Fisheries Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Kevin G. Anderson]

Morale is quite good. I think a significant component of morale pertains to the enhanced program that we have seen since 2004: the additional vessels and aircraft and so on, as well as some of the new measures we have achieved—such things as course and speed, for VMS information is very helpful to the way we do business. It is very complicated and requires quite an effort, being at sea on a continuous basis, to keep up to speed with all the measures to make sure that the program is operating effectively, but I would say morale is good.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Why won't the Department of Fisheries and Oceans release the at-sea observer reports? I think the department is creating a cloud around itself and participating in a conspiracy, in some people's minds, by not releasing these vital reports to allow us to see first-hand whether infractions are really on the decline or are in fact steady as she goes. Why won't the department release them?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

Speaking specifically to observer reports, commercial confidentiality is the reason we don't release them.

As to the nature of the improvement in the situation, there's a whole array of issues, opportunities, and tools at our disposal, including information on the number of vessels, the decline in fishing activity, obviously the role of observer. There is the role of inspectors and the increased inspection rate. We have maintained our number of inspections, although the number of vessels has declined quite significantly. We are on board very often--more often than in most other jurisdictions that I know of. In addition to observers, we have a significant number of resources at our disposal to monitor the compliance rate.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Why won't you release them in aggregate form? I don't necessarily accept the premise that commercial confidentiality applies to the high seas, especially when it comes to decisions of the United Nations and the Law of the Sea. Canada has a responsibility, in my opinion, to provide data and information as to what the management is. I don't see why it's confidential, but that's a point of argument.

Why don't you release them in a certified form in an aggregate way that does not show the individual catches of individual ships?

[Randy Jenkins]

Mr. Chair, it's tough even in the Canadian industry to talk about personal information. In this case we have third parties, other countries, collecting this information and providing it to the secretariat. In turn, the secretariat provides it to us. It's in a kind of confidence, in a trust mode, for the purposes of use in the NAFO regulatory area by inspectors and by the countries.

I can appreciate the suggestion in the query that it would be useful to read, but this is a question our ATIP or privacy people would have to advise us on. We do our utmost to work within the confines of the NAFO regulatory requirements and also within Canadian privacy laws.

Thank you.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Go ahead, Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have a couple of questions on the at-sea inspections.

You said you did 200 to 250 annually. That would mean you'd be boarding a vessel every day or day and a half. Is that fair to say? That number seems a bit high.

[Kevin G. Anderson]

We have a very high rate of inspection. For example, this year there were some vessels on which we did inspections two or three days apart. Some vessels are there longer than others and are inspected many times throughout the year. At any given time.... I think 51 different vessels to date in 2009 have fished in the NAFO regulatory area. The maximum on any given day was 22. We are now at 147 inspections so far this year. If you think about that purely on a vessel basis, it's about three inspections per vessel, but in actual fact some vessels were inspected 10 or 12 times, and others only once.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Your infringements chart shows that infringements bottomed in 2008, and it seems to be that they are increasing in 2009. Is that fair to say, going by your graph?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

Yes, we had eight different infringements in 2008 on seven different vessels, and we have had 12 infringements in 2009, again on seven vessels.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Were they the same seven?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

No, not the same seven.

I noted earlier the significance of things like capacity plans in some of these measures, so in recent times, up-to-date capacity plans have been one of the key components we're looking for, because it's so important to us in understanding what's actually on board. A number of those citations were issued for things like those types of administrative, if you will, infractions pertaining to capacity plans, stowage plans, and so on.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Explain to me what we're talking about here when we refer to serious infringements. Where does it go after you say you have a serious infringement, and how far does it carry on before you rectify the problem?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

Serious infringements as opposed to non-serious infringements emerged in NAFO's terminology probably about four or five years ago. Prior to that it was all one category. Serious infringements are outlined in the NAFO conservation enforcement measures specifically. They are things like misreporting of catch, misreporting of area, directing for species other than what you're authorized to fish for, and so on.

When an inspector believes there's an infraction, the process is to call the flag state and advise them that they now, as per the measures, have to come on board, and we'll follow up. If they're not there, they have to have the vessel returned to a port for follow-up. In most of the cases where serious citations have been issued.... For example, if it's the European Union, a vessel is in the area so the inspectors would come on board and do their thing. In all cases since 2006, they have confirmed what Canadian inspectors believed to be the case, and the vessel has been asked to go to port. Canada has requested and has been granted the opportunity to send our inspectors there when the vessel arrives. Usually it's one of the inspectors who was on board, plus some other person. Holds are sealed and so on during the transportation back to home port. Then there's the process of validation of what's on board.

Some of those cases have not been finished in the courts of their flag state, I should note, but we believe that in all cases the observations of the inspector have been validated.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What flag states are we talking about here? Is it one area in particular, or is it all of the European Union?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

In terms of serious citations issued in recent times, we have issued citations to European Union vessels and I believe a Russian vessel, as well.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

I have been a member for five years and have experienced very high levels of frustration during my political career.

You are fishery conservation officers. I would imagine that, as far as NAFO goes, your level of frustration is even higher than mine. If I look at the area you cover, the mission you are tasked with and the results achieved over the years, I would think that you are extremely frustrated with everything that is going on.

First, I need you to clarify something. I may not have done my homework as diligently as I should have, but in terms of the dockside observer program, who are the observers and who pays and appoints them?

[Randy Jenkins]

Each contracting party is responsible for placing the observers on board the vessels. That's not to say they can't make arrangements with other countries if they so please, but generally Canadian vessels carry Canadian observers, European vessels carry European observers--not necessarily from the same country, the flag state, but certainly from the same contracting party.

Now, there have been in the past some Scandinavian states--I believe Norway, and some of the Baltic states, before they entered into the European Union--that did contract Canadian observers simply as a matter of economics--it was cheaper--but by and large, the observer on board the vessel will be provided by the contracting party to which the vessel belongs.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Quite honestly, I was worried you would say that. How can we really trust them? That is just my personal opinion. I am sure you have yours.

We are considering amendments to a convention that governs your work. You have no choice but to come to terms with all this. There are changes announced—I was discussing them with other witnesses not that long ago—to the level of enforcement in terms of the legislation or agreements between the 13 countries.

As someone in charge of enforcing the law and the overarching principles, do you feel that these amendments will make your job easier, or will the situation stay the same?

If there are changes, what will they be? If not, what changes would you like to see?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

Thank you.

I noted earlier in the presentation that there are two pillars, or two elements, to the NAFO reform process, one being the convention itself and the other being the conservation and enforcement measures. The convention itself is kind of like that institutional framework or governance. The measures are the area where the regulations reside, if you will. It's this document. I and my colleague are co-chairs for Canada of the subcommittee at NAFO on STACTIC, which is the enforcement group, the people who write the measures and so on—sometimes, and at other times the commission is involved in writing them--so in that sense, the current or any future instruments. It is in fact the measures that become the instrument for addressing what the rules are and what the enforcement mechanisms are. As I noted earlier, since 2006 we have already achieved a number of measure changes, not the least of which, of course, is the recall provision, which has been very useful for the monitoring and control surveillance program.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

But are you able to answer in terms of the proposed NAFO amendments, or not?

[Kevin G. Anderson]

I cannot speak to the convention process—no, I cannot—but I can speak to the measures that are adopted pursuant to the process in STACTIC, and that is our instrument for putting measures in place for enforcement in the NAFO regulatory area.