman: So with the 31-week qualifying period, a fisher could actually apply earlier than he could in the past, and he could actually draw longer than he could in the past.

Ms Smith: He could apply four weeks earlier, but he can only -

The Chairman: He can only draw 26.

Ms Smith: - draw 26 weeks, which for some fishers will be a week shorter or for some fishers could be five to seven weeks longer than they currently can.

The Chairman: Well, in the past some fishers could never draw 26. Some could only draw 20 because they had to wait until December 15 in order to apply.

Ms Smith: And their season started earlier.

The Chairman: Their season started earlier, so to a lot of people it is a benefit to change to the 31-week qualifying period.

Ms Smith: Yes. It provides them with flexibility.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mrs. Wayne: Is the divisor different, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: The divisor is the same, depending on the region.

Mrs. Wayne: It depends upon the region.

The Chairman: That's right.

Norine, thank you very much to both you and your colleagues. We may ask you back if there is a demand for your services. Thank you all very much for coming here this morning.

Ms Smith: Thank you very much. It was our pleasure.

The Chairman: We have Mr. Bevan, Mr. Robichaud and Kathryn Bruce. We will start with Mr. David Bevan, director general of the conservation and protection directorate. There was a request last week at our first meeting that we get an update on the surveillance activities of the department.

Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Conservation and Protection Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The mandate of the department in the management and protection of Canada's fisheries resource is obviously a key component of the department's strategic framework.

In the fish management sector, we've had to look at a number of fairly fundamental changes in how we do our business. This has been as a result of some of the program review reductions in our budgets. Conservation and protection, which is the program responsible for enforcement in fish management, has also had to undergo some fundamental changes.

.1000

Our budget has been reduced from approximately $90 million in 1993-94 to approximately $66 million in 1997-98. That has required us to take a look at some significant changes in order to maintain an enforcement presence in the fisheries.

We've strengthened our functional management of the program. We've streamlined our management accountabilities and introduced new planning and reporting processes so we can better direct our enforcement efforts at high-priority fisheries to ensure we get results and compliance in those priority fisheries.

We've maintained a cadre of professional fishery officers, and while the number of fishery officers has been reduced from 606 in 1993-94 to approximately 500 currently, we have removed any other duties such as licensing and habitat referrals from the fishery officers. We've concentrated their efforts on the enforcement activities necessary to protect Canada's fish resources.

The major cuts in the program came from reduction in the number of patrol boats. We've gone from approximately 44 patrol boats prior to program review to approximately 19. To offset those cuts, we are working with coast guard to multi-task the fleet and to cross-train coast guard crews in enforcement activities. We have also replaced some of the inshore vessels that were crewed vessels with faster, cheaper and more flexible program boats operated by fishery officers.

In addition to those program boats, we have redirected resources from administrative and other functions towards the field. We've actually been able to increase the amount of money available to fishery officers for operation and we've improved their funding so they can spend more time in the field. We're also trying to improve their available equipment so they can be more effective in the field.

With respect to all other components of the program, other than the fleet and the fishery officers, we are going to the private sector to supply those other surveillance activities. We have always used the private air surveillance firms. We are also using private companies to supply observers, dockside monitors, satellite transponders and guardians. Guardians are supplied not just by the private sector, but by partners such as first nations and other conservation bodies. Guardians would be directed towards low-intensity enforcement activities.

All other components of the program are supplied by the private sector. This provides us with more flexibility in mixing the enforcement activities to get the best efficiency and effectiveness, and it allows us to draw upon the expertise in the private sector to introduce new technology as it becomes available.

To ensure that we get the best service from the private sector suppliers we are introducing quality management standards - the ISO 9000 standards - to the suppliers so we can ensure that we have good value for the money.

Beyond program review, we're looking at the focus role for fishery officers. They'll be directed towards three major activities: the offshore surveillance activities, the anti-poaching activities, directed towards curtailing illegal fisheries, and auditing systems put in place by private companies and ensuring compliance within commercial fleets.

As I mentioned earlier, we're concentrating on the outside contracted surveillance services that have reduced our need to have large numbers of managers managing helicopters, air surveillance, etc. We rely on the private sector to do that and it's allowed us to streamline our administrative costs.

.1005

On a stock-by-stock basis, we're going to be establishing integrated management plans that look at the science, the fish management and the enforcement so that we can identify high-risk, high-priority fisheries to direct our enforcement activities at, and identify lower-risk fisheries that can be managed through privately supplied observers, dockside monitors, etc.

We are looking at the establishment of conservation standards based on biological and environmental information to further enhance fisher accountability and to ensure that they play a role necessary for conservation of stocks. We intend to continue with the development and training of staff to let them take on this new role and to make sure we are getting the most effective use out of our limited resources.

Mr. Chairman, that's a brief overview of the program.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, David. Has the number of fishery protection officers decreased or increased under the new arrangements?

Mr. Bevan: They have decreased. They've gone from 606 FTEs to approximately 500 now. However, a significant percentage of the fishery officer's time was spent on things such as licensing or habitat referrals. That is no longer the case. They're dedicated towards enforcement.

In addition, we found there were some limitations on their capacity to get out into the field due to lack of money. They didn't have enough money to operate effectively five days a week or on patrols over the course of the entire seven-day week. We've increased their funding, so while the absolute number is down, we think we are going to be able to have a higher presence in the field over the next year or so.

The Chairman: Do you anticipate any increase in the number of protection officers?

Mr. Bevan: No. We're looking at maintenance at the 500 level.

The Chairman: How is the integration of the fleets coming along? Are you satisfied with the progress made between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard and with the boats they have chosen to use in particular areas of enforcement?

Mr. Bevan: Obviously we're still in the process of going through the fleet merger. It has been a significant challenge because we're trying to merge two different fleets at the same time as program review reductions are in place. It's a challenge. It's in progress. I think it's going to take us another year or so to work all the bugs out and get the maximum use out of those resources.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bernier and then Mr. Johnston.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like to begin by greeting to our witnesses. I must confess that I missed the steering committee meeting in which it was decided to invite the director of the Resource Management Branch. But the Lord works in wonderful ways. I don't know whether the witnesses can give me a specific answer, but I would like to determine the philosophy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this area.

I would like to draw your attention to a specific problem we have in the Gaspé region at the moment. I believe Mr. Robichaud is aware of it, because he has worked in this part of Quebec in the past. Mr. Bevan, you are responsible for protection and conservation. I am talking about the problem with respect to lobster fishing by the Micmacs in Restigouche. There is a conflict there.

I acknowledge that in both Quebec and Canada, we are living under the rule of law. If certain rights must be given to aboriginals, certain steps must be taken to do so. The problem I am referring to occurred out of the blue this Fall.

The aboriginal people may have found that negotiations between themselves and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were not proceeding quickly enough, and they decided simply to go and fish. But they had already been some commercial fishing in this area at the beginning of the year, from May to June. This is not a very profitable stock. For the five or six fishers there are at the moment, the average landing is only about 5,000 pounds.

