Fisheries Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[David Bevan]

I don't think I have those data. I know that the measures came into place in 2007. From 2005, the total citations were 29 in 2005, 21 in 2006, 11 in 2007, and 8 in 2008.

I would point out as well that we have a lot more rules than we did. Over that period of time, we made more rules, so there's more opportunity for people to be in non-compliance. Stowage plans were introduced, and all sorts of other things, including labelling requirements. So there are more rules to be in non-compliance with.

On the more serious infringements, the more traditional misreporting, and those kinds of thing, which have always taken place, we had thirteen in 2005, seven in 2006, one in 2007, and zero in 2008.

Now, the Spanish have indicated to us that in their port inspections in 2007, they found a number of non-compliant vessels. Their fines on those vessels were between 200,000 and 300,000 euros. That was in addition to what we found. But in 2008 the compliance as a result of those actions was very good.

As I noted, we had two citations against a Spanish vessel last week. They were deemed to be serious infringements, but the Spanish government felt they were indicative of action that would have been a serious infringement and therefore hauled the vessel back.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Pardon me for leaving the meeting for a few minutes.

This document, have you already begun negotiations on it, or is it only a proposal that we are planning to negotiate?

[David Bevan]

No. We have negotiated a new NAFO Convention.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

That is it?

[David Bevan]

No, that is not it; it is another document. It is available on the NAFO Website. This document looks like it. It is something that we negotiated two years back.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

There was a report, at one point in time, according to which for Canada was to spend $30 million, I believe to monitor the territory beyond the 200-mile-limit. Is that still in effect?

[David Bevan]

Yes. It costs approximately $30 million. That represents the expenditures of the Government of Canada in order to be certain that we are in compliance with the regulations and that we can project and establish the catch.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Very well. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you once again.

Mr. Bevan, on page 8 of your deck you state that “In cases of serious misreporting under certain circumstances, flag state contracting party must direct the vessel....” Can you give us examples of what are defined as “certain circumstances”?

[David Bevan]

The “certain circumstances” are clear. They include misreporting of a catch, and fishing directly for species subject to moratoriums. Those are two clear ones.

There are also provisions for those doing “directed fishing for stocks or species after the date on which the contracted party for the inspected vessel has notified the executive secretary....” So once you've caught your quota and you keep fishing, that's another one.

Fishing in a closed area or using gear prohibited in a specific area is another issue that would result in that.

Others are mesh size violations; fishing without valid authority, or having no licence; misreporting of catches; interference with satellite or VMS, so if you don't have your VMS on, that's another reason to be removed; catch communication violations, essentially the same thing as misreporting; and preventing inspectors or observers from carrying out their duties.

There are also provisions in the event that vessels are repeating offences, for which they could be removed.

So it's pretty comprehensive, and it gets at the major behaviours that can impact on stock conservation.

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

Sir, I know the answer, but just to put it on the record, can a Canadian Coast Guard vessel board a foreign trawler in NAFO waters?

[David Bevan]

That's correct.

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

Would the Canadian Coast Guard vessel know beforehand who the captain and the crew are onboard those vessels?

[David Bevan]

Generally they'd have an idea of the captain. Obviously these vessels have been in the NAFO regulatory area for years, so they know the captain. I'm not sure they'd know all the crew members. Because fishery officers boarding a vessel on the high seas are boarding under the flag of NAFO and under the authority of NAFO, they have to be accredited by NAFO. We send NAFO a list of names of those who are qualified to do the inspections. We also share with others. For example, we have workshops with Spanish and Portuguese and EU members to make sure all the inspectors out there are working from the same understanding of compliance. It makes it much better for follow-up.

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

On July 20 to 24 in Portland, Maine, there's an international observers conference. Will people like you or DFO have representatives there?

[David Bevan]

We'll have people there. We've been running those conferences in conjunction with others, and we have participated from the start. Quite frankly, though, that's not quite related to what's going on in that. It's more to share information on how countries are running their own observer programs.

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

The last question is in regard to what Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kamp had indicated about the perception that other countries have some sort of managerial authority within our exclusive economic zone. Does the United States have the same provision in their waters under NAFO?

[David Bevan]

They're a coastal state. So are France and Greenland. That applies to all.

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

So the same provision in Canada would apply to the United States?

[David Bevan]

That's correct.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bevan, for this most interesting presentation.

From what I understand, there's tension between the desire on the one hand for enforcement and conservation of our fish stocks and on the other hand for sovereignty. The more you want to emphasize the conservation of your fish stocks, the more you give up your sovereignty under NAFO so that individual states can then preserve the stocks. There's where I see the tension. Is that a fair statement?