Fisheries committee  The possibility exists, but this new subsidized worker must have an adverse effect on another country. So in most cases most countries wouldn't say a word about that. If it's in a specific sector, it's possible, but the danger is not very great.

Fisheries committee  The answer is very clear. It is clearly written in the annex that the subsidy is to the extent that it is specific. If you have a program that is generally available for all the economy, for agriculture, for every industry, and it's also applied to fishing--for example, employment insurance is not specific, so it couldn't be challenged.

Fisheries committee  I think it's important to make you more optimistic--

Fisheries committee  --to know what's in the subsidy.

Fisheries committee  You would like me to speak French; that's fine, but my text is in English. For example, there are subsidies for improving fishing or service vessel and crew safety. There are subsidies for the adoption of gear for selective fishing techniques. If you want to make fishing more environmentally friendly, you could give subsidies in this context.

Fisheries committee  That's correct, but there is another mechanism that we must not underestimate and which exerts more pressure at the social level. There is a subsidy committee which is not a tribunal but to which a country can indicate, for example, that Canada is doing something untoward. The country can ask the committee to take a look at what is happening.

Fisheries committee  I would not want to create any false hope by inferring that you might be able to find some type of loophole, as is the case when it comes to taxation matters. Truth be told, it is, as you have described it, a funnel. The aim is to put an end to subsidies for fishermen. I don't believe that they intended to create a colander with loopholes in the rules.

Fisheries committee  The principle is very simple and the question is very important. There may be a colander effect. In criminal law, the state keeps an eye on things and files complaints. The WTO, in its capacity as an organization, cannot act as an enforcer. As I see it, the police-type mechanisms will apply in two ways.

Fisheries committee  --could not decree in the absolute that the fishery stocks are not threatened. Everything Canada decides in this field must be confirmed, and there is even a peer review. For example, if Canada says that a stock is not threatened, it has to go through, for example, the FAO. There is a peer review there, and the peer review must say that they agree.

Fisheries committee  So that we conform to the criteria that are in the transboundary agreement on fish stocks....

Fisheries committee  Yes. The criteria are not by the nature of the stock. It is where it takes place. So it could be sedentary. The only leeway is for developing countries, for example, if it's inshore fishing, in the territorial sea. So here you have a leeway. So it's not the nature of the stock that is the criterion, it is where it takes place.

Fisheries committee  You have all the leeway. You can do everything here to help everybody you want.

Fisheries committee  I would like to add another point in that context. It is clear in the text that you do not have the right to support port infrastructure where fishing is involved. However, if you are undertaking an overall renewal of a port and that project is not directly linked to assistance for fishers, then you have a certain amount of room to manoeuvre.

Fisheries committee  I have a problem. My computers want to restart every 30 minutes.

Fisheries committee  Please, I would like to add that the category is at least subsidies that do not have any meaning in the WTO, so it's not a good idea to answer these questions by, for example, saying this subsidy is ugly--you don't find this word. The answer to your question on income support is of course that it is prohibited.