Evidence of meeting #15 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wto.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
We have three minutes left, boys, so you can do what you like with it.
Go ahead, Gerry.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
I have a problem. My computers want to restart every 30 minutes.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
I want you to discuss a little bit about the subjective issues that could be open for interpretation by the WTO, specifically environmental concerns.
Take, for example, a circumstance whereby a body of scientific evidence exists, within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans here in Canada, alleging that the overall population health and the stock assessment is marginal or poor, but the Government of Canada decides to allow a commercial fishery on that stock. Notwithstanding the actual truth of the matter--the body of scientific evidence existing showing that the stock is marginal--could that decision be challenged by another country, especially one that participates in a transboundary fishery of the same stock?
9:45 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
Of course it could be challenged, and the technique of the draft text is to pass the buck to the international organizations. You have the FAO--and you know it's a technique we already find in the law of the sea to say the international norms of something like the FAO....
Of course Canada--
9:50 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
--could not decree in the absolute that the fishery stocks are not threatened. Everything Canada decides in this field must be confirmed, and there is even a peer review. For example, if Canada says that a stock is not threatened, it has to go through, for example, the FAO. There is a peer review there, and the peer review must say that they agree.
My answer to your question is of course it could be threatened, and every country--it's written clearly--could ask questions about the nature of the stock, and Canada must have a decision based on the international criteria and validated by the international environmental organizations, so for sure it's not arbitrary.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
So that would include not only transboundary stocks in which other countries have participated--
9:50 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
So that we conform to the criteria that are in the transboundary agreement on fish stocks....
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
What about exclusively domestic fisheries? Take, for example, sedentary species such as crab or scallop that are outside of the exclusive economic zone of Canada but are still considered the exclusive jurisdiction for management purposes of Canada. Say, for example, Canada were to allow a fishery to occur in such a species, and it does not directly impact on another country. Can another country actually challenge the right of Canada to allow the commercial fishery to take place on that fishery?
9:50 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
Yes. The criteria are not by the nature of the stock. It is where it takes place. So it could be sedentary.
The only leeway is for developing countries, for example, if it's inshore fishing, in the territorial sea. So here you have a leeway. So it's not the nature of the stock that is the criterion, it is where it takes place.
The fact that you fish in your EEZ, your exclusive economic zone, doesn't change anything through the prohibitions. For Canada, there could be something different. Every time in the agreement they speak about marine fishing, that means all fishing that is.... I don't know what it means for aboriginal people. If the fishing is in rivers, for example, or in the delta region, which are not in the sea, the disciplines don't apply here. They are not covered by the boxes.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
9:50 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
You have all the leeway. You can do everything here to help everybody you want.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Thank you, Mr. Bénitah, for some great information.
Mr. Blais.
February 28th, 2008 / 9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Good morning gentlemen. Thank you for coming this morning.
I would say, to use the words of my friend Mr. MacAulay, that the dreaded red box catastrophe perhaps just happened less than 24 hours ago, given that the Conservatives did nothing to support small craft harbours. They provided for no extra funding. That dreaded catastrophe affects small craft harbours and their infrastructure. As we have often said, those infrastructures are in such a poor state that, to use an image, they're like a leaky roof that is not being repaired. At one point that roof collapses and that is what is currently happening. Whether it be red boxes or the lack of measures on the part of our government, we are heading towards a catastrophe.
9:50 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
I would like to add another point in that context. It is clear in the text that you do not have the right to support port infrastructure where fishing is involved. However, if you are undertaking an overall renewal of a port and that project is not directly linked to assistance for fishers, then you have a certain amount of room to manoeuvre. So it is not a complete catastrophe.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
It is a dreaded catastrophe.
What you've just said shows that we truly are in a funnel. Negotiations on subsidy agreements have begun. The fact that fisheries are included in that process leaves one with the impression that we have gotten to the point of no return, and that is why I am using the image of a funnel. To get out of this situation we have to deal with it. That will mean finding areas we can intervene in so that in-shore fishing or mid-shore fishing are not affected.
I am not saying that in the current situation this is inevitable but the principle is. It is my impression that we are in a funnel that means that I, as a manager, will have to deal with the situation. As you just pointed out, this means that we are going to have to figure out how to prevent infrastructure from being in a category of prohibited subsidies. In the case of cod, for example, we could succeed in making people understand that this is not necessarily a threatened species. If it is threatened, then fishing it may be prohibited.
Does the principle I just raised reflect the situation?
9:55 a.m.
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I don't know. There is possibly a positive part to this that I see. When we talk about a disaster happening, that is a disaster to the fishing communities in the short term. In the long term, if we don't take the necessary action, the disaster is going to come to us anyway, and we've seen this happen in Newfoundland.
So one has to balance the fear of doing something now, because of the difficulties politically and economically, with the long-term survival of the resources and the communities that depend on the resources. So there is a positive side to this that—
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
But that debate is for another day. I would like you to give me an answer about the funnel principle. What you have just raised relates to another matter, namely, what caused the overfishing and how we can deal with it. I would like you to tell me about the current situation as it applies to the fishing subsidy agreements. I would like to know whether or not we are in a funnel from which there is no possible escape.
9:55 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
I would not want to create any false hope by inferring that you might be able to find some type of loophole, as is the case when it comes to taxation matters. Truth be told, it is, as you have described it, a funnel. The aim is to put an end to subsidies for fishermen. I don't believe that they intended to create a colander with loopholes in the rules. Much to the contrary, it seems very clear that their aim was to create a funnel.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Negotiations are all well and good. They are currently underway, and we don't know where they will lead us. If they use the funnel principle, then we will eventually find ourselves facing prohibited subsidies.
How would all of that work?
9:55 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
The principle is very simple and the question is very important. There may be a colander effect. In criminal law, the state keeps an eye on things and files complaints. The WTO, in its capacity as an organization, cannot act as an enforcer. As I see it, the police-type mechanisms will apply in two ways. The one that is of greatest concern would allow a country to file a complaint against Canada, for example, if it feels that the subsidies paid by Canada to its fishermen are potentially harmful. In that type of situation, a WTO tribunal called [Editor's Note: Inaudible] panel would be convened.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
That is similar to what happened with the softwood lumber agreement, for example.
9:55 a.m.
Professor, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual
That's correct, but there is another mechanism that we must not underestimate and which exerts more pressure at the social level. There is a subsidy committee which is not a tribunal but to which a country can indicate, for example, that Canada is doing something untoward. The country can ask the committee to take a look at what is happening. Of course, the subsidies committee has no enforcement powers, but it can take note of what some of the countries are saying. For example, the United States can turn to the committee to express its concerns about Canada's salmon policy and ask the committee to take a look and report back. So Canada will have to respond to some questions; it will be aware that it has been singled out and that it is being closely monitored. Nevertheless, the basic weapon is the official complaint that one country can make against another.
10 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I apologize, but we are running out of time. I would like to know if the seal hunt is included in this.