Fisheries Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

For a foreign country to come within our 200-mile limit to fish, Canada would have to make the request. If it was through NAFO, Canada would have to make the request through NAFO. Canada would have to show up at NAFO and vote on this request, and Canada would actually have to license the ships coming into our waters.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is that how it exists today or under the proposed amendments to NAFO?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

That's how it would exist. What this does is clarify what exists. Article VI, paragraph 10, clarifies that NAFO could never impose itself on us.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So the amendment would actually strengthen our sovereignty.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

It is, and that's what I've said all along. It is strengthening what we currently have.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay.

Does this type of provision exist, when we're talking specifically about article VI, paragraph 10, in other RFMOs? If it does exist, how has it worked? What's been done, and what's the experience to date?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

This does exist in other RFMOs. Whether or not it has ever been used by those countries, I could not tell you, but there does not seem to be a problem with it if Canada accepts that no one can come into our 200-mile limit unless we ask for it. Other countries are signing on to the same amended conventions, and they're saying the same thing about their countries. So it is in other agreements that exist now.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

We understand, through your testimony here and through the testimony of department officials, particularly Mr. Balfour when he was here the other day...and he talked about the three keys, that fisheries management used to have a species-specific approach, and now we're going to more of an ecosystem approach, which is strengthening, obviously with our knowledge of science and so on, the ability to protect fish stocks. Obviously the dispute mechanism and the objection procedures to TACs are present, and the voting system is proposed to be strengthened to a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority.

My question is to you, Madam Minister. Those things would certainly be at risk if Canada did not sign on. Are there any other things that Canadians need to be aware of that would be at risk of being lost if Canada did not sign on to these amendments to NAFO?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I want to talk about moving to a two-thirds vote as opposed to a simple majority. For example, Canada's fish quotas on straddling stocks are set at NAFO. If for some reason other countries wanted more of a share of what Canada now has, it would be more difficult for them to open quota keys. So this in effect protects Canada's fish stocks and Canada's current fish quotas.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Could you elaborate more on the dispute settlement mechanism and exactly what kind of teeth can be applied there? Right now, obviously, it's very frustrating when countries that don't agree to TAC unilaterally change what they want to do and they go out and fish. That's very frustrating, especially when it comes to conservation of fish stocks.

I would like you to elaborate a little bit more on this whole dispute mechanism and how it's going to be implemented if ratification of these amendments happens, and how you see it being helpful.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

As you just said, currently what happens is if a contracting party files an objection with NAFO--for example, they don't believe they're being treated fairly when it comes to quota allocation--they just file an objection and then go out and fish anyway. These changes will allow for a mechanism whereby this overfishing can be stopped, so it will actually give some teeth to what can be done. If a panel, either the first ad hoc panel that looks at this or the second appeal panel, finds that for the contracting party, for some reason, this is all the quota that is allocated to them and they do not deserve any additional quota, if they are found to be fishing illegally they can be charged.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

We have about 10 minutes remaining. We don't have enough time for another round of questioning for you, so I'd like to take this opportunity to--

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I think we could probably do it. If each party were assigned three minutes, we'd fulfill the minister's commitment to us to round out the hour. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

If I could depend on you to stay within the three minutes for both questions and answers, it would be great.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Sure. Let's go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Actually, I would constrain it to two minutes per party. That way you would have two minutes for the question and answer when the buzzer goes.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Let's get started, and thanks again, Madam Minister.

Just for the benefit of the Conservatives, it's spelled out in the treaty here very clearly that there is a loss of Canadian sovereignty. What amazes all of us is that while Canada negotiated an opportunity for NAFO and the European Union to manage inside our waters, it never dawned on anybody to actually ask--for Canada to ask--for the ability to manage outside of the 200-mile limit. That's not in here.

Madam Minister, you said that Bob Applebaum is not a lawyer, that these bureaucrats don't have any knowledge of international law issues. Bob Applebaum is an internationally renowned lawyer with expertise in the Law of the Sea. I point that out to you, so perhaps you should pay more attention to him, because he is a lawyer and you respect and like lawyers.

With respect to the objection procedure, you said that's gone. You made the statement that that's no more. Well, Madam Minister, half of this document describes in detail how countries can still impose the objection procedure. Half of the articles in this document actually describe in detail how the right to unilaterally fish once an objection is filed still exists.

Half of this document outlines in detail that the objection procedure, the matter of resolving the objection procedure, will take up to four years. In fact, your colleagues around you will describe the circumstance surrounding the Gulf of Maine resolution, which DFO and the Government of Canada embarked upon, which took three years to resolve.

There is nothing in this treaty that produces a binding decision within the calendar year, the fishing season, in which an objection is raised. It takes six months to fish down this quota to nothing. That's the problem with this particular revised convention, and you can't deny it. The objection procedure is still here, and countries have the ability to fish unilaterally for as much as they want, right down to the last fish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you very much.

As to the amendments that we have seen, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied. We are going to discuss the issue this afternoon and we will hear from witnesses in due course. But, unless we are provided with facts that we have been unaware of until now, I have to say that we cannot be satisfied with what has been accomplished. I understand that you may be, but personally, I am not. I already had the opportunity to tell you why.

As for the grey seals issue, I would like to know what your intentions are. We must ensure that the people of the Magdalen Islands will be able to participate in this hunt, which takes place in October and in November, right now, in fact. If we wait, the seals will move out of the area.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Well, currently we are looking at a number of different options to deal with the exploding grey seal population. I've seen firsthand the devastation that grey seals can cause to all types of fishing gear, to all types of fish. We have made a commitment that we will be moving on trying to control the numbers of the grey seal population in Atlantic Canada. We are looking at a number of different options right now in trying to decide which is the best option, and of course, we have to take into account the cost.

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

Do you intend to get in touch with the people of the Magdalen Islands, so that there can be some action?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Yes. As I said earlier, this will be discussed with ministers from eastern Canada and from all across Canada next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Calkins, I wish to remind you that foreign vessels can fish in our 200-mile limit if they're under contract with Canadian companies. There have been incidents of ships like the Olga, which caught 49 metric tonnes of fish. I can tell you that story later on, if you like. It was quite interesting to see what we didn't do about that.

Madam Minister, you indicated four major fishing violations this year. We had Fisheries observers on board those vessels to inspect them. Am I correct?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Yes.