Fisheries Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

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

Is it possible to get unedited copies of those reports? The reason I ask is that we asked for this prior to now, in previous committees, and we were unable to get them because of the so-called commercial agreements. Is it possible to get copies of those unedited reports?

I have another question for you. Right now under the proposed new amendments, if this treaty were passed right now, if we were out on the Flemish Cap and saw a Portuguese or Spanish vessel with 20,000 pounds of fish, say, that it wasn't supposed to have--correct me if I'm wrong--we note the violation, the ship goes back to its home port, and it's the home state that metes out any punishment for that. Am I correct?

What do we do to verify that there are indeed proper sanctions such as the licences being revoked and everything else? What do we do to ensure it? What's different in this one compared to the other one? What hasn't changed? Because in the old treaty, that thing happened as well.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Well, we can't write the laws for other countries, but I can tell you that the laws and penalties in some other countries are much stiffer than they are in Canada. We do follow up and ensure that the flag state does meet its obligations under NAFO.

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

If possible, can you give examples of that?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

We have many examples because we follow up with every single incident.

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

And the observer reports?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

We will follow up on that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

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

I have some salmon questions--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

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

I have two quick questions. If there's any time left, I'll turn it over to Mr. Weston.

Minister, would you say that through our involvement in a more effective NAFO, fisheries are being managed as sustainably outside our 200-mile limit as they are within our exclusive economic zone, or that at least we're moving in that direction?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I think it's very clear just by the numbers of serious violations that have happened over the last number of years. Since Canada was able to start its surveillance and monitoring of the area outside our 200-mile limit in the NAFO regulatory area, things have changed quite a bit.

We've talked a lot about custodial management here today. I just want to share with you the definition put forward by Premier Williams in 2005. Premier Williams said:

Canada should take custody over fishing grounds outside our 200-mile limit. Historical fishing rights would be fully established. However, our federal government would be responsible for the management and enforcement of that area, so offenders are identified and prosecuted in a manner which would effectively deter those parties from reckless, irresponsible fishing practices.

I believe this is exactly what has been accomplished. It's another reason why I believe we have achieved custodial management.

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

So your definition of custodial management would be having fisheries effectively managed and sustainably managed in the same way outside as they are inside.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

And they currently are.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

There are 10 seconds remaining.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Minister, thank you for being here. You remind us that we're here not just to promote politics, but also to protect poissons. We're straddling not just fish, but also sovereignty and conservation.

Isn't it true that there's no perfect treaty whereby we could both protect our sovereignty and not intrude in another nation's waters without having some reciprocal arrangement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston. I appreciate that.

I thank all the members for sticking to the timeframes in that last round. As the minister indicated when she entered the room, she had one hour.

I want to thank the minister today for taking the time to meet with the committee. We do appreciate it.

We look forward to having you back before our committee again. Thank you very much.

We'll take a five-minute recess before we resume.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call the meeting back to order.

As we discussed at our meeting on Tuesday, the second hour of our meeting today will be to deal with the motion that was put forward by Mr. Byrne, that motion being:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans report the following to the House:

Given the evidence heard by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans at hearings in March, May and October 2009, and the serious concerns recently expressed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada not ratify the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries adopted by the General Council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) in 2007, and that Canada notify NAFO of its objection to the amendment as per Article XXI of the Convention.

Is there discussion on the motion?

Mr. Kamp.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion. I do have some copies here if that would be helpful. Our side may have them already.

It is a pretty simple amendment. It is to replace the final clause, “and that Canada notify” with the following--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp, before you begin, can we have the amendment distributed to all members to simplify the process?

Do all members have the amendment at this time?

Mr. Kamp, you may proceed.

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

It is before you then to replace the final clause, beginning at “that Canada notify” and following with this clause:until the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has had an additional 21 sitting days to study the matter further and to report the results of that study to the House.

The amendment arose because I heard in the last meeting and in discussions with--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we in camera? Do we need to be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

No, we are not.

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

I heard comments made at that meeting that it would be nice to be able to consider this further and not feel we were under this time constraint of October 19, and I agreed with that. This seemed like a reasonable approach to take.

Mr. Blais, for example, was concerned that we could get a commitment from the government that we would not go ahead and ratify while this committee was still continuing to do its work, and as you heard in question period, the minister made that commitment, as she has made here today. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has made a similar commitment to us.

My expectation is that it will take fewer than the 21 sitting days, which takes us to about November 13, if I am right, but it seems there would be some additional study we could do to either get more comfort in the direction the government is proposing or to make a different recommendation to them.

That is my amendment, Mr. Chair.