Which is presently the case with the dockside weighting program.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
9:45 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
Which is presently the case with the dockside weighting program.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Yes. Are you talking about the weighting program of landed catches? I know that the Auditor General carried out three audits of this program and has expressed her opinion. This program has been severely criticized precisely because it is too dependent upon the industry. What is your opinion?
9:45 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
I can only speak about the two regions I know well, Quebec and the Gulf. At the present time, the two main monitoring companies are completely controlled by the fishing industry.
I have read the same reports as you, Mr. Roy, and it is obvious that this relation creates problems affecting the credibility and even the integrity of the program.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Why do you think the department wants to change the program if it is effective? What are its reasons? It is certainly not a matter of savings since those would be at most 2 million dollars. If you change the program and by this action create 4 or 5 million dollars worth of new problems for the resource, there are in fact no savings. So, what are the reasons given by the Department for that decision?
In fact, the Department is going to transfer the costs to industry and that's all. However, I don't believe industry is going to accept very easily this new burden of significant costs.
9:45 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
I believe this reform project does not make any sense. Honestly, I cannot understand why the Department would do that.
We asked officials to give us explanations and their most frequent answer is that there would be a saving of 2 million dollars per year which would be part of the reduction of program expenditures at the federal level. Apart from that, they never gave us any good reason.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
This might mean that the resource in eastern Canada might be jeopardized for the sake of saving 2 million dollars per year. As Mr. Matthews said of while ago, it would be similar to what happens now in international waters. We will not be able to rely anymore on the At-sea Observer Program only because the government wants to save 2 million dollars on a huge territory covering the whole of eastern Canada and the Maritimes.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
You have one minute left, Mr. Roy, if you have another question.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Sir, thank you very much for coming.
Does Biorex have any interest at all in any fishing organizations, or is any aspect of your company involved in the fishing industry itself besides the observer...?
9:50 a.m.
NDP
9:50 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
Altogether, depending on the season, at the peak of the year we might have 110 employees.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
One of the concerns I have is that it appears, as my colleague Mr. Matthews said, that this is a watering down of the possible enforcement and that there may be the opportunity for a fishing company to hire someone who is an OC who may have come from their own company.
For example--and correct me if I'm wrong, if this cannot happen--a person works for a particular fishing company, he gets an OC licence, and that company then hires him or her to do an observer aspect on their particular ship. Is it possible that could happen?
9:50 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
From what I understand of the reform, I don't think so, because in the new system there will still be a third entity, called an observer provider company.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay, but what about the following scenario? A person was working for a fishing company, retires, quits or leaves, sets up an OC company, and then contracts back to a particular fishing company and says, “Okay, I no longer work for you, but I can provide observer service.” Is that possible?
9:50 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
Yes. That's what we're afraid of for our business and for the integrity of the program.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
In the pamphlet that you sent to us, in one of the paragraphs you talk about the fact that the lack of direct contractual obligations between the government and the OCs constitutes another problem. You're saying the government virtually loses its power to control the program. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
9:50 a.m.
President, Biorex Inc.
Once again, there's a parallel with the present situation with the dockside monitoring program. Right now, we work under a contract with DFO and all our work is aimed at responding directly in the best way we can to DFO needs, which are stated in general contract terms but also in seasonal requirements for each fishery. Once again, there are many changes to the requirements during the fishery.
The fishery is managed on a day-to-day basis and requirements change all the time. The hardest part of our work right now is to keep up with those changes, as the DFO provides us with new instructions about data-gathering procedures or deployment strategies, etc.
If the contractual link between the government, the DFO, and the companies is lost, as in the proposed reform, if I do have a contract with a fleet and the DFO comes and asks me to do some things that are not in my contract with the company, what do you think I'll say to the DFO? I think the answer is obvious.