Fisheries Committee on March 20th, 2007

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But that needs to be improved. Would you agree?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I think we need to get those countries—And that's what I mean. I mean building cooperation, building this to encourage those countries to adopt the same levels of punishment or to give it a higher priority when in their states, when in their jurisdictions.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

And are you happy enough with the direction of NAFO to say that that will happen?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I'm never happy with anything until I see the final result.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

True.

[Loyola Sullivan]

I will say that I think it was a significant step forward. Bringing countries together and contracting parties to adhere to principles of conservation and proper management sets a tone. It sets a different atmosphere. It makes them responsible fishing nations. If we don't get some—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But some have not been responsible.

[Loyola Sullivan]

They haven't. That's why it's so important that we keep working on it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm trying to explore the idea of what tools we use to take these people to task.

[Loyola Sullivan]

First of all, the bigger picture, I guess, is the NAFO Convention. We have conservation enforcement measures that don't need changes to the convention. Overall, it is getting countries to agree to UNFA. There are now 65 countries that have signed on to UNFA, as of March 7. They're important in setting that. There are ways to control them: rule vessels out for fishing, deny access to port, deny market access for illegal products. Those types of things, I think, are impediments to pursuing illegal fishing.

IUU fishing in the NAFO area, for example, is not an issue anymore. Overfishing and IUU fishing are two separate entities. IUU would be overfishing, but it could be legalized overfishing, where you set your own quota if you disagree with it. If the objection procedure is brought in now, it would be agreed that they would have to go to a third independent party to indicate whether there's justification for ignoring the scientific advice.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

If Denmark said to you that they don't think they've overstepped their boundaries in getting more shrimp—which has happened—and they feel they deserve more and therefore will fish for more, through your position as ambassador, what action do you take?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I guess there's one aspect overall.

We're aware that the Faroese have been fishing in 3L shrimp in an amount that, as you've said, while it has been reduced, is still not down to a level that's within the quota based on scientific advice.

So we have to stress, number one, the importance of adherence—that's one aspect—by getting an objection mechanism in place so they do not have the sole power to unilaterally set that quota. They have to justify that in front of an independent party and put forward their case. If there's legitimacy to their case—that they got an unfair share in the beginning, that it should have been a higher amount, that we were conducting fishing in that area back in the nineties, whether it was experimental or what it was—and there are certain arguments, their issues must be resolved within the NAFO realm, not bilaterally. They wouldn't be resolved bilaterally. They're issues for NAFO to deal with and they're issues that our country, as a contracting party to that, would be pushing for a resolution of that issue—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

What if as a single nation we object—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Simms.

We'll go to Monsieur Blais.

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

Good morning, Mr. Sullivan.

We were very much looking forward to meeting with you today, but to be honest, we were also quite apprehensive. I don't really understand your mandate and how you will go about doing your job. I wouldn't want to see the ambassador for fisheries conservation block any concrete initiatives aimed at resolving international problems. I wouldn't want you to have to answer to the fact that progress isn't being made on some files, namely overfishing and the seal hunt. We'll come back to the seal hunt during the second round, since I don't think I'll have time to broach the subject during the first go-round.

You were appointed to this job only two months ago. New appointees are always given time to get up to speed, but you will have to get results and prove your mettle fairly quickly.

First of all, I'd like to know the name of your actual employer? Is it Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or Fisheries and Oceans?

[Loyola Sullivan]

Merci.

My position is 50-50 shared through Foreign Affairs and DFO. I report to both ministers through the respective deputy ministers on the position.

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

I'm far from being reassured by your answer. If a country with whom we are on good terms were to violate fishery laws, I get the feeling we would find ourselves in the same boat as we were a few years ago, that is we would hold off before fining or admonishing the transgressor for overfishing.

If in fact you have two employers, namely Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Fisheries and Oceans, I have a feeling that at some point, one might ask you to do one thing, and the other, the very opposite. At worst, you might end up doing nothing at all. That's why I'm very apprehensive.

You have a lot of work to do to bolster our confidence in a position of this nature. It's nothing personal, because you have a solid resume. However, as you so aptly stated, you're taking on this job at a time when one crisis seems to follow closely on the heels of another.

Since your appointment, have you met with anyone from Quebec? If so, with whom?

[Loyola Sullivan]

With reference to the first question, Mr. Chair, when I bring information and I deal with the international community, I speak with one voice for Canada. There are no two voices I speak with; Canada has to speak with one voice.

I would bring to that an emphasis that we have to be on the one page. In my past, referencing your preamble, any task I have taken on before—I have worked in probably three different careers. I spent 20 years in a classroom as a science teacher. I spent 20 years in the fishing industry and 15 in politics. I think I'd be safe in saying that I brought a commitment to those positions, and no one has ever doubted my commitment to doing the job ever before. I hope at the end of the day you could say the same about this position, and there will be only one voice in it.

I have not had an opportunity yet to meet with Quebec. I met, at their request, in Boston with the British Columbia government and their officials. I had a request from Nova Scotia to meet with them and I met with them at their request. I've met with both these provinces to date. They are the two requests I had, and I am open and prepared to meet with any and all provinces.

I think I'm here to represent the entire country in this job. I'm accessible and I am prepared to meet with anybody who wants to put forward a view to give me an understanding of the issues with their province and particularly how it impacts on international issues.

In particular in your province I know the sealing issue is one specific one. I know the value of Quebec in the export of seafood products there. It is significant. I think it is within the $400 million range, and that is very significant.

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

My colleague Mr. Asselin and I are interested in meeting with you to discuss our concerns and your work at greater length. We want to help you carry out your mandate by giving you a chance to meet with us. My schedule is very flexible.

My other question concerns your budget. You have two employers. Is your budget also shared equally by the two? What is in fact your budget?

[Loyola Sullivan]

The overall budget is $550,000, shared equally between both departments, Mr. Chair.

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

You have a budget of $550,000?

[Loyola Sullivan]

Yes, about $550,000. If you look at history, back in 1989, when the position was first instituted, there was a $3 million budget. The budget at that time, 18 years ago, had $3 million, but about $2.5 million of that was for advocacy. That was a part of the position at the time, but it is not the case now. When you take that off, the budget is roughly the same as it's been from 1989 to 1996.

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

Is travel also included in that $550,000 budget?

[Loyola Sullivan]

Yes, the budget includes my position, two staff positions, and all travels costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for that brief answer.

We're going to move on to Mr. Stoffer.