Translation of "MPO " (French → English) :

DFO Career Advisor

Department for Fisheries and Oceans | DFO [Abbr.]

myeloperoxidase

Eastern Partners Facility | EPF [Abbr.]

A Practical Guide for the Handling and Processing of Formal Harassment Complaints and Other Investigations in DFO

Question No. 128 Mr. Ryan Cleary: With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what programs does the Fish, Food and Allied Workers’ (FFAW) union administer for DFO; (b) does the FFAW have any contracts with DFO; (c) does the FFAW administer the Dockside Monitoring Program for DFO; (d) does the FFAW receive any money for administering this contract; (e) does the FFAW administer the Stewardship Fisheries for DFO; and (f) does the FFAW receive money for administering this contract?

...did this specifically include a fishermen’s breakwater and two groynes and, if so, what specific structures in Gabarus did these terms refer to; (b) has there been any mechanism other than the Transfer Of Duties Act by which DFO took over ownership or administration of any other federal properties or facilities in Gabarus since 1979; (c) from 1979 to present, have there been evaluations, assessments or reports or other similar documents commissioned or received by DFO concerning these properties, structures or facilities, specifically the Gabarus Seawall and, if so, (i) what are the reference numbers and titles of said studies or assessments or other relevant documents including the dates they were performed and when they were released ...[+++] to DFO, (ii) under whose signature and authority; (d) have properties, facilities or structures or assets, specifically, the Gabarus Seawall, in Gabarus been divested by DFO since 1979 and, if so, (i) what asset, (ii) when did divestiture take place, (iii) to whom, (iv) by what process, regulations or Act of Parliament was it allowed, specifying all reference numbers, titles of agreements and details of maps, or other such relevant documents concerning the transfer; (e) since 1979 have there been efforts by DFO to divest itself of properties, structures, assets or facilities, specifically the Gabarus Seawall in Gabarus that have been unsuccessful and, if so, (i) what asset, (ii) when, (iii) to whom were such offers made; (f) when did the harbour in Gabarus come under the administration of DFO's Small Craft Harbours Program; (g) when was the determination made under the Small Craft Harbours Program to designate Gabarus Harbour as a non-core fishing harbour; (h) what criteria were used to make this determination; (i) what were the criteria that would have applied on January 1, 2001 to qualify a harbour for either core or non-core status under DFO's Small Craft Harbours program and (i) were these criteria applied nationally, (ii) were they applied uniformly, (iii) were variations allowed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or harbour to harbour and, (iv) if so, what were the justifications for such variations; (j) was there any process provided for appeal of DFO's assignment of non-core status to a harbour; (k) was there any formal or informal provision included in the DFO Small Craft Harbours divestiture program allowing for a reconsideration of harbour status, if relevant harbour activities changed over time; (l) was one of the specific criteria applied to Gabarus Harbour for purposes of determining its designation as a non- ...

...in regard to this strain of the disease, more particularly what responsibility does the department by statute have in dealing with this disease when found in sea-base aquaculture operations; (g) what responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to prevent the possible transmission of this strain of disease from aquaculutre operations on the east coast to local wild fish stocks; (h) what action has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to ensure that this strain of the disease is not transmitted to wild fish stocks on the east coast; (i) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans succeeded in preventing the ...[+++] transmission of this strain of the disease to wild stocks on the east coast; (j) what research has the Department of Fisheries undertaken on the possible spread of this strain of the disease to wild stocks on the east coast, when will this research be completed and when will it be made available to the public; (k) what resources (money and personnel) has the Department of Fisheries spent in the control and prevention of this disease; (l) so as to prevent the transmission of this disease what research has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaken into alternatives to net pen salmon aquaculture; (m) are farmed Atlantic salmon on west coast susceptible to this disease; (n) has this disease found on the east coast yet been found in farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; (o) what responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to endure that the disease does not get tranferred to farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; (p) what action has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to ensure that the disease is not transferred to farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; (q) what special precautions is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaking to prevent transfer of the disease to the 214 wild coho runs on the west coast identified by the American Fisheries Society as being at high risk of extinction; and (r) is it possible to transfer the disease from farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast to local wild stocks and if so what wild salmon and other marine species are susceptible to this disease? ...

...eries and Oceans and the sport fishing lodges in 1995 to provide daily catch data to the department through the offices of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI): (a) catch by anglers from sport fishing lodges accounted for approximately what part or portion of the total chinook sport catch; (b) what was the nature of this arrangement; (c) when was this arrangement negotiated; (d) When did the arrangement become operational; (e) why was it necessary (the Fisheries Act requires the lodges to provide the data to the DFO directly); (f) were there problems in the fishery in 1995 that made it important to have accurate ...[+++]catch data on a daily or weekly basis; (g) what were the nature of these problems; (h) what management actions were undertaken to deal with these problems; (i) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries scientists find the catch data provided through SFI to be accurate, timely and useful; (j) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries managers find the catch data provided through SFI accurate, timely and useful; (k) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge M.V. Marabell; (l) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (m) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; (n) how did the data in (k) compare to what would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; (o) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge King Salmon Resort; (p) was the catch data in (o) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (q) was the catch data in (l) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; (r) how did the data in (o) compare to what would have been received if it had ...