Fisheries Committee on March 20th, 2007

[David Bevan]

There was a process. The strategy was called the international fisheries and oceans governance strategy. That included a lot of additional time, certainly in the NAFO regulatory area, more fishery officers, and strategies to create the conditions for change by working in other fora such as the FAO and the UN General Assembly. Part of that process was also to consider the establishment of a fisheries ambassador for conservation.

So that was done some time ago, but it wasn't pursued at that point. Some discussions took place over a period of time on what the role should be, what kind of individual it should be, and so on. That then came to fruition at the end of last year and in early 2007.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Would the posting for that have been something internal, something the ministers and the departments, between Foreign Affairs and Fisheries, would do, or would it be something you'd advertise? For example, would you get a headhunter firm and look for particular individuals?

[David Bevan]

The latter wasn't done. There was a long debate between the departments and between ministers as to what kind of person it should be, and it was ultimately a decision by ministers.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Very good.

Mr. Sullivan, on the issue of the recent discussions at the UN General Assembly on the moratorium on bottom-dragging or trawling on the international high seas, you're correct to say that Canada, as far as I'm aware, does not do any international high seas work at all, if I'm not mistaken. You had indicated in your preamble here, “Many international fish stocks continue to decline”. You also indicated that the precautionary approach is something we should be taking not just within our waters, but internationally as well.

What is your viewpoint on an international moratorium—not an outright ban, but a moratorium—on bottom-trawling in international waters?

[Loyola Sullivan]

Mr. Stoffer, just to clarify, the point I indicated earlier was not that we don't fish on the high seas, outside our 200 exclusion. I said Canada's fishing is limited in comparison to other countries depending on it. I think that was the reference there.

I'm a strong believer in precaution in terms of quota-setting, the science, and the ecosystem debates approach, all of which are sensitive areas. In terms of bottom-trawling, there are numerous areas that may be so highly sensitive that there should be no bottom-trawling occurring. If that is the case and it's not practical, fishing would have to cease in those sensitive areas.

There are four areas identified now, I think, as being under review over the next three-year period, and there will be a report coming back there. I think those areas are called the New England seamount, the Newfoundland seamounts, the Corner Rise seamounts, and the Orphan Knoll. They're four critical areas that have been designated as sensitive, from looking at the scientific information, and they're going to do more research into those areas.

Overall, there are aspects that, particularly in line with...the resolution in the United Nations wasn't dealing with a banning; the resolution was dealing with something quite different from what was reported publicly through the media, through different ENGOs, and those particular areas.

On the resolution itself, we have to look at mitigating and minimizing any particular damage to those sensitive areas. If that damage can't be mitigated, there will be no fishing. There are ways to control fishing at certain times, fishing with certain types of gear, the selectivity, when, and where. All of these are factors when you look at making a decision.

The degree is a continuum. There's a continuum of marine-sensitive ecosystems out there. Some are at one end of the continuum and some are at the other. At various points on the continuum, I think you have to realize that your effort and what you do and what you use have to be in line with where it's to wind up on the continuum, and you have to do it in a responsible manner.

On your reference to the international, while we may not fish in other areas of the world, we have a very important role to play, as a world leader, in having responsible management within the RFMOs that we participate in within our own waters and in pushing other RFMOs that we're not a party to. In fact, we are a cooperating non-contracting party, for instance, to the IATTC, and there are other ones onto which we should push our responsible management, other areas and other RFMOs that we're not members of. That would be a goal and a role for Canada to play as a leader. That's an area I would be advocating as falling within my mandate as an ambassador of fisheries conservation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Kamp, a quick question, and then Mr. Calkins.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. We're pleased to have you here. And welcome to your position.

I have one question for you. You've already said that you are Canada's ambassador for fisheries and conservation, so I'm just wondering—Of course, Canada is more than just the east coast. We also have the west coast, where I'm from. Some significant international issues are coming up, and we've gone through, over the years, salmon wars with the United States, trying to come up with a salmon treaty there. I believe that's coming due one of these years.

I'm just wondering how familiar you are with those issues and how prepared you are to deal with them.

[Loyola Sullivan]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I'm certainly prepared to deal with any type of issue that comes up during my mandate.

