Evidence of meeting #39 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
You mentioned the tools at your disposal. You talked about some of the results you have achieved, and, to use a maritime expression, I get the sense that the results are just the tip of the iceberg.
Do the results vis-à-vis infractions account for 10%, 20%, 30% or 50%? What percentage of infractions would you say is committed in that area, which is practically unlimited?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Conservation and Protection Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In the recent period—I guess we're talking about that timeframe from 2003 up to the present—we have seen a significant reduction in fishing effort, as I noted earlier, and we have also seen a general decline in the number of citations, albeit an increase in 2009, but only the same number of vessels. So in terms of a percentage, I'm not sure if I can, off the top of my head, figure out what the numbers are, but say, for example, I think the number of citations issued was 37 in 2002 or 2003 and that number is now down to eight, nine, or ten per year. So it's probably by two-thirds, about a 70% reduction in fishing effort.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, gentlemen, thank you for coming, and thank you for your service to the department and to the country, as well.
You indicated, in the section on the reduction of fishing vessel activity in the NRA, reduced rates of bycatch of moratorium species. Is it not also fair to say that some of that reduction may be because the species themselves have declined to a point where they aren't as bountiful as they were before? Besides just enforcement and keeping an eye on those we call the “pirates” out there, maybe some of that reduction has been because the species themselves aren't there.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Conservation and Protection Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There is a number of factors. I believe that a significant component of the reduced harvest of species on the moratorium list pertains to the enhanced program we now have in place. With the use of forensics to monitor locations and where vessels are and seasonality and so on, we have enough experience to know, almost, in a certain location what a vessel is probably catching.
In addition to that, obviously there has been a significant reduction in fishing effort, which would correspond to a reduction in catch by 70% over that timeframe.
There are individual species, yes, for which we obviously see availability. At the same time, we see a directional improvement in terms of the general abundance of a lot of species in the area in recent times.
In addition, I should also note--I'm not sure if I noted it earlier--that fishing gear is another component. For example, last year one of the measures adopted included the elimination of one of the particular chafers that could result in issues with bycatch. There are a number of factors.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
You indicated that there are 800 dedicated coast guard patrol vessels per day plus the at-sea inspections plus the daily air surveillance patrols. Right?
If you look at zone 1E and up, you indicated that a lot of that activity takes place near the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap. What percentage actually takes from area 1E and up?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Conservation and Protection Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Do you mean the area between Canada and Greenland?
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Yes, I mean that and all the way up to the top, where Ellesmere Island ends. You indicated that a lot of the surveillance is done around the Flemish Cap and the nose and tail. How much surveillance of the area, percentage-wise, is done in the far north?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Conservation and Protection Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll defer to my colleague. We do have air surveillance, especially with the Department of National Defence in the north, because of the capacity and the range. We have on occasion used smaller aircraft as well in the north.
We did, in 2008, send a patrol vessel, actually, to area 1F, which is south of the area you specifically referenced. We attempted to send a second patrol vessel up there, but all fishing activity ceased, so we changed strategy, if you will.
Percentage-wise, Randy, would you have any idea? It would be relatively low. I'm not sure.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Enforcement Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
My colleague Kevin has a coloured chart, unlike yours, so he has the NAFO regulatory area highlighted in orange, so it's easy to see. If you look at 1F, there is a little fish line going through. That would be the exclusive economic zone of Greenland. We wouldn't normally patrol in that area. We would get some hits on fishing vessels that may be fishing close to the line as we do our own domestic patrols. There are vessels that fish there, there's no doubt, up in the Davis Strait area.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the entire NAFO area, are you not allowed to have Canadian vessels patrolling those waters?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Enforcement Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No. This regime and the inspection regime applies only to the NAFO regulatory area.
5:25 p.m.
Director, Enforcement Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The regulatory area is the portion outside the exclusive economic zones of countries. In this case, it would be the orange portion, so it would be the area outside Canada's exclusive economic zone. Foreign inspectors cannot come into Canadian waters to inspect, and we can't go into somebody else's exclusive economic zone to inspect. Being Canadians, we can inspect our own zone in Canada, as Canadian fisheries inspectors. We would gather data and intelligence through our routine patrols if anybody was close to the line, even on the Greenland side, but generally we do not...not generally; we do not do inspections on vessels, period.
So when we say we're inspecting vessels in area 1F, it would be that section of 1F south of the exclusive economic zone of Greenland. And if they were to go into Greenland waters, we would not go in there to do an inspection.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, Peter frequently gets beeped.
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you for coming. Although, as you said, you don't have direct comments on the amendments to the convention, I do appreciate learning a little bit more about how NAFO works, particularly in the enforcement area.
Are there DFO fishery officers, and perhaps people with other job titles, who are assigned solely to NAFO inspection?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Conservation and Protection Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, we have such a unit. They're offshore, and of course they can conduct inspections inside the 200-mile limit as fishery officers. But their primary role is to patrol the NAFO regulatory area, with two dedicated platforms, two vessels, plus some additional days. Currently there are 23 fishery officers/NAFO inspectors assigned to that unit.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Do they receive any kind of special training for that role?
