Evidence of meeting #8 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I think they could do that currently. I don't think they need a change in the NAFO convention in order to be able to say---
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
But it's built into the NAFO convention now. So in other words, Canada has agreed to the process. It's not built into the RFMO currently, but Canada, under the proposed ratified convention, is agreeing to it as a legitimate procedure. From a moral point of view, Canada could simply object to it. I agree with you that we certainly could right now. You know, Mr. McCurdy, what would happen if Canada ever did that right now. There would be political chaos. My take on it is that if it were signed into an RFMO, into NAFO, it would become somewhat more plausible and almost expected by the European Union or any other contracting party. Why did you agree to it, if you never wanted or expected to have it invoked or requested?
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I've been at NAFO with several different administrations heading up the government in Canada at different times, and I can't imagine any of the ministers who've been on either side of the current House or their predecessors ever saying.... There was a time, as I said, when we had a practice of trading fish for access to market and all that stuff. In this day and age, I don't see that happening. I think there'd be the same chaos either way, and I can't imagine how Canada would.... The political backlash would be just as strong, whether it was done through the NAFO convention or it was done under the current NAFO convention by other means. They're just saying to people to come on in and fill your boots in our waters, or observe our fisheries or whatever. It would be a simple matter of sovereignty that we would clearly expect the Government of Canada to never go to NAFO with any request to do that. In the absence of a request, it wouldn't happen.
If had my druthers, would that clause not be there? Yes, it would probably be better, but in the real world, if they were of a mind to do that, then I think they could easily trade off our sovereignty over our fish stocks in other ways, without that amendment.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we met with Mr. Applebaum, I asked a question about the money spent on off-shore helicopter surveillance, beyond 200 miles. Sorry, that was when we met with the minister.
If an infraction is observed, can Canada seize the vessel and lock up the catch that is deemed to be illegal before dealing with the vessel's country of origin?
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
In terms of outside 200 miles, I guess that happened once in the case of the Spanish vessel the Estai back in 1995, the so-called Turbot War. I believe the vessel had a Canadian flag, not a NAFO flag, when it made the arrest, if my memory serves me well. Currently, Canadian vessels operate under a NAFO flag, and there are provisions where they have the right to board. They do a couple of hundred boardings a year, I guess, out in that area, and there are procedures for laying charges against vessels.
In conjunction with the NAFO convention reform, one of the rule changes, in my view the most significant one, was that for serious infringements--specifically, fishing a moratorium stock or overfishing at a certain prescribed level--the vessel can be directed to home port. That's happened on three occasions. If your home port happens to be Vigo, Spain, and you're fishing on the Flemish Cap, that's a significant penalty. That is a new regulation that was agreed to at the NAFO meeting in conjunction with the changes to the convention.
I'm not sure if I got your question correctly or not.
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I'd just like to add, not to repeat anything that Mr. McCurdy has said, that while we can do a lot of monitoring and we can do boardings, and with the new clauses we can insist on going to port for further inspection, the one thing that remains sovereign is that only the flag state of any of those countries can actually lay charges and prosecute. That's just international law; that's the way it is.
But certainly the big change or the big plus is being able to say to serious offenders that they must now come to port for a re-evaluation, an accounting, and to get the right numbers. That in itself is a big penalty.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Is that just for vessels flying the flags of NAFO member countries, or for all vessels? Or are penalties for vessels belonging to NAFO member countries different from those for countries that are not members?
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
This in particular applies to NAFO member states, but I'm sure the part that only the flag state is able to lay charges and prosecute would still exist in all the other countries.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
During the negotiations on small craft harbours, there was concern about the possibility of the costs of repairs to the harbours being considered funding to fishers. There was even the fear that employment insurance could be considered a subsidy to the fishery.
Was that part of the new NAFO agreement?
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I don't think that has any connection with NAFO. There is an ongoing dialogue internationally on fishery subsidies through the FAO, the fisheries department in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. They've been having endless trade meetings, part and parcel of the Doha Round or the Uruguay Round, whichever is the most recent one--Doha, I think. It's a host of proposals back and forth about what constitutes a fishing subsidy. But that's unrelated to the NAFO convention.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.
I have just a few questions for you.
Mr. McCurdy, you had indicated that if that provision of the so-called possible management within our 200-mile limit could be taken out you'd be okay with that. I am wondering, why not take it out? The concern I have, and I think you are right, is it's foreseeable for any minister on either side of the fence to allow a foreign state to come in and manage some stocks within our water. That would be politically unsuitable, but if it is in there then Canada would have the legal right, if they are in trade talks with the EU for manufacturing or pharmaceuticals or something else, to go over to Europe. Europe is saying in that regard they would like to have a little bit more of this. These are some of the trade dialogues. For that to happen, Canada would then have, within NAFO, the legal right to say that to meet this they could link the management of some of their stocks within our waters. They'd have permission to do so. We would agree with that on the provision that this element of our discussions will then take place over in Europe.