With reference to B.C., I had an opportunity to have a meeting, at the request of the B.C. government, with their ADM and two of their other senior officials there to hear about their concerns. I'm familiar with some of the issues we deal with when it comes to the U.S. and other nations that border on our waters off British Columbia.

On December 31, 2008, five chapters in the Pacific Salmon Treaty are due to expire. I made some reference to that earlier in my comments. Things are progressing. We're very much on one page in the management of these particular areas, between the U.S. and Canada, and we're looking forward with optimism that this will be done in due course. If there's a need for me to play a role in doing that, or for dealing with people at a higher level on this issue—It's not possible to intervene in every matter, but we're hopeful that things will still move along and we will reach our goals and expectations.

British Columbia is a big contributor. In 2006 the value of seafood exports out of British Columbia was over $1 billion. It was almost $1 billion the year before. They were the number one exporter of seafood in Canada last year—ahead of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, in that order.

So the west coast is a very significant part of this country. There are issues there, not only with the U.S. but with others in the northern areas. We're partners there, in the North Pacific. In terms of the salmon stocks, the commission there is the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. We're also partners with the commission in the southern part of the Pacific, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, formed in the mid-1980s.

So in two particular RFMOs on that coast, we are direct members. We're very much tuned in with that.

When my schedule permits, I have committed to getting out to the west coast to be able to get some further input, particularly from the Government of British Columbia, on those particular issues.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Calkins, you have about two minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ambassador. My question is going to change the topic a little bit, moving away from the commercial fishing aspect of things.

You mentioned in your mandate some issues pertaining to promoting the seal harvest abroad and so on. I'm just wondering if any of your mandate includes anything to do with the sport fishing industry. There's quite a substantial sport fishing industry on particularly the west coast. I know there are some issues there as well that they're facing, and there are questions they would like to have answered.

Do you foresee anything in your mandate, whether it be through promotion or in your negotiations and international agreements, with regard to ensuring a strong and viable sport fishing industry?

[Loyola Sullivan]

The sport fishing industry I think would be a domestic issue. It would only become international to the extent that there was an impact on a stock from others fishing within a certain RFMO. My understanding is that sport fishing--you can certainly enlighten me on this--would be certainly within our exclusive economic zone and solely within our jurisdiction.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Keeping that in mind, when you're entering into negotiations and talking about precautionary approaches, about ecotourism, and about marine protected areas and so on, I know that's domestic, but certainly there will be pressure from outside forces for us to meet those obligations we have.

I'm just wondering if you could comment on what you foresee for these marine protected areas. When we come to ecotourism and so on, does that involve things like sport fishing? Would that be something you would be willing to consider, or does it exclude things like sport fishing? Are we talking about preservation or conservation when it comes to working out international agreements whereby we have to maintain our commitments to these marine protected areas?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I wouldn't want to comment, other than just to make a general comment about our areas.

There are significant areas within our exclusive economic zone where there are areas for protection. That's an issue I think would be more appropriately addressed within the department.

But areas outside the economic zone—on the high seas, in other words—would be one where I have a direct role in dealing with other countries. We have jurisdiction within our own exclusive area. We have the jurisdiction to manage and to do it responsibly. That is a domestic issue. It is something that Fisheries and Oceans would have to respond to.

I know Sable Island is one area. I think there are six other areas being looked at domestically. I am aware of that from my knowledge of the issue, but I wouldn't want to comment on these because they are not really within my mandate and I don't feel I should tread on areas that don't fall within my jurisdiction of responsibilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

We are going to go to Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome Ambassador Sullivan and the officials.

It is nice to see him here. I have every confidence he will bring his good work ethic to this position, as he's done with other positions in which he has performed in our province. I say that very sincerely and in a non-partisan way.

I want to go back to the custodial management comments that have been made and I guess fisheries management regimes and management systems. In your remarks and preamble, and then in answer to questions, you alluded to trying to get the same kind of management system or regime in place outside the 200 as we have inside.

I think for most of us who have waded in on the custodial management argument over the years, this is basically what we were pursuing. If we could get all contracting partners of NAFO to fish under the same system, especially one that was acceptable to Canada, then we pretty much would be where we wanted to be.