.1010

I heard that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had granted a Native food fishery licence. The recognized limit at the moment is 200 traps. With 200 traps at this time of the year, a fisher can catch... I was told that the landings totalled between 5,000 and 6,000 pounds at the moment. That will have an impact on next year's catches.

How can we reconcile conservation and protection and reach a gentlemen's agreement between the two groups that are going to have to fish now? Your first mandate is conservation. Second, I understand that we must give aboriginals the right to fish. The third player, formerly the second, the commercial fishers, may be less demanding. However, the fact that you are required to recognize the right of aboriginals to fish has an impact on them. What are we going to do? Will the commercial fishers accept that without complaint? I know that there will be negotiations and I do not want to go into details about that but we must recognize from the outset that there will be an impact on these commercial fishers. What bothers them is that if aboriginals engage in the Native food fishery throughout the year, this will have an impact on the commercial fishery throughout the year. Can the Native food fishery licenses be restricted to the period of the commercial fisheries?

Second, can we limit the number of pounds that they fish during the year?

I will let you answer these first two questions, and then I may add another comment.

[English]

Mr. Bevan: Thank you. On a point of clarification, while the communal licence does permit up to 200 traps, their current level of fishing is 80 traps and they have certainly not caught anywhere near 5,000 pounds.

Under the Sparrow decision, we have a fiduciary obligation to allow the natives to fish for food and for social and ceremonial purposes. We also have an obligation to minimize the constraints upon that right. Therefore, we haven't issued a licence that has been overly restrictive. We have tried to ensure that conservation objectives are met. We have imposed conservation criteria within the licence and are ensuring that those are being adhered to. We are monitoring the landings, etc. to ensure that the minimum carapace size and the absence of buried females is being adhered to.

We have had an opportunity to explain the situation to the commercial fishers before issuing the licence to the Listuguj. We have tried to continue the dialogue between the two groups to try to find a way to reconcile the differences, and we are continuing that. There will be a meeting tomorrow to explore with the commercial fishers ways to mitigate the impact of the activities of the Listuguj in area 21B. So we are looking at ways to reconcile the two.

We have made a commitment to commercial fishers that when we are dealing with commercial aspirations from native communities we will not confiscate commercial activities - we will compensate them for those. This is slightly different in that the native community has a right to the fish in that area and we're going to have to try to work it out between the two groups. We are nowhere near finished with that particular issue right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Under the rule of law, when rights are recognized by the courts, we have to find ways of recognizing these rights. I am pleased that efforts are being made to reconcile the rights of all parties, because everyone's interests have to be taken into account. It is true that we are proceeding somewhat by way of hearsay. Restigouche is rather far from Ottawa. We may miss some things that are said during telephone conversations.

.1015

I want to be very sure I understood what you said. The complaints are coming from the commercial fishers of Quebec at the moment. I believe there is a difference between the size of the lobster fishers in Quebec and those in New Brunswick are allowed to land. That has an impact on the lobster traps that are used.

In the first place, given that the Micmac fishers from Restigouche are fishing in the Quebec zone, I would like efforts to be made to recommend that they abide by the same rules as the commercial fishers working in the same area. That ensure a truly level playing field.

I understood that the limit for the Micmac native food fishery licence was 300 pounds per person living on the reserve. If there were 2000 people living on the reserve, the limit would be 600,000 pounds. I will give you an opportunity to say that this isn't so, because this is an astronomical figure given the fact that the commercial fishers themselves only landed 30,000 pounds at the most. We have to reassure people.

Perhaps you cannot answer my question at the moment, but you can at least take note of it and think about it later. If it is really for food or ceremonial purposes that the Micmac fishers want to fish lobster all year, could you, in the interest of restoring harmony with the commercial fishers, tell them that their catches during the so-called commercial fishing period - because they will definitely catch more than they can eat during the period - must be treated according to the rules used by the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie. Those rules state that fishers may eat the lobster they are able to on that day, and that they must place the rest in an underwater trap and feed it until they go and get it. This might be a way of dealing with the problem. In any case, it is a suggestion.

What is the size of the lobsters and what size trap is used? Will the Quebec or New Brunswick standards be applied? This would put an end to the rumour going around to the effect that native fishers are allowed to catch up to 600,000 pounds. My question is easy. I hope you are able to answer it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bevan and then Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Bevan: The carapace size in the communal licence is the same carapace size that applies to the Quebec fishers. The escape mechanism is the same as in the fisheries regulations. Again, that's in the communal licence so the same standards apply. In the communal licence there is no catch limit set at this time. However, I can assure you there's no way the catch would exceed more than a few pounds per person on the Listuguj reserve. So the 300 pounds per head is not applicable in this situation.

This situation is still in the discussion stage. We have had to meet our fiduciary obligations and have done so through the issuance of the communal licence. However, we expect there are a number of discussions yet to come between ourselves and the Listuguj, ourselves and the commercial fishermen, and hopefully all three parties together, to try to resolve this issue.

It's something that is not final now at all. We're going to continue with the individuals and groups involved to try to come to an agreement that will be satisfactory to all parties.

.1020

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You said you went from 606 officers to 500 officers, and from 44 boats to 19. These are reductions in the field and obviously a reduction in the area they can cover handily. It certainly cuts down on their presence in the waters. I would, of course, consider these to be people in the field, and I'm wondering how many people there are in DFO who aren't in the field and if there have been similar reductions in the administrative staff.

Mr. Bevan: Just as a point of clarification, while we are going from 606 FTEs to 500 FTEs, I would expect that the presence of fishery officers in the field will actually be increased because we're removing from them all the office work they did in the past and we're increasing the funding for them to be operational in the field. So we expect to see a higher presence, and I think we have experience in that in some locations.

If you look at 1994 versus 1995 in British Columbia, for example, we were able to double the number of persons checked and double the number of patrols, etc., in the Fraser River without having to increase the number of fishery officers by more than a modest amount.

We have taken reductions in management. For example, in the national headquarters we've gone from 26 people down to 18. We don't have a large management cadre looking after this particular program - there are four executives looking after the program across the country. So it was fairly leaned-out before we started the cutting process.

Mr. Johnston: So by that count, there are now only 22 people employed at DFO in Ottawa.

Mr. Bevan: No, there's a total of 18 people looking after the conservation and protection directorate in Ottawa. There are five regions with a director in each of those regions. The smaller regions do not have executives - they have other classifications. There are small offices looking after the administration in each of those regions. It's a fairly leaned-out group. About 85% of the staff is in the field in uniform.

Mr. Johnston: The total budget has been reduced from $90 million to $60 million, and that includes all the people who work in Ottawa as well as all the people who are in the enforcement end and in the field.

Mr. Bevan: That's correct. It's $66 million.

Mr. Johnston: That will be all for now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Dromisky: I have quite a few questions, but I'll narrow them down to maybe two or three.

You talked about the redirecting of resources for effectiveness, such as the fleet merger and so forth. When I visited the east coast and the west coast, I discovered that the people on the east coast were complaining that the kind of ship you had on one coast should have been on the other coast. The ships on the Atlantic side were for deep water, although the waters were shallower there, and the people on the west coast wanted the deep-water vessels, which would be more appropriate there. Now you've cut the fleet down. Is that kind of problem being addressed? I'm just giving you feedback I got from captains and so forth.

