26: OVJRVIIW 



annualls. loss direct governmcnl c\|X"iKiiturcs can be 

 c\pcctctl to he retliiccJ also; lor example, fewer tisher- 

 inen operating smaller more erticieiU Ikets can wi>rk 

 longer each year and thus depend less on public assist- 

 ance. 



Against these new revenues and savings, my pri>p«xsals 

 call tor increased expenditures lor certain purposes. 1 rec- 

 ommend a renewed enhancement program but on a 

 somewhat smaller scale than the present one, and with 

 part of the federal share to be collected from the commer- 

 cial and sport fisheries. The cost of the proposed inven- 

 tory of aquatic resources will be shared with the provin- 

 cial government. The federal government's contributions 

 to both of these programs should be less than its expendi- 

 tures under the current enhancement program. 



The fleet-reduction program calls for a federal contri- 

 bution of some $8 million annually for 10 years. I have 

 also proptwed strengthening some of the Department's 

 management and administrative capabilities, especially 

 the monitoring of stocks and catches, commercial licens- 

 ing, habitat management and enforcement. 



From the government's and taxpayers' financial point 

 of view, the balance appears favourable. Within a few 

 years, increased revenues will more than offset these 

 additional costs, and in the long term can reasonably be 

 expected to exceed, for the first time, the costs of manag- 

 ing the Pacific fisheries. 



Flexibility 



Fisheries policy must recognize the Pacific fisheries' 

 susceptibility to profound and unpredictable changes in 

 resource abundance, technology and markets. The failure 

 of past arrangements to accommodate change in an 

 orderly way has been exceedingly costly. Most conspicu- 

 ously, controls on fleet development have been 

 overwhelmed by sudden increases in the demand for 

 most fish in recent years, leaving all the major commer- 

 cial fleets grossly overexpanded. Moreover, the form of 

 fishing licences and the way they have been administered 

 leaves the government with little flexibility, so the prob- 

 lem is made more intractable. Throughout this report I 

 have been concerned to recommend licensing and other 

 arrangements that will be resilient to disturbances, pro- 

 vide the government with the flexibility needed to adjust 

 to changing conditions without disrupting explicit or 

 implied commitments, and ensure that it has the informa- 

 tion needed to anticipate changes. 



Administrative Simplicity 



A policy, no matter how well conceived, will succeed in 

 achieving its objectives only if it is effectively adminis- 

 tered and enforced. I examine the question of enforce- 

 ment in Chapter 16. This is a special problem for the 



fisheries because opporlunilies lo abuse lisli ami their 

 li.ibiiats are so profuse that adherence to (ishmg laws ami 

 regulations depend heavily on voluntary compliance and 

 cooperation. This essential suppt)rt is unilermined if vio- 

 lators are seen to be dealt with leniently. Although incen- 

 tives to violate the fishing laws and regulations have been 

 increasing, the enforcement effort has not kept pace and 

 needs to be strengthened. 



My proposals for strengthening the enforcement effort 

 include recruiting a specialized staff of fisheries enforce- 

 ment officers, who would be primarily responsible for 

 laying charges, collecting evidence and pursuing cases 

 through the courts. These responsibilities would be 

 largely separate from those of fishery officers, who are 

 concerned mainly with resource management. I also rec- 

 ommend strengthening prosecuting expertise, and a vari- 

 ety of other changes to modernize the legislation, to 

 stiffen fines and to more frequently suspend the fishing 

 privileges of offenders. 



Fisheries administration is heavily criticized by com- 

 mercial, sport and Indian fishermen and other groups 

 who deal with the Department. My investigation of the 

 Department's administrative system, summarized in 

 Chapter 19. reveals serious weaknesses, but not all can be 

 attributed to arrangements in the Pacific region. At the 

 root of many problems is the absence of a clear policy 

 framework and explicit objectives to guide administra- 

 tors. This results from obsolete legislation, regulations 

 that are more appropriate for other regions of Canada, 

 vague guidelines for dealing with important problems 

 such as the allocation of the catch among competing 

 groups, and divided responsibilities among federal, pro- 

 vincial and teiritorial departments and ministries. Other 

 difficulties arise from constraints on budgets and man- 

 power and a turmoil of reorganization in recent years. 



To rectify these deficiencies I propose separating from 

 the Department's resource management structure, the 

 important responsibilities for administering the commer- 

 cial licensing system and appeals; consolidating responsi- 

 bilities for habitat management and enforcement; coordi- 

 nating research: and changing certain lines of reporting. 

 My proposals include improved staflT training and the for- 

 mation of a much needed policy-development group 

 within the Department. I also identify other problems of 

 Departmental administration and financing, and recom- 

 mend a thorough budget and administrative review. In 

 general, the future policy for the Pacific fisheries needs to 

 make a clearer distinction between day-to-day adminis- 

 tration and high-level policy and planning. 



Over the decades, fisheries policy has become heavily 

 encrusted with restrictions and regulations governing 

 fishing privileges and the details of fishing. I recommend 

 that manv of these be relaxed or abolished altogether. 



