Fisheries Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

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

I would like to know what your level of involvement was in everything to do with the negotiations. How did you follow these negotiations? Were you given updates very regularly? If so, by whom and how? I can easily see that the minister would be interested in the negotiations that were going on over there. What kind of exchanges did you have with those who were participating in the negotiations?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

If the member is speaking about the amended convention, I had not been elected. That was back in 2007, well before my time.

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

From the moment work began on this issue, I assume you had the opportunity to look at the document, to work on the file. How did you go about that?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

The amended convention was negotiated at the NAFO meetings in 2007. After I became minister, we took this document to cabinet for approval.

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

How satisfied were you with what was achieved?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I'm very satisfied with what has been obtained in these negotiations. Take, for example, the issue of a contracting party being able to object. In the current system, if a country doesn't feel it has enough quota, it just says to NAFO, “I object. I don't feel I have enough quota, so I'm going out to unilaterally fish whatever I want to fish.” That is currently not seen as illegal fishing. With these changes to NAFO, that will all be changed and we'll be able to put a stop to countries unilaterally setting their quota. That's why it's important that we adopt this amended convention.

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

I will now move on to another subject.

We know what has happened in Europe with the seal hunt. A complaint was filed with the World Trade Organization. I have the feeling we will have to be proactive and show some leadership rather than simply dealing with the complaint at the WTO. Then we have our own opponents, the abolitionists, who are also very active on this issue. You saw them as I did. They are still spreading their lies and saying whatever they like. They are stirring things up.

What interests me at the moment is what the department, and you as its minister, intend to do on this issue. What are your very short-term intentions? Do you intend to organize a meeting to bring together the stakeholders—and I mean all stakeholders—so that we will finally have a strategic plan? We have to stop saying “let's wait and see“ as we have done for the last 30 years and show some leadership.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you. This has been a very difficult file because we are fighting a public relations battle all the time, and as you know, the latest public relations battle is a group that is going to try to start a boycott against Canadian seafood because we're seal hunters, which is unfortunate.

What we are doing is this. We are currently working with companies that process seals, and some of them are very interested in diversifying their product line, diversifying their markets. So we're working with them. We're also doing some public relations on the sealing industry. This is an issue that will be discussed with my provincial counterparts in the upcoming week. We're having federal-provincial meetings on Prince Edward Island. So we do have this issue on the agenda to discuss then, and there will be a way forward mapped out after discussion with them.

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

They are now calling for a boycott of maple syrup as well as of seafood. Who knows where it will stop? As you say in English, the sky is the limit. We need to take it seriously to a certain extent, even if we know very well that the boycott is not likely to be very successful. I take it very seriously, in fact, because they keep spreading lies all this time. The rabble-rousing will pass, but we on our side are failing to reach the people who are hearing that message.

What steps do you intend to take so that people in Europe as well as in the United States hear our reply to the abolitionists' message? They are saying that we are acting like barbarians and, if you can believe it, that the species is at risk. For all intents and purposes, their message is intended to put an end to the hunt.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

We will be working with our embassies, both here and in Europe. We'll be doing some public relations around that. If you look at the statistics from the boycott that they tried to get off the ground in the United States a few years back, you'll see they show that the amount of Canadian seafood being exported to the United States did not drop in the least. There actually was a company tasked with doing a review of the effect of this so-called boycott. It got the list of companies that were supposedly on the boycott list, who were supposed to be boycotting Canadian seafood, and it called every one of them on one-third of the list. Of that third, 51% of those companies didn't know they were on the list, and another 13%, I believe, were still purchasing Canadian seafood.

So the boycott was not effective, and I think that's in part because the world knows Canada has top-quality seafood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister and Monsieur Blais.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Minister, I thank you and your officials for coming today.

Minister, respectfully, I have complete disagreement with you and your department's view on custodial management. I just want to put that on the record.

Minister, you said that anybody who has differences of opinions or views--I'm paraphrasing now--is fear-mongering. I met with Mr. Applebaum, Mr. Rowat, Mr. Parsons, and Mr. Wiseman, former senior officials of the department you now manage--they've been in Newfoundland and they've been here--four very sober, very educated and very well-informed individuals, and not once have I ever heard them fear-monger on this issue. They have disagreed with the department and Canada's position on NAFO and the new convention, but I've never heard them fear-monger on this issue. I think it's unfair that a minister of the crown would quote them--although you didn't say it was them specifically--as fear-mongering. I find that is a rather unfortunate choice of words.

I want to go through one aspect of this and I want you to tell me whether these four wise and sober men are completely out to lunch or they're just not understanding it. Under the original convention, members can object to any management decisions without constraints. They can do the same thing under the proposed amendments.They can object without constraints. The requirement for an accompanying explanation is not a constraint, even if it results in overfishing.