Mr. Bevan: By merging the fleet, a large number of vessels is obviously coming into the equation from both DFO and the coast guard. The coast guard and ship managers have looked at the most suitable vessels in each area, maintained them and removed the least suitable vessels from service. So that's something that does have an impact on the remaining fleet and makes sure they are more suitable.

.1025

Mr. Dromisky: I visited the research departments and I was most impressed with the personnel and the kind of work they were doing. What impact are the budget cuts having on the research departments within Fisheries and Oceans?

Mr. Bevan: That's a science question. I'm unable to respond to that one.

Kathryn, can you respond to that one?

Ms Kathryn Bruce (Director, Fisheries Research Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Actually, at this point I'm unprepared to respond to that, but I would undertake to provide you with some response to your question in writing.

Mr. Dromisky: I would appreciate that.

I have another brief question. I'm wondering about the relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I have discovered there was practically a non-existent connection between the two. I visited both departments on both coasts regarding the kinds of concerns and problems they raised, about ocean dumping, ocean pollution, introduction of toxic materials into the ocean, and so forth. Can you tell me how you're going to improve that relationship between the two departments?

Mr. Bevan: Again, that's something that has been outside my area of competence, the enforcement arm of it. I can't really undertake to respond to that right now, but we could look at getting back to you on that.

Mr. Dromisky: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: I was wondering, Mr. Bevan, if you are looking at co-management of protection. A couple of years ago the fishermen in Tignish and Alberton collected $200 each to pay for a boat to go out on the line dividing the fall season and spring season lobster fisheries. They did this on their own initiative. It worked fairly well. In fact, I think the lobster populations were there last spring because of their efforts on the line to prevent poaching, overfishing, and fishing in a different season, that sort of thing.

Have you looked at getting together with fishermen's groups like that, groups that have a concern about...? Around Prince Edward Island, for example, if we don't have lobster.... That's the backbone of our fishery. If that goes, we don't really have a fishery any more. So they are very concerned about the stocks and poaching and protection of the stocks. Are you talking with the fishermen themselves about protecting their resource?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, we are. That's one of the reasons why we've gone to private sector services for a number of our surveillance.... In Newfoundland, for example, some of the conservation groups have helped fund river guardians. We've obviously worked with first nations on guardians through the AFS, but in addition to that we have some first nations that have helped fund fully trained native fishery officers. The Skeena River is an example of where we have received money from the bands. They in turn are able to get a fully qualified fishery officer hired and directed towards their community concerns. We've worked with sable fishermen, halibut fishermen, and other fishermen's groups on the west coast where they provide us with money in exchange for directed enforcement activities. We're prepared to enter into those agreements in a number of areas. Of course we're trying to encourage fishermen to take more responsibility and help us in the funding of things such as observers and dockside monitors, etc. So we are working together with fishermen and with groups that are conservation minded to increase an enforcement presence in areas of particular concern.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: I want to ask about vessel tracking and monitoring. Where is DFO right now in planning to implement a remote electronic monitoring system? This is something we've talked about over the last number of years.

Mr. Bevan: Right now we're working with private sector suppliers on who can have the capacity to provide that technology. We have a pilot project going in the NAFO regulatory area and in British Columbia. It uses satellite transponders to track the position of vessels. In addition, we're working in British Columbia with an electronic hail system, such that the catches are transmitted to us directly from the vessel using the satellite transponder data.

That whole issue is an option available to fleets. In the course of developing integrated fish management plans there are technologies on the shelf right now that can be used to help control fishing activities and monitor those fishing activities. It's something we would be encouraging fleets to consider as the integrated management plans are being developed.

.1030

Mr. Wells: Is the NAFO project you refer to the one requiring 35% of Canadian vessels to carry the satellite terminals?

Mr. Bevan: That's correct.

Mr. Wells: Is that going to be expanded from 35%? How long does that agreement run?

Mr. Bevan: That agreement runs to the end of 1997. At the NAFO meeting in St. John's in 1997 there will have to be discussions on where we go with the observer program and the satellite tracking program.

Mr. Wells: But that's an international agreement. What about domestically? Is there any thought to putting in some type of requirement, for example, in the scallop fleet in the east, where we've had some difficulties with vessels being accused, at least, of encroaching on others' territories? It seems to me the monitoring system could work in that fleet.

Mr. Bevan: It would work in that fleet if we were to impose it on the fleet. I think our intention was to try to work cooperatively with fleets in using that technology in a more positive way instead of requiring a vessel to put it on so we can ensure they don't encroach on someone else's territory, so to speak. We're trying to encourage people to put them on voluntarily in the context of their own fish management plans.

Mr. Wells: Has that been actively discussed? If we can take the two main fleets in particular, is it something that has been actively discussed?

Mr. Bevan: I think you can appreciate that one fleet would very keen on that and the other fleet might not be so keen on that one, in the context of the scallop fishery in southwest Nova Scotia.

Mr. Wells: What would the reason for that be?

Mr. Bevan: It would perhaps be perceived by.... Well, I shouldn't speculate on their behalf.

We haven't taken a decision that we would want to impose these technologies on any fleet. It's something that's available if they find it positive for their own fleet.

Mr. Wells: I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to impose it. I guess my question is whether it's being actively discussed as a positive thing or it's something being pushed on the back burner and we're saying we'll leave that.

Mr. Bevan: What we are trying to do right now is to work with the satellite transformer companies that set standards for their services. Then we'll be working with fish management and resource management people to ensure they understand that those services are available and they should be considered as an option for the fleet.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I will be very brief. I'm going to ask a question about the conflict between the commercial fishers and the Micmac fishers from Restigouche. It may seem hypothetical to you.

In order to settle the conflict between the lobster fishers and the Restigouche Micmacs, could the Department go so far as to offer to buy back a licence from one of the commercial fishers, since these fishers say that if a new player were to come on the scene, there would be one too many. All they want to know is whether things could go that far. As to the mechanics, would there be a draw? I don't know the answer?

I understood that there were some precedents in the department. Could you tell me about these precedents, so that we know what rate was negotiated elsewhere? What references are used to establish the market value of the licence in a way that is fair to both parties?

[English]

Mr. Bevan: It's difficult for me to comment on the Listuguj situation, since it a situation that's yet to be resolved. I can say, though, that in the department, and under the AFS program, there is a program where we do have funds available to purchase licences from the commercial sector and then provide that commercial opportunity to native communities.

.1035

Those programs are based on a voluntary sale and have been, for example in British Columbia, based on an auction process. The best value for the money would be the criteria used. Those licences and the capacity are then transferred under AFS agreements to native communities for commercial opportunities within the commercial fishery. But I can't speculate as to what will happen in the discussions that will be taking place with respect to the Listuguj.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Johnston is next.

Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To go back to what we talked about before, Mr. Bevan, you represent conservation and protection, Mr. Robichaud represents resource management, and Madame Bruce represents research. These are all very important things, and without them we don't have a fishery. When I was asking you about budgets and staffing and so forth, it came to me afterwards that perhaps you were talking about these three areas only.

