Okay, but let me say this to you.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fishery.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fishery.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
After all the years that we suffered through this overfishing by foreigners, finally, extension of jurisdiction came, 200 miles, so we got rid of them. Thank God. The northern cod and the others would now have a chance to recover.
Six months later, after the extension of jurisdiction, the Minister of Fisheries for this country offered a subsidy of $23,800 per trawler trip for the Canadian trawlers to resume fishing off Labrador. That'll give you an idea of some of the decisions that were made.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I certainly understand what it's like not having boots on the ground. Talk about the cuts to DFO. Mr. Etchegary gave us a pretty good breakdown of what that looks like, and it's certainly the same on Vancouver Island in how that's affecting us.
Mr. Cleary, you started talking a little bit about enforcement and how that's affecting enforcement. Do you want to talk about that and how that's affecting stocks?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I can elaborate on a point Mr. Etchegary made, and that is that when a foreign vessel outside the 200-mile limit is cited for illegal fishing, it's up to the foreign vessel's home country to follow through on penalty and discipline. When here in Newfoundland and Labrador we file, say, a federal access to information request to find out what penalties exactly were thrown at the Spanish, the Portuguese, or whoever's accused of illegal fishing, the answer we get back from the Government of Canada is that they won't release the information. The reason why they won't is that they say it could be damaging to international relations.
My response to that is, well, at what point do Newfoundland and Labrador relations supersede anything else?
In terms of enforcement outside the 200-mile limit, Mr. Etchegary mentioned the objection procedure. If any member country of NAFO doesn't like a quota that's set, they can object and unilaterally set their own. Northern cod is a migratory stock, inside the 200-mile, outside the 200-mile. The thing about fish is that they don't recognize imaginary lines in the sea, and NAFO—Jason mentioned earlier—is absolutely useless. It's useless. It's toothless. It does not have the ability to manage the quotas that it sets.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I'll just back up what he said. We had our union leader on the NAFO. He's been commissioner for 19 years, and that's the best we got out of this. We have 15% of our turbot, you know. It's a money fish. If we had the 100 million pounds that they're catching, imagine the injection into rural Newfoundland that money could make. To see that someone steamed 3,500 miles to get it, when the boys from Fogo can go 30 miles and catch it, it's tough to swallow.
When Mr. Etchegary talks—this is the first time I've ever met him—you do start to fill up a bit, at least I do, because this wouldn't happen anywhere else. This wouldn't happen in Quebec or anywhere else where you have lots of seats. There are seven seats in Newfoundland, so basically.... I know how politics works. I'm on the municipal level and it's the same sort of deal. You have to go where you're going to get all the votes and you have to toe the line and stuff like that, but sometimes, you know what? You've just got to get up and dance on the table.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you. It's good to see you dancing on the table. You're doing it. We're with you, Mr. Sullivan.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan, thank you for your heartfelt comments.
Mr. Cleary, thank you for your experience.
Of course, Mr. Etchegary, thank you, sir, for your experience and what you brought here today in your testimony. We truly appreciate it. Thank you again.
This meeting is adjourned.