With regard to objections, the proposed amendments continue to lack an effective dispute settlement process for the relevant fishing season, providing only, as indicated, a review process that takes place during the fishing season that cannot result in binding decisions that overrule objections. Is Mr. Applebaum wrong? I mean, the reality is that they've indicated many concerns.

The other question I have is that if Canada retains sovereignty over its 200-mile limit, which it does--no one is disagreeing with that--why is that provision about the possible allowance after a consent in the vote in the new NAFO arrangement? Who authorized that? Did Canada welcome that provision, or did the EU insist that provision be part of the new NAFO amendments?

Thank you.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I'll start with your last question first.

That clause is there because it was discussed at the table. It clarifies that NAFO could never impose itself on us but that if we asked NAFO to impose on us, then it could. For example, Greenland, which has a very small population, may not have the capacity to carry out research science, or whatever, and it may want NAFO to carry out science within its waters. That's why it is there. It's my understanding that the entire NAFO convention must be interpreted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees Canadian sovereignty.

I respect that these gentlemen have differing opinions, but I also know there was an independent lawyer brought to the Senate committee who did not agree with their opinions. They are ex-bureaucrats; however, they are not lawyers.

Now, on the process of the objection, if a state objects and says it does not have enough quota and it is going to fish anyway, that state can fish legally. The objection must come before an ad hoc panel, and if whatever that ad hoc panel decides is not to the satisfaction of the contracting party, this will go to UNFA for its binding objection process. While that is happening, the contracting party or the state that has objected must abide by the ruling by the ad hoc panel. So if that ad hoc panel found they were overfishing, then that becomes an illegal fishery and they could be charged.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, a couple of days ago we had the privilege of hearing from Mr. Balfour, who is here today. I would like some clarification. Mr. Balfour.

Could you please remind the committee what happened in 1995 at the United Nations to trigger the development? You mentioned there was an agreement in 1995 at the United Nations, which basically got us to the point where we agreed that the NAFO agreement wasn't working properly. I believe it was a UN convention on the preservation of fish stocks that spearheaded some of the changes we're seeing today. Is that not what you stated a couple of days ago?

[David Balfour, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you for that question.

I think what we were discussing was how the current NAFO convention we operate under was brought into effect in 1978, well before modern international fisheries instruments such as the UN Fisheries Agreement you referenced. That agreement brought great emphasis on the importance of an ecosystem-based approach to the management of fisheries, a precautionary approach to such management, and cooperation amongst parties on the high seas to the management and securing of conservation and sustainable use. That was indeed a driver for the modernization of the NAFO convention so that we would be able to bring effective tools into place in the management of the NAFO regulatory area, reflective of UNFA.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, I guess the point is being made that in 1995 the Government of Canada knew, through the United Nations agreements in place, that something had to happen. Through you, Mr. Chair, can the Minister of Fisheries let the committee know when action was actually taken on this? When did Canada actually get involved in pushing this agenda forward?

Just for clarification, we know now that in 1995 we had the agreement.

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

Well, it was a good try.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Byrne, I didn't interrupt you while you were speaking.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister, can she enlighten the committee as to when the government of the day, once we knew we had the United Nations agreement in 1995, actually started to put this process forward?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

The United Nations Fisheries Agreement was first ratified in 1999.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, but I'm talking about the time after the United Nations ratification process, Madam Minister, which was basically the impetus, as Mr. Balfour said, for changing the NAFO convention. When did Canada engage in changing the NAFO convention to have the new amendments put forward?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

That was in 2007.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So it was in 2007, or about 12 years afterwards and following a change of government. Well, thank you. That clears some things up.

Madam Minister, the opposition, particularly the opposition Liberals, have come out and said that basically Canada is giving up its sovereignty. They've beaten that drum for a little while and now they've changed their minds from beating that drum to talking about whether or not there's custodial management. Former Minister Thibault, when he was minister of fisheries and oceans, basically said there was no custodial management, that Canada had no effective custodial management.

I would like you to bring some clarification, if you could, to what Canada has the power to do through custodial management, as you see it.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

These amendments will strengthen the overall fisheries outside of our 200-mile limit. We continue to enforce our custodial management through enforcement measures. We do have two offshore patrol vessels, and sometimes we have three active. We do have air surveillance. We do require that observers be on those ships. We do have electronic reporting and monitoring, and we do have very good compliance.

So the fishing that's happening outside our 200-mile limit must comply with rules, and Canada does have the authority, as does any other NAFO country, to board and inspect the ships that are fishing there.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Can you explain to me, under the old convention as it exists today, the process by which a foreign country would go about asking to come in to fish in our waters? I understand that no other foreign country has ever come into the exclusive economic zone of Canada to fish, but could you explain to me by what mechanism they would go about asking? I'm sure they've asked.