Mr. Bevan: I was talking about conservation and protection only.

Mr. Johnston: How does that stack up against the DFO budget in its entirety? It seems to me that these areas we're talking about now - conservation, protection and resource management - should take priority. If we don't have a resource.... This is pretty basic. It should have priority.

Here's what I'm trying to get at. Do we have a whole bevy of bureaucrats here in Ottawa or somewhere else who have not felt the budget squeeze the way these departments have?

Mr. Bevan: I think it's fair to say that everybody has felt the budget squeeze, and in fact, the -

Mr. Johnston: But to this extent?

Mr. Bevan: In fact, the administration is being targeted higher than field operations are, but I can't really provide that detail.

Can you, Jacques?

Mr. Jacques Robichaud (Director General, Resource Management Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, as requested, the breakdown of various cuts per sector was already provided. I believe it was made available to the committee. You may not have had the chance to view it, but -

Mr. Johnston: No. I'm a newcomer.

Mr. Robichaud: Okay. The ratio for the various groups was provided. I don't have it here, but I know our department did provide it.

Mr. Johnston: Okay. I'd just like to make the point that conservation, research, and compliance are absolutely vital. I wanted to clarify whether or not these areas had been taking the brunt of the budget cuts or if the cuts had been spread around equally. I certainly will do some research on those documents. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dale.

We're not going to hear from Mr. Robichaud. We're going to hear from from Kathryn Bruce, who obviously knows a lot more about this topic and codfish than Mr. Robichaud does. We'll defer to you, Ms Bruce.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms Bruce: Yes, sir. I'll try to be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. However, there's a lot of material to cover.

I would now like to take you through a presentation on the status of the Atlantic groundfish. This presentation was given to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in June of this year and gives an overview of the scientific information on the state of about thirty groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada.

Some work has been done following that June presentation and further results have been provided to the FRCC. I will summarize those results at the end of this presentation. I would also like to give you a brief summary of the sentinel fishing program, the results to date, and where we are in the findings from the sentinel surveys.

.1040

First of all, I'd like to review a brief history. In front of us is a graph of the landings from 1981 to 1995. This covers Atlantic, Canadian and foreign catches.

Following the extension of fisheries jurisdiction in 1977, the stocks recovered rapidly. The catches rose at that time to about 800,000 tonnes in the early 1980s. They remained steady until about the mid-1980s. A gradual decline began in this period of time, and then there was a precipitous decline through to 1995. As we're all aware, this is probably the most dramatic and serious decline in the status of the groundfish that we've ever seen.

A number of factors contributed to these declines. There was no single explanation. At the top of the list, however, we do have domestic and foreign overfishing. In the years leading up to the fishery closures, many of the groundfish fisheries were taking one-half of the fish of the prime age groups. This represents a tremendous pressure on the fish stocks.

Second, there were poor fishing practices, such as dumping, discarding and highgrading. This resulted in large numbers of fish being killed but not contributing to the landings.

Third, there were unfavourable environmental conditions. The poor environmental conditions may have led to some increased natural mortality due to starvation during the winter. There has been an increase in mortality and during the same time there has also been an increase in predation.

Last year we released estimates with respect to the harp seal population. That population had increased to about 4.8 million. That was the estimated size in 1994. This population is eating substantial amounts of cod and other groundfish. The year prior to that we released results and estimates on the grey seal population. It was estimated that there were 144,000 of these seals in 1993. They were also increasing steadily at rates of 13% in the Scotian Shelf and 8% in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That population is now thought to be 175,000.

The increased harp seal hunt this year means that the harp seal population is probably still at 4.8 million and is probably still consuming large numbers of young cod and other commercial fish species.

The decline affected a wide range of species. The graph shows several stocks in decline. The green line shows 2J3KL cod. You can see the decline there, as you can with American plaice, 2J; Witch flounder, 2J; and non-commercial species such as eelpout, which had never been exposed to systematic fishing. The non-commercial species also displayed the same dramatic decline. Generally speaking, there's a systematic decline for all of them, with a high level in the mid-1980s and a low point in the early 1990s. So it's not just the prime species that have actually declined.

.1045

The decline affects Atlantic cod across the entire zone. Here we've taken four areas where Atlantic cod have supported important fisheries: 2J is off Labrador; 4TVn is the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence; 4VsW is the eastern Scotian Shelf; and 5Z is George's Bank.

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): Does this graph represent stock estimates or increased landings?

Ms Bruce: I'll explain that. These are showing declines in the stock estimates.

Mr. Wells: This goes only to 1992, four years ago. Just take George's Bank as an example. Where would that graph be if it were based on last year's...?

Ms Bruce: I'll follow these up through the talk.

In division 2J the cod decline started earlier and it was deeper. I just want to set a scene here for where the declines went.

By the time you get to 1992, the research vessel surveys have reached a point near zero. It was very low. For the southern gulf you also have a steep decline in the late 1980s, and it continued to 1992. The level of the stock, however, is not as low as in 2J.

In 4VsW we saw a decline beginning earlier. It reached about 20% of the high point of the 1980s. That's how far the decline went.

On the other hand, if you look at George's Bank, division 5Z, you don't see a systematic decline. This is a more southerly area. It's a very dynamic population. The fish in this population mature at age two. They grow very rapidly. Therefore they can respond to declines in a more dynamic fashion, more quickly.

The declines affected the growth rate of individual fish. This graph shows weight at age six for 2J3KL cod. We see a very systematic decline from the data, from approximately 2.5 kilograms in the late 1970s to less than 1.5 kilograms in 1992. This means there would be far more cod in a tonne of cod in 1992 than there had been in the late 1980s.

The picture for almost all the cod stocks is the same. The numbers vary a bit but the actual picture is widespread declines in growth rate throughout. There are so many pieces that come together here that it's very tough to bring out all aspects at once.

This graph shows the condition factor - the fatness of the fish - in division 2J for cod off Labrador. You can see that during the 1980s the condition factor was more or less constant through that period. In 1991 and 1992 it dipped to a low level. You should bear in mind that it's basically relating the weight of the fish to its length. When values drop below 0.7 - and there we have 0.7 - there is substantial risk to a fish that it will starve during the wintertime. That's the implication of that condition factor. If it's below 0.7, there's a really good chance that fish is going to starve through the winter. This may be partly what happened to northern cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The decline also affected the year class size; that is, the number of fish produced. This graph shows a number of young fish from our research vessel survey. So this is assessing the young fish in the surveys.

.1050

In the case of cod in division 2J, we're looking at three-year-old fish. After the early 1980s, the year classes were generally weak, with the exception of 1986. In 1986 we had a good year class, and that gave a spike to the three-year-olds that you see in 1989. The year classes subsequently became less abundant during the next years.

In the southern gulf, you see a fairly steady series of good year classes to the mid-1980s, and then a big decline in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

In the eastern Scotian Shelf there's some variation, with some good year classes until about 1984. Subsequent year classes have all been weak, and there hasn't been a good year class since the mid-1980s, essentially.

