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.
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
But that's done currently on a volunteer basis through the Marine Stewardship Council. In fact, there was one just recently on our shrimp fishery, for example.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Bulk shrimp is certified. This is the EU independently acting through EU legislation.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Raynald Blais
Thank you for that additional exchange. I was very generous in letting you carry on, but it was very interesting.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I have a quick question, and I'm just ballparking here; I don't have any evidence of this. Is it not possible that a foreign company could Canadian-flag their vessel, have it registered in Canada with a Canadian flag but owned by someone else, and then fish Canadian stock within Canadian waters, then transit that fish back to, say, Estonia, Russia, or Taiwan, wherever? This happened in the north when a Norwegian company, through BFC, arranged a Canadianization of a vessel, put a Canadian flag on it, but the quota was caught in Canadian waters and sent back to Greenland for processing.
Is it not possible under these NAFO regulations that Spain, Portugal, or any other country could do the same?
12:45 p.m.
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Personally speaking, I know of no situation whereby a foreign-owned boat in the pure legal, commercial, business sense of ownership can actually fish in Canadian waters and transfer out the fish. All I know is that in places like the north, generally speaking, or in all cases, the majority ownership--albeit maybe a small percentage, if that's what it is--is a Canadian-flagged vessel. If it's a Canadian-flagged vessel, regardless of who's behind it with dollars and commercial interest, it has a Canadian flag and hence is then managed as a Canadian unit by DFO.
That's to the best of my knowledge.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay, and I appreciate that summation, because you've indicated who's behind it--the money and the dollars behind it, right? It may be Canadian-registered, it may be Canadian-flagged in the legal sense, but the money and the power behind it could be somebody else. Then those fish stocks are caught in Canadian waters and then transitted back to wherever they wish it to be done. That happens now.
Does NAFO change any of that in the future, that you're aware of?
12:45 p.m.
Commissionner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Not that I would say.
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
I'm not all that knowledgeable on the issue of flagging. I'm not aware of anything in the proposed new measures or the proposed new convention that would change whatever the status quo is in that regard.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay.
Just to ask you a straightforward question, if you were voting in the House of Commons to reject or accept the current negotiations of NAFO, would you vote for or against it, as it is right now? Because we hope that NAFO will be brought to the House of Commons for further debate and analysis. We asked for that on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and it didn't happen. Now with NAFO we have heard from Mr. Bevan that it will come back to the House for discussion, and eventually, I would assume, some sort of vote process.
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
With the proposed change, I'd vote for it.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I have a point of order on that.
Mr. Stoffer, from what I read, you can have a discussion in the House but no vote on such a thing, because it's a treaty or a treaty convention.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Right, I understand that, but with the Pacific Salmon Treaty, we were told by Paul Sprout and others that it would come to the House for discussion and a vote.
I know there's no legal requirement to have a vote on it—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
No, I think you can't have a vote on it.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Raynald Blais
Forgive me for interrupting you, but I do not think that is necessarily a point of order. The way in which the question was asked illustrated the point Mr. Stoffer wanted to make in the time he had.
If Mr. Stoffer has finished, I will move to Mr. Kamp.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And just to clarify even further, the way the procedure is set up is that it's tabled for 21 days, allowing parliamentarians to do with it what they like. So somebody could raise it, somebody could use an opposition day if they wanted to highlight the issue, but it doesn't automatically come to any kind of vote.
I have just a comment and then a quick question.
I've been in a couple of international settings where IUU fishing—illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing—has been discussed, and I really think there is a growing appetite and commitment to port-state control because that is part of the chain. And if you can't find a place to offload or to sell your illegally caught fish, you're probably going to quit catching it. So I do think there's a growing commitment to doing that internationally, and that will be part of the solution, I think. That's basically what I wanted to say there.
I appreciate your comments that you would vote for this.
In a number of different meetings, we've kind of had in our minds a picture of these blue boats with NAFO stamped on the side, coming up the St. Lawrence looking to patrol. My understanding is that most of the patrolling in NAFO is done by Canada, and there are some patrols occasionally done by other countries. But can you inform us a little bit in terms of the enforcement and patrolling that is being done? Who is doing that, and what sort of regime is set up to do that?
12:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Canada would be the dominant enforcement player, but the European Union has a patrol vessel that spends a considerable portion of the year in NAFO waters as well. I don't think there's anybody else. I think those are the only two parties, as far as I know.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Raynald Blais
Perhaps Mr. Harris and Mr. Van Kesteren have questions. They can go ahead if they like.
OK? Thank you very much.
Witnesses, gentlemen, do you have a closing statement?
No? Thank you very much.
Before adjourning the meeting, I have two pieces of information for you. Next Thursday, we are going to meet with witnesses from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to talk about the lobster industry. On the seal hunt—good news again!—Nature Québec, an ecological organization in Quebec, is sending a letter to European parliamentarians asking them to oppose the plan to ban seal products. We have an ecological organization supporting our struggle in Europe. I felt that it was important to give you that news.
Until next Thursday. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.