Fisheries Committee on March 3rd, 2009

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

Mr. Chair, the ratification formula for an amended convention requires the support of three-quarters of the contracting parties, but should any one contracting party object prior to ratification of the three-quarter majority, the convention is not to be ratified; it's null and void. That's my understanding.

Could the witnesses tell us if any of the contracting parties are engaged in any discussions with Canada or with NAFO generally to revise quota shares, presumably in order to get their support? That's a general question.

Specifically, has Denmark, in respect to the Faroe Islands, put in an expectation of greater shrimp quotas--yes or no?

[David Bevan]

Do you mean linked to the convention ratification?

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

In any respect.

[David Bevan]

They are looking for more shrimp, yes. Is it being linked to the ratification or are they asking Canada to do something relevant to the ratification? No. We are still discussing it with them, trying to remove their objection, but--

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

They have placed an objection. Is that what you're saying?

[David Bevan]

That's correct. They have an objection based on their desire to have a larger shrimp quota.

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

Is this in relation to the convention itself?

[David Bevan]

Not to the convention; the convention is completely separate. It's under the old convention that they're doing that. In the new convention we could probably solve this problem by going to dispute settlement, but it doesn't exist.

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

The test of a reasonable person, though.... If they don't get their shrimp, they're not going to ratify this new convention, and it is sunk, correct?

[David Bevan]

They have not made that link, no.

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

Oh, I see. Well, I guess other people may have.

I'll turn my question over to....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions.

A minute ago you mentioned patrol vessels. We have two or three outside the 200 miles right now, is that correct?

[David Bevan]

That's correct. I think we have two now. The Cowley came in with a crew, and then the Cyngnus was able to make that inspection.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What about the EU? Do they have one patrol vessel?

[David Bevan]

That's correct.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

And then the United States--

[David Bevan]

No. The other one came from another contracting party, once while the Faroese were there. I've forgotten who.... At one point last summer we had five patrol vessels, and I can't remember if it was Russian or.... One was Russian, we believe--one Russian, one EU, and three Canadian.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

I guess we spend around $30 million on aerial surveillance a year outside the 200-mile limit. How much does the EU spend on air surveillance?

[David Bevan]

We are not spending that amount on aerial surveillance. That's more or less what it costs us for the whole package. The air surveillance would not be a huge part of that. It's significant, but it's not that amount. The EU does not have air surveillance because they don't have any place to base an airplane.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So we're doing the total air surveillance in the NAFO area?

[David Bevan]

That's right. Now, every vessel has VMS. We know where they all are based on VMS. The air surveillance is used to verify the VMS, to make sure nobody's turned it off or found a way to falsify it. More importantly, the air surveillance is to make sure we know what's going on there for security and for other reasons, and on the fishing side to make sure nobody shows up unannounced in the NAFO regulatory area and starts fishing without our knowledge of it.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So we're paying our share for doing this work in this particular area under NAFO?

[David Bevan]

Yes, and we also get 97.5% of the yellowtail; we have a large percentage of American plaice; and we will have the biggest share of northern cod, once it comes back, or if it comes back. So the benefits would accrue to Canada in the event we can get the control, keep the control, and rebuild the stocks.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Fair enough.

Since the new enforcement measures came out in 2006, how many citations have been issued by Canadian inspectors? And of those citations, how many were considered serious infringements? And I have the same question regarding the EU inspectors: how many citations did they issue and how many were serious?