On the other hand, you can see George's Bank, and it doesn't show a pattern; it's up and down. The situation varies from year to year with no obvious trends. There are no trends we can observe at all.

Mr. Wells: This is based on strictly the DFO science vessels.

Ms Bruce: Yes.

Mr. Wells: There's no sentinel fishery at that point.

Ms Bruce: No, not at that point.

The Chairman: These would be landings....

Ms Bruce: Once again, the response to rapid declines in the Atlantic groundfish was extensive and dramatic, very dramatic.

We saw a series of fisheries closures to directed fishing, beginning with northern cod in 1992 and then extending across Atlantic Canada in subsequent years, to the point that in 1995 there were 23 closures. This is severe; this is dramatic. Only division 4X and George's Bank had no groundfish closures.

In addition to closing fisheries, measures were taken to improve fishing practices. There's a long list here of measures that were put in place:

Discarding was prohibited.

Conservation harvesting plans by fishermen proposed the best way of taking their available quotas without affecting the conservation of other species, and these conservation plans were instituted.

Protocol to avoid large numbers of small fish were put in place.

There was an expansion of dockside monitoring and observer programs. These have expanded, and both have improved the accuracy of reporting and compliance with regulations.

There have been increases in the mesh size and mandatory use of square mesh. These have made the trawl gear more selective, avoiding the catching of very small fish.

There has also been the introduction of.... Yes, sir.

Mr. Johnston: I'm sorry to interrupt. To prohibit discarding is one thing, but how do you enforce it?

Ms Bruce: I would ask Mr. Robichaud or Mr. Bevan to address that question.

Mr. Bevan: You have to use observer coverage and extrapolate from looking at what the observer sees, what the dockside monitor sees, and what is seen when you board the vessel, comparing the last haul to all the other data. You can't really do it on an individual, boat-by-boat basis. You have to deal with it on a fleet basis.

When you find there's discrepancy between what is being seen at dockside versus what the observer sees, versus what the fishery officer sees, you have to close the fishery until the situation is cleaned up.

Mr. Johnston: But with the number of people you have to do this, it seems impossible or next to impossible that you could monitor whether the fish are being discarded or not.

Mr. Bevan: You have to take a sample. You know what your dockside monitor sees; that's 100% coverage. You look at your 10% coverage and your observer, and you compare. If the observers are finding small fish and there's none when they get to the dockside in all the other boats, you have to assume they're being dumped and you have to take action to close the fishery. You can't do it on a boat-by-boat basis; you have to do it on a fleet basis.

Mr. Culbert: Mr. Chairman, will we have an opportunity following the presentation to clarify some of these points?

Ms Bruce: I'll go as fast as I can.

.1055

The Chairman: We have quite a way to go here yet, don't we?

Mr. Wells: Do you have copies of that document?

Ms Bruce: Yes, I have copies of the deck for all of you.

The improvement in the fishery practices hasn't always been on the initiative of DFO. The industry has initiated a number of programs itself, which have contributed greatly to conservation. We've instituted expanded sentinel survey programs in Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off the Scotian shelf.

In the sentinel surveys, commercial fishermen effectively carry out a research survey and report their results and observations to the departmental scientists. They put the information together to try to get a much more comprehensive view of what's going on scientifically.

This has brought the scientists and the fishermen much closer together in examining and assessing the groundfish resources.

Fishermen have also proposed several things such as time and area closures to protect nursery areas. They've proposed trip limits and in some instances more detailed extensive log book recording to provide scientific information.

A catch reporting system has also been put in place by fishermen in some of their fisheries to improve reporting of catches and landings. In addition to the sentinel surveys, in some instances where fisheries are still open, the fishing industry is carrying out scientific surveys at its own expense and providing information for the stock assessment process.

A number of factors, therefore, have contributed to the decline. I spoke about one of them and that's the unfavourable environmental conditions. You've already seen that. The declining water temperature at our monitoring station in northeast Newfoundland is shown on this graph. It's station 27. It shows a decline that's fairly steady, with some interruptions, from the 1960s to the very low point in the 1990s, with some return to normal in the last two years.

This recovery is good news. This change in environmental conditions is good news, but we cannot say at this point whether it's going to continue and bring us back to where we were around the 1980s or whether there will be another downward blip.

These graphs give another dimension to the environmental factor, which I think is very interesting. They deal with what's called the cold intermediate layer where the water temperature is below zero. Here we're looking at a line that extends from the coast to the edge of the Continental Shelf. There's an exaggerated scale difference here. This access represents only 300 metres of depth, whereas this represents somewhere from 120 to 150 miles, so bear that in mind.

If you look at the 1960s, which was the period of high productivity in the cod fishery in Newfoundland and elsewhere, you'll see that the cold water in the summer was quite limited and did not reach the bottom. The next graph shows the extent of the sub-zero waters in 1991, which was a very cold year. You can see the extensive cold water layer here. This is -1.5 degree temperature water, and it dips almost to the bottom in some areas. This represents very unfavourable conditions for cod.

On the other hand, if you look at the summer of July 1995, you can see that the cold intermediate layer is smaller again. Although it's not as small as it was in the mid-1960s, it is much smaller compared to the early 1990s. This, in 1995, represents improved environmental conditions for cod in Newfoundland.

.1100

While we have some improvement in the environmental conditions in Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is still cold. The following graph shows that the cold temperature still persists.

The CIL layer, cold intermediate layer, still covers a lot of the bottom in the southern gulf and reaches the bottom in quite a few areas in the northern gulf and in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This cold intermediate layer is now close to 1.0 degrees centigrade. This is unfavourable for cod in this area, and the improvement we're seeing in Newfoundland is not occurring throughout the entire area.

If we turn to the Scotian Shelf, we get a variable picture. Looking at Misaine Bank, which is at the eastern end of the Scotian Shelf, you can see it was fairly steady and relatively warm during the long period of time from the 1950s through to the 1980s. Then it fell to quite cold temperatures in the late 1980s and continued to be cold until 1995. When the temperatures dipped we started to see capelin in our research vessel surveys. The abundance of capelin in our surveys has steadily increased, to the point that there's an experimental fishery for capelin in that area now.

If you look at Lurcher Shoals, on the southwest part of Nova Scotia, it also showed a dip in the 1980s. If you look at the two red points, you can see a return toward normal in this area. The green line is smooth to show the trends, and the last two years are shown as individual points.

For Emerald Basin, which is a contrast, the temperatures have been above normal in recent years and the last two years have been warmer still. Emerald Basin receives water from the Scotian Shelf, so there's warm water from the slope that's influenced by the gulf stream, and this is the reason for those warming trends in the oceanographic conditions.

If you look at where we are now with all of this information, generally speaking you see that the cod declines have been arrested. We're looking at cod here. In the case of Labrador, it's about as low as it can go, so it's been arrested. In the northern gulf it's been pretty flat since about 1992, and in the eastern Scotian Shelf it's fairly flat as well. The decline seems to be over for the cod stocks.