Those are the trade-offs I can see. You're right, just on its own I can see them not doing it, but if there were a larger discussion about trade in general this would give Canada the legal right to say they have NAFO and they can do this. Thus you get your quid pro quo in that regard. That's the danger I fear.
Also, we heard from Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Parsons regarding the objection procedure. They were concerned about what that means in that regard, and I'd like you to clarify, if that's at all possible.
The last one, of course, was on the agreement. We had to have two-thirds. Right now it's 50% plus one, then it was going to be changed to the two-thirds agreement with regard to quotas or whatever. I'd like your views on that.
The last question for you is this. Obviously one person is speaking on behalf of Canada at these negotiations, but I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that prior to and after those discussions you guys will all meet in a room and hash it out, saying we should go this way or that way. I'm just wondering if there were any objections, from your perspective as a long-time commissioner, on the two-thirds agreement amount and the objection procedure in that regard.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
On the first one, just briefly, Canada can already do that, and did exactly what you described for years and years, by trading access to fish in the Canadian zone in return. So there is nothing new in what's proposed in the convention in that regard.
The objection procedure, which I often refer to as the objectionable procedure, was automatically used by the Europeans for a number of years. They objected to every quota they got, and took much more than their quota of fish. That would have been back in the day when Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Parsons and so on were actively working for the department, and it was very tough. There was no real remedy to problems, and in the world at the time there was less scrutiny of fish stocks and overfishing than with the current interest in sustainability and related issues. There wasn't the same focus at that time, so those were pretty grim years to go to NAFO meetings.
The new convention does have a dispute settlement procedure. It's tedious to go the whole route, but under the current regime.... For example, Mr. Byrne referenced the Faroe Islands. They file an objection annually and fish more than their quota, and there is no further remedy under the current NAFO regime. Under the proposed new regime, Canada, for example, as a coastal state, could intervene and take that to the dispute settlement mechanism, starting with an ad hoc panel within NAFO. If it is not resolved there, it can go to a more formal international dispute settlement panel. In that regard, it is an improvement on the regime that's currently in place.
On two-thirds versus 50% plus one, for the most part it's probably one vote. On the difference, personally, I think the Canadian interest is better served with the two-thirds than it was with the 50% plus one because of the interest Mr. Byrne raised of the other contracting parties sizing up Canadian allocations and saying to themselves they'd like a piece of that and maybe they could get enough support from other countries to get a share of it. We're marginally better protected with the two-thirds. On twelve votes, it is eight votes compared to seven votes. It's not an earth-shattering difference. But having said that, on the balance of the choice, I don't think it's a showstopper either way. My advice, as a member of the Canadian delegation, is if we get the two-thirds it is preferable to the 50% plus one.
On the Canadian delegation, you're quite correct. In the course of the meetings our opportunities really were in the Canadian delegation meetings, which are held maybe even two or three times a day between NAFO sessions.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Raynald Blais
Thank you very much, Mr. McCurdy.
Perhaps Mr. Andrews has something to say before I give the floor to Mr. Calkins.
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
On the first point, too, the important thing to remember is that in terms of NAFO having some jurisdiction inside for either of the two big issues, which are access and enforcement, I think the chances of that are so remote. Yet in cases like science there may be an opportunity to work together. In fact, there are examples now of straddling stocks, whereby you try to work together. But the chances, in my opinion, of any minister of the crown—having worked for a few—suggesting that there's Canadian fish available to a NAFO country or that NAFO would be asked to come in and police Canadian activities would be a little remote.
On the second point you raised, on the dispute settlement, just to reiterate what Earle has said, over many years with just a simple objection and being able to do anything you wish in that regard, without some ad hoc panel or compulsory decision-making process, we have made a good step forward in getting a process in place that allows us to at least deal with objections.
In voting, I would just add one thing to what Mr. McCurdy has said, and that is, from a Canadian perspective, what we want to be most certain of is that we won't lose some of our percentage of the share of fish we have. Hence, in the case of voting, I would remind you that 90% of the NAFO stock—90% of all the fish—is basically held by three countries: Canada first, the European Union, and Russia. And in a voting process, I have to agree again that I'd much prefer us to protect the percentage we have with those three voting, as opposed to even the 50% rule. It's only a difference of one, but it's nice to be able to protect your quotas in the process that gives you the number of votes you need.
I'll just use one example. There's one stock out there, in particular, right now, and the Americans would love to have some of it. It's 97.5% Canadian, under the current rules. For us to be able to protect—
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Yellowtail, that's correct.
We would love to protect that as a Canadian allocation, obviously. Getting the votes to take that away from us will be quite difficult, to find two-thirds to knock off the European Union, Canada, and Russia in that regard.