My question on that aspect of it all is this. Do you anticipate that if you can ever get the contracting partners to that point, where we have a system the same outside as we do inside, that they will share the cost of the system, or would Canada have to pick up most of the tab to get us there?

[Loyola Sullivan]

On the cost factor at NAFO, for example--and I am sure Mr. Bevan would be more enlightened than me on that—I am familiar with the shares that are being paid now. In regard to how you arrive at that, I wouldn't be able to tell you historically how they would be arrived at. But I'm drawing a conclusion that they would be in line with, first of all, our quotas to a certain extent. There are different areas in determining cost, I think. There is a certain amount divided equally. There is a percentage divided based on your quotas. I think there are three different ways by which it's broken down in costs.

As to how we are going in the future, I'm not sure whether it is on the table for discussion. I'm not aware at this time of how a new payment structure should occur. It is not an issue that I've discussed at this point. Mr. Bevan might be aware of that.

But on the general issue, before we get to that cost you made reference to, we would want fishing to be in NAFO to the same level of governance that we have inside. We have to start with areas that we are contracting parties to in our RFMOs. We have a vested interest not only by paying but by being members there to ensure that happens.

Then we have a responsibility to not only the ones who are not participating but to try to impress on other countries to adopt these responsible ones. That is where we are leading in developing a responsible RFMO that can be a model for others too. We can't just stop when we've satisfied ourselves that we've conquered it within one RFMO. We have an obligation I think to go further.

I will defer on any costs. I think there are three ways the cost is determined. Some are on an equal basis, some are on a percentage basis. I am not sure, if there are any discussions on when we get the ideal situation we want, if there is going to be a change in that. Is that what your question is?

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

No. Going back over this long debate, the thing about it is that coverage by observers has been an issue of concern for us all. We've argued with some of our contracting partners that coverage hasn't been adequate or sufficient, because in essence, I guess, they put the observers on their vessels. We've argued, really, that they should be ours, that all of the observers outside should be Canadian as well, because we trust our Canadian observers. I'm just wondering if, in all of these concerns, we are going to straighten that out, and if as a result we can move NAFO to a system similar to what we have inside. Will we be expected to pick up more of the tab or not?

I want to continue, because I know we're going to run out of time. You mentioned the objection procedure. We know what's happened in the past; a country could object to a quota and then go and fish and exceed what was recommended. You're now suggesting there be an independent group that will hear or scrutinize the objection.

My question on that end is, if a country objects to a science-based recommendation on quota and goes before an independent panel for review or judgment, will that country be allowed to fish while they're waiting for the hearing? If they do, then we're really back to square one. You know what I'm saying. Before, they could tell us to go you know where and go fish, and they could exceed what was recommended.

I'm just wondering if this independent group would stop-gap that. That's another question.

[Loyola Sullivan]

First of all, I don't think there is anything there to indicate that fishing must halt immediately until it's dealt with. There's a period of time when they could be fishing, but—

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

The problem I have with that, as you ought to know, is that they could exceed what's been scientifically recommended—

[Loyola Sullivan]

Yes, I understand where you're coming from.

I guess on the other side of that, what right could allow you to demand a halt for a period of time until it's resolved, when it's going through a process? You know, is it a case of guilty until a verdict is rendered, or are you innocent until a verdict is rendered? They're the questions you have to weigh.

Mr. Bevan, do you want to weigh in on that one too?

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I know I'm running out of time, but before you answer, I just want to say there is so much suspicion amongst all of us on all of this, it's hard to get us to buy into this when the end result may be the same. That's all I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

The only judgment I'm rendering, gentlemen, is that we are out of time. So you should be very quick.

[David Bevan]

Clearly, the track report of NAFO over the last 20 years would lead one to be suspicious. But the process that was agreed to last year was that you could object, and then you start a process. Now that process has timelines in it; therefore, by the time it's finished, there will be a relatively small window available to the objecting party to actually fish, because he must object after the meeting but before the fishing is allowed to start. The start of the fishing season in NAFO is January 1. So the whole process kicks in prior to the start of fishing, and it has a short enough timeline that the fishing can't proceed to any great extent while the process is under way, because it's short.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you for that information.