On the other hand, in the Scotian Shelf area there are some real signs of recovery with respect to haddock, particularly in the southwest Nova Scotia area in division 4X. There you can see from the research survey data that it was declining and went up again after 1993. The reason why it's going upwards is because large numbers of small young haddock are appearing in the surveys we're making, and that's a good sign.

On the other hand, in the eastern Scotian Shelf the numbers are relatively stable for the fishable ages and we haven't seen the same kind of input of higher numbers of young fish.

Mr. Wells: What year class [Inaudible - Editor]

Ms Bruce: I'd have to check back on where that year class was coming from. We had a number of graphs, so I'll get back to you on that.

.1105

For flatfish, where fisheries have continued during this period, which goes up to 1994, you can see there is a fairly steady decline, which continues to the end of the graph.

I'll try to speed this up, Mr. Chairman, at this stage - I'm cognizant of the time here - rather than go through all these various species.

If we look at the decline that has ended - we're saying the decline has ended and a turnaround is in progress - then the question is what elements we need to have a real turnaround in a substantial recovery for our cod stocks. First of all, we need a reduction in the total mortality. That's necessary. The closures of the directed fisheries and the various other measures that have been taken have greatly reduced the mortality on Atlantic ground fish. Also, the improvement in condition in the cod stocks indicates they are no longer in danger of dying of starvation over the winter period. They're in better condition as they're going into the winter. Fish should become fatter then, and we're seeing that. The condition of cod has improved quite well in 1994 and 1995.

The growth rate should increase as well. That means the individual fish should grow faster. They should be larger, they should be heavier, and we're seeing that. There are signs cod are improving. They're still not back anywhere near the levels we saw in the early 1980s, to put it in relative perspective, or even the mid-1980s, but they're considerably better than they were in the early 1990s.

Therefore the adult cod should produce more and better young. The condition factor comes into play here. It's the fatter, heavier cod that produce more eggs and larvae than the thin and light cod. So we're seeing improvements in the spawning. The only problem is there are not many spawners. Therefore that improvement has to be weighed against that.

Finally, we should see an increase in recruitment, the numbers of young cod that are entering fishable ages, and that is not happening. That's the element we're missing at this stage. We are not seeing the signs of recruitment that would be indicative of a true recovery. It would naturally be the last thing to turn up. There are a series of things that go into place and then you start getting this factor coming in, the recruitment into the fishable ages. There is very little evidence of it except for the haddock in 4X, for instance, and some of the flatfish stocks as well.

If you look at the biomass - that is, the total live weight of the fish in the water - we have a long way to go. This is cod on the eastern Scotian Shelf. The closure of the fishery has meant the surviving cod are gaining in weight, which is bringing biomass up slowly, but it's nowhere near where we were in the 1980s. If you look at recruitment, the number of young cod entering the fishable ages, there's been no good year class since the mid- to late 1980s, and that's a problem.

If we look at the biological indicators again, focusing on cod, we see some improvement. This is weight at age. The weight at age for northern cod dipped down to a very low point, 2.5 pounds, 0.2 kilograms, in 1992, and stayed very low in 1993. It is coming back up again - we have indications of this - but it's nowhere near what we saw in the late 1970s.

If you look at the condition, the fatness of the cod, particularly in 2J, you see the same thing in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. It dips to very low levels and then it starts to recover and has now come into the range where it can be considered normal. This is the weight at age for these animals, these cod. That's a good sign. Things are returning to normal in regard to conditions.

.1110

Length at age is another way to look at how an individual fish is doing. For cod off Labrador, there was a steady decline during the 1980s to a very low point in 1992 and 1993, and then a recovery. The numbers of fish we're measuring here are very small, however, because we haven't seen a lot of fish at age six, and these are the age sixes we're dealing with here. In samples, either in the sentinel surveys or the research surveys, these fish have been absent, so we haven't been able to have many samples. We hope to improve on this. Nevertheless, from what we see from the samples we have been able to take, it is improving. This is the corresponding graph for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and shows this is not only happening in the 2J area.

If you look at recruitment, these are recruitments for various species in different areas. It has been very poor. The year classes were very poor in the 1990s for most areas. We're starting to see something in some areas. It's not clear for some species what is happening, and perhaps you could take a further look when you get your decks of these graphs. They're very difficult, and it would take quite some time to go through them at this point.

So where are we now? The good news is the environmental conditions are moderating, particularly in Newfoundland, though we have yet to see this in the gulf. But it is good news. Fish, in particular, are generally in better condition. They're fatter and they're growing better, though the stock levels remain low. We have not had the large numbers of young fish we need to build up the stocks and to help them recover from very low levels. There are very few signs of abundant young fish anywhere, except for haddock on the Scotian Shelf and some of the flatfish, as I said earlier.

So to sum up, I'll just quote from the stock status report released in June. I've provide the chairman with a copy of this great tome. It is a great volume with all the individual stock status reports.

Mr. Wells: Can we each have a copy of this?

Ms Bruce: You certainly can. It says that ``Although the declines have been arrested, the rebuilding of the groundfish stocks has only partially begun''.

That's basically the capsule of where we are in consideration of scientific information. The full volume can be supplied to you through the secretariat or the DFO regional office and it's also on Internet. All of these stock status reports can be accessed through DFO's Internet home page and you can actually download them.

The Chairman: A year ago, I think the information we received was that the stocks in the gulf seemed to be coming back quite nicely. We were told it was in Newfoundland where it would be 8 to 14 years before we would see any appreciable return of stocks. You've just given us the opposite. You're giving good news for Newfoundland and poor news for the gulf.

Ms Bruce: I suppose giving good news for the environmental changes -

The Chairman: I mean relatively speaking.

Ms Bruce: - is speaking relatively and refers to the environmental changes that occurred and the condition factor we're seeing in the fish.

May I just proceed to say what the new stock status information was, following June? Can I say what the sentinel survey information was, too?

The Chairman: Yes.

.1115

Ms Bruce: I think perhaps I will just bullet this information as quickly as I can.

The new survey information for St. Pierre, the 3PS area for cod, and the 1996 survey data indicate a continuing low biomass offshore. The sentinel signal survey data from 1995 suggest a good number of fish inshore.

The concern still exists that there is a continuing lack of good recruitment and a lack of older fish in the stock area. Care has to be taken with any consideration of reopening because of these factors.

Haddock and pollock fisheries have been opportunistic based on good recruitment. The last good recruitment was in the 1980s. There has been no sign of good recruitment in recent years. This is 3PS I'm speaking of. There are no prospects for significant increases in abundance in the near future.

With regard to plaice, the spawning biomass is the lowest in the time series. There has been poor recruitment throughout the 1990s.

I feel like I'm giving bad news all the time. It is dreadful. It's not my fault.

For cod in the Scotian Shelf and Bay of Fundy, 4X, the stock is increasing from low levels that were reached in the 1993-95 period, due to recruitment of the 1992 year class, which was very strong. However, recruitment following the 1990 two-year class appears to be quite poor, both in 1993 and 1994. So we have the peak from 1992, but there's nothing following in behind.

