I'm glad the honourable member raised this question. As I said, we are among many fishing countries in the world—besides Spain and Portugal, there are many others, in fact the majority of the fishing countries in the world—who will not support a ban on ocean dragging. When we finally reach the stage where a resolution is brought to the General Assembly, I think what you will find is that the resolution that is put forward will have consensus from most of the countries, and it will be along the lines of our resolution and certainly not others'.
You also mentioned that the United States is calling for a ban. That was certainly not the case. George Bush called for a ban, and that is not exactly what his people are saying around the table, or what they have come across with in the beginning.
Here are just a few notes. The United States position is misreported in the press—just for the record. We have been repeatedly assured by the U.S. that it is not supportive of a moratorium on bottom trawling. Their position is clearly stated in the memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce, released publicly. The U.S. is aiming to eliminate destructive fishing practices on vulnerable marine ecosystems, not bottom trawling altogether—that's exactly where we are—and they want to ensure that fishing is allowed to continue in the areas where it's not harmful.
We have said quite clearly that we're concerned about a technology that damages habitat, that damages ecosystems, that destroys coral. We abandoned, in fact, at NAFO this year, the dragging on seamounts under our control. There are also other areas—and I've heard some of the members around this table say this—where dragging does absolutely no damage.
Talk to Fishery Products International. They will tell you that they land more flatfish each year on the grounds that were dragged previously, because of the sandy, muddy bottoms. There are sandy, muddy bottoms everywhere in the ocean.
There are also areas that are sensitive, where we should not drag. The United States has used a phrase, “freeze the footprint”. That means, let us not go anywhere else with what could be harmful technology until we have the scientific basis to make a decision whether it would be damaging or not.
I as minister, and other ministers who are in the same boat as I am—you will find the majority of them representing fishing nations who don't have vested interests, by the way, around the world.... They will be in the same boat as we will be ourselves. While we must protect habitat and protect stock, our first priority is to protect our people.
I'm looking at Mr. Matthews' riding, for instance. If a ban comes to dragging.... You can argue that it's only a moratorium on the high seas. We know how it operates. It's the thin edge of the wedge. If it's bad outside, it's bad inside. I'm not a hypocrite, and I won't be one. We said that at NAFO. If we haven't got the guts to do it ourselves, why are we trying to impose it on somebody else?