Fisheries Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Patrick McGuinness]

As you say, and as Mr. Chapman said, you have a document, whether it's the current document or the new document, that may be helpful, but the bottom line is that you will still need enforcement and inspection. And hopefully there will be cooperation with other countries in terms of their flag state responsibilities.

Another issue that has developed quite dramatically in international fisheries management is the emphasis on flag states' responsibilities with respect to what their vessels are doing on the high seas. This is a major issue, and there's a lot more pressure on countries such as Spain, Portugal, and hopefully China to respond to that now.

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

There has been a lot of talk about Mr. Applebaum's advice, and I listened to his remarks with keen interest. I also read what he wrote. In black and white, he says that there is absolutely nothing in the new texts or in the amendment you are asking us to ratify to suggest that enforcement will improve.

Therefore, we need to ask the people who took part in the negotiations to go back to the table and try again, because this is the crux of the problem. Pretty words are nice, but without any concrete enforcement measures, we run the risk of finding ourselves with the same problems and the same results, and ending up terribly disappointed.

[Bruce Chapman]

In my view, at least, there are two basic ways of looking at this. One is when people around a table like this one are making rules and regulations, quotas and sharing and measures, you have to ask yourself whether the proposed new convention helps that process or not. As we've determined and explained, the proposed new convention will help that decision-making process and solidify the shares.

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

In what way? Can you give a tangible example, please?

[Bruce Chapman]

Just in terms of a contracting party such as Denmark, for the Faroes and Greenland, they can now simply object to their quota share and establish unilaterally their own quota for shrimp that's five times what their quota would have been at the table. There is nothing in the existing convention that impedes that process. They simply object. They don't have to really state why they object. They don't have any accountability for objecting; they just do it and fish as they wish.

Under the new convention, they are required to explain in rational terms and register their reason for this. A dispute panel can be set up. The panel of experts goes through how legitimate the complaint is, and then it goes back to the fisheries commission with a recommendation. We now have a closed loop whereby, if they continue to ignore the fisheries commission advice, then they've put themselves into a quarter with respect to an international arbitration. So the countries are going to be a lot more careful in the future when they do that.

In addition to this, when the United States made a push under the existing convention to erode the Canadian share of yellowtail, all right, the 50% vote would make it easier for them to erode the Canadian share relative to a two-thirds vote requirement. So that is a strengthening of the convention at the table.

On the water, there's nothing in this convention, in my view, that's new or better or worse than the existing convention. You can't write conventions that will be good enough to change the attitudes of fishing captains on the water if they decide they're going to cheat. What's required in that is due diligence and vigilance in surveillance and enforcement. You cannot expect a piece of paper of any ilk to change what happens on the water, and that's why the policing action continues to be paramount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.

Mr. McGuinness, just to reiterate very quickly, who do you represent exactly? What type of companies?

[Patrick McGuinness]

The Fisheries Council of Canada is a national association. We have members in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nunavut. We're primarily oriented towards the processing sector, but we also represent the main integrated companies, if you will,

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

Which companies? Can you give a couple of examples just for the record?

[Patrick McGuinness]

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Ocean Choice International; in British Columbia, Canfisco; in Manitoba, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Sir, you stated here in your testimony that Parliament or the government should ratify the agreement. Am I correct?

[Patrick McGuinness]

Yes.

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

Mr. Applebaum and the three other gentlemen, who have about 90 years of experience between them within senior levels of DFO, I think, said not to ratify it. So somebody's right and somebody's wrong. Are you able to say on the record right now whether these fine gentlemen are wrong or right in their objections? They can't be both, and you can't be both either, so....

[Patrick McGuinness]

Basically they're wrong in--

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

Okay. No, no, that's just it, because we can get into a long argument as to why they're wrong, but if your testament is that they're wrong, that's fine. That's an opinion and it's yours, and it's good to state that, because that way we don't have to fool around mincing words here.

You also indicated—and I just say this as a sidebar to it—that you're concerned about the sustainability of the fish resource, not necessarily the safety aspect of it. I'm just paraphrasing you now. Surely your council would have serious concerns regarding mercury levels of tuna and swordfish, in those regards, I would assume, because those are serious safety issues for consumers throughout the world, right? I just wanted to give you a chance to correct that. You obviously would have concerns about those levels as well, wouldn't you?

[Patrick McGuinness]

In terms of fish and seafood, we say that Canada has a leading position on food safety.

The mercury issue is controversial because certain fish have developed elevated levels of mercury naturally. But the science is out, and as far as the products that are in the world market are concerned, some species have higher levels of mercury. Canada and other nations identify that. Nevertheless, the science says that in order to cause any real health hazard the level of mercury would have to be 10 times the level seen in fish in the marketplace.

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

You indicated that you act in an advisory role to the people negotiating on behalf of Canada for NAFO. Do you actually go over there with them when you do that?

[Patrick McGuinness]

In more recent years the Fisheries Council of Canada has expanded. We have associations, such as GEAC and CAPP, that are more directly involved with the companies that fish the NAFO stocks--such as Mr. Chapman. They participate directly in the meetings. I attend NAFO meetings if they're held in Canada--for example, in Dartmouth.

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

Mr. Chapman, do you attend those meetings overseas when they have them?

[Bruce Chapman]

I go to virtually all of them.

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

Are you invited as a guest of the government, or do you go at your own association's expense?

[Bruce Chapman]

We pay our own expenses.

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

Very good. Thank you.

The minister indicated the battle over the terminology of custodial management. The former minister said that NAFO was broken, and that's why when he was in opposition he indicated custodial management for the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The current minister has indicated that we have custodial management within NAFO now. Is that a fair assessment? My determination of custodial management may be different from the minister's, but I'd like to get your view on custodial management,

[Bruce Chapman]

I won't speak about what the minister said or didn't say, but we've seen in the past that NAFO has been broken through different things that have happened. If you look at what is currently happening and has been happening for the last several years and what is on the cards around the table right now, you have total allowable catch decisions that are consistent with the position the Government of Canada has adopted. So in virtually all cases on straddling stocks, and in most cases even on the Flemish Cap, which are not straddling stocks—they're distinct stocks—the NAFO decision has mirrored the Canadian government position. In addition to that, two or three Canadian patrol vessels in the NAFO regulatory area have had very effective surveillance and control capabilities, in the last several years at least.

As it stands today, at both the NAFO table and on the water in control and surveillance, you probably couldn't distinguish any difference. If we had custodial management where we were totally making all the decisions ourselves rather than having a multilateral table, there probably wouldn't be much difference today. The question is about the future. The extent to which there will continue to be agreement at the NAFO table with the other countries is unknown.

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

Thank you.