With respect to pollock on the Scotian Shelf, the stock is also increasing due to the 1989 year class. This is the second largest in the time series for that stock and that goes back to 1974. The time series began in 1973 or 1974.

For the northern Gulf, with respect to cod, there is a slight increase in abundance. It is likely due to growth of the 1987 and 1988 year classes. These year classes are followed by less abundant ones. This is probably what you were hearing last year - the results and spin-off from those 1987 and 1988 year classes in the northern gulf area.

The abundance index increased by about 40% between 1995 and 1996 for turbot. The mean catch per tow-in 1996 was the highest since 1990. That's consistent with what the fishermen are telling us. This information from the research surveys is consistent. They indicated good catches in 1996. There is also an increase in the number of juveniles, which haven't really been seen since the early 1990s.

For the southern gulf, the survey has just barely been completed. The analyses are being done right now and the assessment is being prepared. This information should be available later this month. It is not available at this time.

With respect to the sentinel survey, it appears the inshore cod stocks have increased everywhere from 1995 to 1996 except in the northern divisions of 3K and 2J. Notre Dame seems to be the area where it cuts off. The offshore components are also recovering much more slowly than the inshore. So it seems the increases we're seeing are in the southern area in the inshore areas.

The cod in general, however, are in good to excellent condition. This is being reported throughout the sentinel survey areas.

The sentinel fishers have recommended caution in interpreting their fishing success as an indication of stock recovery. We want to be cautious about this. They point out that the sentinel fishery is occurring in ideal conditions on the best fishing grounds and there's no competition. You have to be very cautious in using those results.

.1120

This is a thumbnail sketch of those. If there are any questions, Mr. Chairman....

The Chairman: Okay. I'm going to have to leave, Kathryn, but the vice-chair will take over. You can relax, take your time, and we'll ask as many questions as we can. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I have several questions, Ms. Bruce. I cannot help but notice that you tell us in your statement this morning that the decline seems to have stopped. You also showed which factors were required, in your view and that of your team, in order to be able to resume fishing. There was mention of the state of the biomass.

I am not a scientist. I cannot contradict what you said about what is going on there. However, I understand that a number of factors contributed to the decline of various stocks that were being fished and that each of them is picking up somewhat, though at a different speed.

We can't predict the future. In a previous meeting, we were shown a picture of cod fishing in different areas. We were told that a recovery would allow fishing in 10 to 14 years in the Newfoundland area and in five to seven years in the gulf. Unfortunately, I don't have those documents with me, but people will be asking questions about it.

From what you have told us today, we may have to find that document because we will need some data about the gulf and we will feel more and more pressure concerning your management and that of Mr. Robichaud. Soon, fishers will knock on our door and we will have to answer their questions.

[English]

Ms Bruce: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm aware that the FRCC has or will be receiving all of the scientific data and the data from the sentinel surveys. They also speak to fishermen and get information from fishermen. The FRCC will be making recommendations with regard to the ground fisheries for 1997.

I believe this information or the recommendations from the FRCC will be made available on October 22. This is the date I have heard. That incorporates the scientific data from DFO. Their recommendations make use of our data.

.1125

I would also like to re-emphasize that though we are indicating that the declines have been arrested and we're seeing signs of recovery in the condition, if I were to be asked to say how far along the continuum of recovery we have gone with these stocks and I were to consider it on an A to Z scale, with A being the very beginning of recovery, I would say we may be at B.

That may put it into perspective. I don't know if that's helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Ms. Bruce, you seem rather optimistic. On an A to Z scale, you say that you give a B rating under more favourable conditions. I would like that optimism translated in a recovery of cod stocks. It is the kind of answer that I would like to hear. We may think that things will get better, but we can't yet give a date.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Just by way of clarification, I think Mr. Bernier may have taken B as being like it is in school, as if it's pretty good. Maybe you can go from 1 to 26 and tell us where we are.

Ms Bruce: A was actually the worst, the bottom, and Z would have been the best. I'm sorry. Thank you for the clarification.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): I found it pretty depressing. I didn't understand why you found it encouraging.

Mr. Bernier: Because of school.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): That's right. They're going to have to change that analogy.

Ms Bruce: Yes, start with Z and go to A.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Mr. Bernier, any other questions?

Mr. Bernier: No. I'm at A now.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I'd like to thank you for this presentation. They always say a picture is worth a thousand words, and we hear so much verbiage it's nice to see it laid out like this. So I really commend you. I know a lot of work goes into these overheads and it really was very helpful.

I've been looking a bit at the situation of the seal population in the Atlantic provinces. I'd be interested in having you comment on your view of the impact of the seal population and the facts about the seals and their impact on fishing, and on what your recommendation would be, in a perfect world, to deal with that particular factor to the greatest benefit for the fishing industry. I know that's a tough one, but it's very germane to what we're talking about today.

Ms Bruce: I noted in my presentation that we had done estimates of the harp seal population and the grey seal populations in 1994 and 1993; grey seal in 1993, harp seal in 1994. We have also done work on consumption; that is, what are these seals eating, what age classes of fish are found in the stomach contents.

Consumption studies are far different from impact studies. To determine the impact this amount of consumption would have on a fish population, you have to consider a great number of aspects: the predator-prey relationships, all the balances -

Mrs. Ablonczy: The age of the fish -

Ms Bruce: The age of the fish that are being consumed and so on. We're cognizant that this is important.

In the 1980s a study was undertaken by ICES, which is the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. It addressed the issue of harp seal, capelin, and cod interactions to look at exactly this, what impact consumption might have. The results were inconclusive, because of the dynamics, the balances there are, and the changes in the various populations.

.1130

It is a very difficult thing to address. However, we are conducting at the present time a study to look at cod mortality, to look at how to compartmentalize or find out what components there are that relate to cod mortality. That study is ongoing. We don't have any results to date, but I expect there may be some and I would be pleased to get back to you as to a date when we might have some results from that study. That would go -

Mrs. Ablonczy: So once the results come in, the recommendations could follow.

Ms Bruce: We'll find out if there's sufficient information to address the impact issue, but at this stage it's not possible. What we have is consumption figures.

Mrs. Ablonczy: That's interesting.

I have one more question, if I have time, Mr. Chairman. In some ways, some members of Parliament - and I'm in that group - approach these from a lay perspective, of course, not being actively involved in the fishing industry. I'd be interested in your observations, getting to the bottom line. If there are one or two recommendations you would have on a global basis to get our fishing industry back to some kind of strength and viability, I know that's what Canadians, particularly Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, would be most interested in.

In a perfect world, if you were running the world and wanted to get this fishing industry back on a viable basis, what are the two or three most important recommendations you could make?

Ms Bruce: Of course, that's difficult for an analytical scientist. Perhaps Mr. Robichaud would be best placed to look at it, because he integrates all of the management issues and all of those interrelationships of what happens with the stocks and so on.

Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will take this one.

In any element of the fishery, any species, one of the first components we have to address and keep in the forefront is conservation, a sustainable fishery so that generations can profit from them. We must learn from past experience, and we must adjust for the future. As a matter of fact, I will cover, if I may, what steps we have undertaken in case FRCC provided recommendations to the minister and there were suggestions that fisheries could start in some areas.