On the last point, just to reiterate Earle's commentary, there's a lot of opportunity to have a discussion prior to and after any of the activity in the NAFO annual meeting. What gives me comfort, as a totally objective and independent individual--as opposed to wearing hats as before, because I now have no affiliation with government per se--is the fact that when we have those meetings and discussions, we kind of look around the room, as you people do here. When we see all of our industry, literally, without exception, as advisers to the Canadian delegation, and when we see them and the provincial governments supporting what's being proposed, it gives us that level of comfort, as a commissioner and being as objective as I can be, that this is for our betterment, so let's go with the improvements we're going to gain from it.
Bloc
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate getting the opportunity to ask some questions here.
Actually, I was very encouraged by the comments you made as you summed up, Mr. Andrews. I'm wondering if you would like to use a little bit of my time to extrapolate on that a little bit further. Who exactly? Obviously, the provinces are onside.
My understanding is that, basically, NAFO is operating more or less in line with what the proposed amendments are going to be anyway, and we've had some success. What are some of the wins the provinces and the industry perceive gaining from these new proposals?
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I think the main thing is that as we look forward there is a way to deal with the objection procedure and to correct the limbo that allowed it to go on and on.
The second thing that's really important here is that, with the increased Canadian surveillance monitoring and enforcement, coupled with NAFO and the new measures that are under the convention.... I always consider the convention language as the act, and all the stuff that is needed, the measures, being the regulations, or the way we operate on the water. What we see as a big plus in all of this is that the thing putting at least some fear into the captains of the ships coming to fish the NAFO area is the measures under the convention. A lot of the improvements are in enforcement and surveillance, and especially when you get something like what we call the “shall” clause. When we find you in error with two major issues, as Earl has explained, we don't stop there. We can now insist that the captain and his crew and the boat come to some port. That in itself is probably a bigger penalty and deterrent to any illegal activity than a lot of the other regulations you might have on the books—just the fact that we can do that.
Let me go back to one point I made. You have an individual at our meetings as an adviser who represents all of the offshore fleet, be it in groundfish or shrimp, and you have somebody like my colleague, Mr. McCurdy who represents all of the fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you see the whole group coming together and saying this is an improvement, I think we have basically found a level of comfort that says proceed and do the best you can, knowing it's not going to be perfect—you'll never get all you need out of 12 countries. At least this looks and sounds and is better than what we had, so let's do it.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Is there anything in particular, if you look at the Senate report, if you go to the NAFO website.... One thing that concerns me is the role the observers play. I think observers play a critical role. In your opinion, has there been any improvement in how that role is happening? The NAFO website says that observers are supposed to be independent and impartial, but my understanding is that they're basically chosen from their own countries: we would have a Spanish observer on a Spanish ship, we would have a Canadian observer on a Canadian ship, and so on.
Are there any changes or proposals, or was there any discussion at all, about increasing the appearance of objectivity of observers in the role they might play in communicating with enforcement—bringing testimony to any court proceedings, and so on?
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I don't think there were specifics on the observer issue, because as you say, they are representatives of the company. But in what we call the “shall” clause—having to come to port—the whole point is that if there isn't a certified NAFO inspector available to do a further investigation into what's perceived to be a wrong, that lack allows the complaining country, if I can use that term—Canada—to say that the boat has to come to port. The inspector must be a NAFO person, and at the port both of us, hopefully, can verify the information on what went on while on the water and what's stored in the boat.
There wasn't a big discussion, as I recall—maybe Earle can recall one—on observers; it was more on the inspectors and the NAFO enforcement process.
Conservative
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I'd say that overall in NAFO, the benefit of the onboard observers on vessels has probably been less than had been hoped for in the initial stages. With all of this stuff, we're talking about incremental progress. It isn't some glorious breakthrough we're talking about here; at best we're talking about incremental progress.
I would have to say that the single biggest step towards enhancing Canada's position with respect to protection of the stocks out there, certainly in the last 13 to 14 years—though someone could argue whether or not the turbot war might eclipse it—was the decision initially made under Mr. Regan's ministry and thereafter maintained by subsequent ministers to double the enforcement presence. That made a big difference in the level of compliance. We now have a pretty strong enforcement presence. The boardings and so on are a significant deterrent, in conjunction with the rule that if you're caught in a serious infringement you can be sent home. For somebody who's planning to come fishing for six months in the Northwest Atlantic and is caught after three weeks and has to go home, in today's world, with fuel costs and so on, that's a huge penalty, and far more significant than any fine you're likely to ever have.
We would hope to always have a commitment from the Government of Canada to pay for that level of surveillance, because it's a simple matter of sovereignty. Without it, I don't think it would be long before they went back to their old ways—some of them, at any rate.