Mr. Chairman and honourable members, my name is Frank Kwak, and on behalf of myself and my members I wish to express thanks for providing us with the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss this important issue.
In addition to serving as president of the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, I also serve as the chairman of the Upper Fraser Valley Sport Fishing Advisory Committee, which is part of the SFAB. I am also privileged to serve as a director of the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers, and the Sportfishing Defence Alliance. I also currently sit on the first nations fisheries dialogue sessions. Both the Fraser Valley Salmon Society and the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers are active members of the Sport Fishing Defence Alliance, and all these organizations have interest and concern in the issues that we are to discuss today.
With regard to enforcement on the Fraser in the Chilliwack area, first and foremost I wish to say to the members present that my experience with the DFO enforcement staff in that area has for the most part been very productive, and I have found the staff to be cooperative and professional. I have also found them to be frustrated at times at their inability to do the job they were hired and trained to do.
The fact is that for six or more years prior to the Williams review, and before some changes were made in 2005, the enforcement staff were being expressly directed to avoid any enforcement action against members of the Cheam Band, and by default they were therefore forced to avoid many actions against other bands. This lack of action was and is dictated by the fact that you cannot, under law, have selective enforcement of the law on an ongoing basis. Therefore if the Cheam were absolved of their prosecution, so then must be all other users.
The enforcement situation has improved following the Williams review, but it's still not satisfactory. In 2005 we had improved coverage in the Chilliwack area, with the infusion of enforcement staff from other parts of Canada and the Pacific region. While this was certainly an improvement over recent years, it still fell far short of what was and is required. For one thing, using temporary staff, particularly those unfamiliar with the area and issues, for a short time period on an ongoing basis is simply not productive or cost-effective.
Officers were brought in from all over who had no knowledge of the area or the issues, so the local staff ended up spending their time educating the new officers about the area and issues. By the time the new officers had a grasp of what they had do to, they had to return to their regular positions. This system continued throughout the summer. It looked good on paper, but was not very effective in the real operations.
I am told that for 2006 there has been a change in the system. Outside officers will be brought in for a minimum of three weeks, and the majority of officers will come from our region. It needs to be recognized that while this current plan will improve the situation somewhat in Chilliwack, it will raise havoc in other parts of our region. We submit that moving staff from other areas on a temporary basis is workable in dealing with short-term issues, but it is neither practical nor productive over the long term.
We understand that representatives from regional C&P recommended hiring retired fishery officers under contract for the summer, who are familiar with the area and the issues and live in the lower mainland, eliminating the need for payment for accommodation, meals, and familiarity training. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board also made a similar recommendation, and this would still be our strong recommendation.
Another major enforcement issue on the Fraser is the incredible number of ceremonial permits issued on an almost continuous basis by DFO in our area. I understand that there are more ceremonial permits issued from Hope to Mission than for all the rest of the first nations bands in the Pacific region. In 2006 DFO reached a special deal, a pilot project, with the Cheam Band, and is now allowing them to fish with drift nets for their food, social, and ceremonial fisheries five days a week. The only requirements are that they advise DFO 24 hours in advance of when they are going to fish for ceremonial purposes, keep nets out of the river two days a week, and fish to a number. However, who monitors 24 hours a day? Certainly not DFO.
The end result is that we have net fisheries--many now drift gillnets--going on in the river seven days a week. The public has no knowledge of what is legal and what is illegal, and often when we phone to check, the local enforcement staff has no knowledge of whether the permits were even issued.
Speaking personally, I can advise you that this system is most frustrating. People in the community tend to call me regarding fisheries, to see if they are legal or not. I have not been able to get the information from DFO on when and where these extended fisheries are taking place, so I cannot advise the public of the facts. The upshot is that they give up in frustration and no longer report illegal fisheries, as they cannot tell which is which. We thus lose an important enforcement tool on the river.
We would also remind members of the recommendation from the Williams review regarding enforcement to the effect that the people heading up this division should have an extensive enforcement background. The Pacific region still has no one with enforcement experience in the senior position in Ottawa heading up the conservation and protection division.
On a final note on enforcement, we would like to point out that having a never-ending supply of enforcement people is of little use if those apprehended are not facing some form of punishment when breaking the law. The simple fact is that under the current legal system, there is no real requirement for anyone to pay their imposed fine if they do not choose to do so.
We are informed that if the outstanding penalty is more than $100,000, Justice Canada will look into taking action to collect it, but for amounts less than this, they do not. Just this last February, one of my organizations, the SDA, was informed, as a result of a specific request, that there is currently in excess of $1 million in outstanding fines for offences committed in fisheries in the Pacific region. This amount is up from $500,000 reported in 2003, and has more than doubled in two years. The fines go back to 1994 and range from $100 to $20,000.
Simply put, it makes little sense to employ an enforcement staff who quite often put their lives on the line to locate, apprehend, and charge violators if the end result is that when the violators are convicted there is no real penalty. Respect for neither the law nor the resource is maintained under this type of system. We feel that we need to see a real commitment by the department and the government to a long-term enforcement program, one that is properly staffed, and a legal system that ensures those who broke the law will in fact see real punishment.
With regard to the gravel issue, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is critical, as an on-site witness to the gravel removal activity, that I give you some of my impressions as well. First and foremost, I would advise you that the issue currently at hand, and at hand at the time of the extraction of this gravel, was not the removal of the gravel itself but the impact of the construction of the causeway to allow the removal of the gravel.
I saw the water completely blocked off to the side channel from the construction of a dike across this arm of the river. I saw the water level decline by over three feet in depth, and for hundreds of feet many salmon reds were exposed and allowed to dry up. I saw the dead alevins and fry; they were not dead prior to the construction of the dike.
I have brought along some photographs, which I have given you, of what I saw and what really went on at this site. I can tell you also that I witnessed the river being three feet higher on the upstream side of the dike than on the downstream side.
Given these facts, I was truly disappointed when the area director for the lower Fraser River, Mr. Jim Wild, made a public statement to the effect that the dike had not reduced the water flow and caused the death of these alevins and fry. I cannot understand why Mr. Wild would and did make such statements. Those of us on site could clearly see, yet neither Mr. Wild nor anyone in DFO has yet to retract their claim that the dike did not cause the loss of these fish.
I must say also that I was upset when Mr. Wild stated publicly that people such as me and others in my organizations who are opposing the destruction of the salmon resource were doing so for racial reasons. He stated that our reason for such action was that we did not like the first nations.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, I wish to categorically tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. Our concern in this instance was due solely to our concern over the loss of those salmon and the fact that DFO was not carrying out its responsibilities properly. I would say also, on behalf of all those involved, that we have yet to receive an apology, never mind a public one, from either Mr. Wild or anyone else in DFO for the racist remarks Mr. Wild made as the area manager in DFO. We find this action, or lack of it, appalling.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would also like to say that in my experience with the Pacific region DFO staff, there is a host of very competent, dedicated, and committed individuals working in the field. I have to say, however, that their current leadership, particularly at the senior level--Vancouver headquarters and above--leaves much to be desired.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Hopefully I have added something to your understanding of the problems in British Columbia, especially as they relate to the lower Fraser River.
Thank you very much.