Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  Not that I would say.

Fisheries committee  I have a question and a comment. You referred to the fact that the EU will soon start to require certification of fish products coming into their jurisdiction. I'm not familiar with anything that “wears the hat of the European Union”, but I am aware of the fact that the Marine Stewardship Council is starting that process and it already has occurred in Canada and in many other countries.

Fisheries committee  No, I would just say that it has been most difficult. I think I've seen very small traces of a better working relationship or improved goodwill, I suppose, in the last couple of years, but certainly it's not one that you embrace fully and say we've arrived, we have all the goodwill we need.

Fisheries committee  I certainly think it's not just the convention and the measures themselves, but that another thing we have to look at is the attitude of the people who are doing the fishing. In my humble opinion, the attitude has changed. The amount of overfishing has been reduced substantially over the last few years; there's no question in my mind about that.

Fisheries committee  I'd like to refer to your point first that foreign vessels are fishing within Canadian waters in Nunavut. I personally don't know of that occurring in the recent past, but I do know that Canadian fishing vessels sometimes offload in Greenland.

Fisheries committee  Yes, that's a very technical legal question of ownership. I understand what you're saying. I really can't say whether or not it would be a deal breaker to remove that clause from the proposed changes to the NAFO convention, because I haven't been privy to any of that discussion.

Fisheries committee  If you take the simplest definition one can get of custodial management—and excuse me, it's mine, but I think a lot of people have used it—it basically says that the coastal state can decide who can fish, and what allocation they get, and thirdly, that the coastal state would be responsible for management and enforcement outside the 200-mile limit.

Fisheries committee  On the first count, I would just like to say that outside 200 has always been an area that some people.... I guess, without a full understanding, even I myself would have said that “custodial management”, that fancy term that keeps coming up, would solve this whole issue. By that, of course, one would simply mean that Canada sets the quotas and Canada does the enforcement and all those things outside 200.

Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  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....

Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  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.