We have to proceed in a different way than we have -

Mrs. Ablonczy: That's pretty clear.

Mr. Robichaud: - keeping conservation in focus.

I will leave with the committee a brief document we've used. Already we have started accompanying matching in tandem with the FRCC. We went to various consultations in the summer at which we presented what we call management criteria to reopen closed fisheries. They take into consideration a series of steps that will change the fishing approach. Conservation must be in the forefront.

The second one would be a fishery that becomes more self-reliant and more viable. That could be - it depends on the sector - a stakeholder who has the opportunity to not pursue or depend on one species only but have a mix of fisheries, if they so choose. It means as well maybe not as many pursuing the finite amount of the resource. So when we talk about viable or self-reliant, that's what we mean.

Those would be two examples of principles we should keep in the forefront. They are not the only ones, but you asked for a couple of them.

Mrs. Ablonczy: You're going to be giving us more specifics of those recommendations in a -

Mr. Robichaud: That's only pertaining to groundfish. I will leave that with the clerk, and he can make and distribute copies - that's a July document. We did a round. We talked with stakeholders, provincial representatives, and so on and put that on the table.

Kathryn indicated that on October 22 the minister will consider the FRCC report. We'll have our regional staff discussions by areas - such as Gulf, Scotia-Fundy and Newfoundland - and issues like that will be on the table.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Good. I think that will be very helpful. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1135

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Mr. Culbert.

Mr. Culbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was certainly a very informative presentation. I guess I should be very thankful I have a lot of fishers in that 4X area, from the perspective of haddock, anyway.

I want to touch on a few things, and I guess this deals a bit with everybody, because whether we like it or not we're all in it together. One complements the other.

First of all, I put a great deal of faith in what I call ``fisheries historians''. They are people who have been in the fishery for a multitude of years. They tell me, look, this is not a new phenomenon; I remember back in 1928 when the cod disappeared for eight or ten or fourteen years, or whatever the number of years was. They didn't really know the reason why, whether it was through food or it was through the temperature changes getting control. So this is not a new phenomenon that has been caused by certain activities, although I suspect that certainly complemented it.

First, I just want to know about the effects of foreign fleets, from your perspective. One of the causes, in your opinion, was overfishing by foreign fleets. Where are we with that? We know we've put in all kinds of controls, all kinds of ITQs and TACs and all kinds of quotas, and we've shut down fisheries of certain species altogether in our regions, but what's happening with the foreign fleet out there?

Mr. Bruce: Perhaps Dave Bevan, who is involved with NAFO, can deal with this.

Mr. Bevan: As you recall, a Canadian-EU agreement was reached after the discussions in March 1995, and that agreement brought into effect a number of additional control measures. Those were accepted by NAFO in the course of 1995 and are reflected in the current pilot project in place until the end of 1997. We'll see what discussions take place next year to determine what happens after 1997.

Those additional controls involve 100% observer coverage and additional consequences for vessels that are found to be in non-compliance, the particular vessels that have been found with infractions that are called major infringements. Those vessels then have to report back to their flag state for further inspections. It's a transparent process. The effect of that has been that there's been a dramatic drop in the number of vessels fishing groundfish in the NAFO regulatory area. Before there were over fifty. Now it's somewhere in the vicinity of ten to fifteen, depending on the circumstances.

So we have seen a major impact. We have seen that the last stock they were targeting on was turbot. In fact, the news from the Science Council is that turbot is in reasonable shape, is not declining, is in fact increasing in abundance. The proof being in those kinds of results, they would indicate that the offshore and foreign fleets are respecting the new rules and the new rules are effective.

Mr. Culbert: But it's not a high-value stock per se. Unless you look at volumes - you need volume -

Mr. Bevan: It's what is out there that remains. It would have been nice to have these conditions put in place and adhered to years ago, but we had to wait till 1995 to see them adopted. I believe they have been effective in curtailing cheating in the NAFO regulatory area.

Mr. Culbert: Just a couple more quick questions on the enforcement side of it. I know you touched on Mr. Johnston's question about controlling the quotas, and how you control them, and we all know that's the challenge, and it continues to be a challenge. We all hear stories about the high-grading.

I have a couple of questions about your scientific research. When there is a by-catch and that by-catch, or a certain portion of it, goes back into the water, can you give me a rough idea of the percentage that lives? I hear some fishermen tell me they all die. Somebody else, scientists, sometimes tell me they all live. Is it a 50-50 thing, in your opinion, or what have your findings been?

.1140

Ms Bruce: I can't actually say that categorically for any particular stock. It would vary from fish to fish and age to age. It's a very difficult question. It would depend on the time of year and the condition of the water when the fish goes back in. We really don't have a lot of data on their actual survival rates.

We have tried to minimize discarding because we don't want to see fish wasted. We want conservation of the stocks.

Mr. Culbert: I have a final question. Regarding enforcement, how do we deal with what I refer to as offloading? In other words, you have a quota for handlining or long-lining, for example...I hear stories about the trawlers or larger boats offloading onto the handlining and long-lining boats. Quite frankly, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, but nevertheless we hear those stories. It consequently means that their quota is used up very rapidly, which doesn't give the traditional handliner or long-liner the opportunity to experience any length of quota season at all.

Mr. Bevan: That is a difficult one to control. We do have air surveillance and night-time photographic capacity now, so if we encounter it we can take action against the vessels involved.

But as you said, we have to rely to a certain extent on peer pressure, because if people do that on a frequent basis the opportunity for that fleet is cut back. We hope their peers will help us in taking enforcement action so they can stop that kind of process that is so damaging to the smaller vessels.

Mr. Culbert: I have just one quick question, Mr. Chairman. In my region these are the actualities, or so I'm told.... I don't profess to be an expert. This is an industry I continue to learn about and I take a great deal of advice from the experts who have been in the industry many years. I am told that when something wrong is seen in the fishery, the patrol boat is notified, and with today's access to communications equipment, the minute that patrol boat leaves the dock everybody out there knows. So if there is something going on out there that shouldn't be, the boats are long dispersed before the patrol boat ever gets there. How do we meet that challenge?

Mr. Bevan: That's why we're using air surveillance technologies. We don't necessarily need to catch the guy with the boat. We can take the photographs and use them as evidence in court. As I mentioned earlier, this year we did introduce night-time photographic capacity. We can take clear pictures at night that identify the vessel - and perhaps even the individuals involved - even though it's moving at 200 knots. It's quite an amazing technology. We can use that in court to deal with some of these infractions.

Mr. Culbert: Is that available in all regions now?

Mr. Bevan: It's now available in all regions in Atlantic Canada, but not yet in British Columbia.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wells): Thank you very much. If there are no other questions, I'll thank the witnesses for being here. I expect we may see you again at some point.

Our next committee meeting is Tuesday at 9 a.m., with Justice officials. We will be discussing the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the aboriginal fishery. And hopefully on Thursday we're going to be discussing TAGS. That's still being negotiated.

We're adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page