FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 21, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Á

1125

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Á

1130

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Á

1140

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Á

1145

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1205

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Bill Matthews

Â

1215

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1220

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

Â

1230

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1240

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

·

1300

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Chamut

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 004

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to get the meeting started.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and its motion of November 7, 2002, the committee is studying the government's response to its tenth report in the last session concerning the implications of extending Canada's exclusive economic zone to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

    Our witnesses today are both from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We of course recognize Mr. Pat Chamut, the assistant deputy minister, fisheries management; and Ms. Nadia Bouffard, director of the Atlantic affairs division, international affairs directorate.

    Mr. Chamut, what I'd like you to do, if you could, please, is concentrate your initial remarks on the most recent meeting of NAFO and what happened there. You were the lead negotiator, so you could tell us what happened and what you saw. Perhaps you could keep your remarks to about 10 to 15 minutes at the most, because I know there are going to be many questions.

    By the way, committee members, if you could stay for a few minutes after this meeting--no more than five minutes--I have a couple of things to hand out and a couple of things to discuss. Thank you.

    Go ahead, Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your introduction. Before I begin, I'd like to offer my congratulations to you and your newly elected vice-chair on your appointments. There are lots of very difficult and challenging issues facing us all in the fisheries file, and I certainly look forward to working with you and your colleagues on all those issues in the future.

    Now, in your comments you asked that I talk about the NAFO meeting, and I'd be pleased to proceed to do that. The meeting you are referring to was held from September 16 to 20 in a community in Spain, Santiago de Compostela, and as I think members of the committee know, there were a number of very important and challenging issues facing the Canadian delegation to that meeting.

    As you mentioned, I was serving as head of the Canadian delegation, which means I led the delegation and represented Canada in discussions at the meeting. But I was also there as head of a delegation of about 40-odd individuals. Canada does take a large delegation to NAFO because of its importance to our own interests, and I was accompanied by a delegation of representatives of the provinces as well as representatives of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia representing the harvesting and the processing sectors. So we were well served by the large delegation that did attend.

    Now, as many know, there was a lot of attention and scrutiny on the NAFO meeting this year because of the concerns that have existed about foreign overfishing, about the lack of compliance by foreign fleets, and certainly these issues were important for Canada going into the NAFO meeting. Our objective in going into NAFO was to try to make improvements to ensure that NAFO works more effectively. What we were trying to do was achieve better conservation. We wanted to ensure that as an organization we adopted more effective conservation measures, that we had improved strategies to protect the stocks, and that there were better deterrence mechanisms and improved compliance amongst all of the fleets that are fishing in the NAFO regulatory area.

    The outcome of a meeting like this does not result in dramatic and radical change. A commission like NAFO, which consists of 18 separate contracting parties, generally makes progress in incremental steps. My view is that in the meeting we had in September in Spain we did in fact make significant progress. We introduced a number of improvements, and there are five areas that I'd like to focus on.

    Certainly, Canada did achieve a number of the objectives that were set. We did not achieve all of our objectives, but I would like to point out to the committee members some of the things that I think are highlights, both negative and positive.

    First of all, I'd like to comment on the establishment of total allowable catches by the institution this year. Our objective in going to NAFO was to make sure the TACs that were set were based on scientific advice, and I think we achieved that objective in all stocks save one. In terms of TACs, we got agreement that all of the moratoria on stocks that are currently at low levels were to be continued, and in many cases they were continued for two years. So that provides us with additional assurance that the stocks will be protected.

    We also addressed a number of key stocks for which there are fisheries currently being conducted, and I would highlight, first of all, yellowtail flounder. This is a species that occurs on the shelf waters of the Grand Banks. It was closed up until 1997. As signs of rebuilding occurred, it opened in 1997 at low levels and has steadily rebuilt. In the September meeting, we achieved agreement to increase the TAC for yellowtail flounder to 14,500 tonnes, which was a 1,500-tonne increase.

    The importance of this for Canada is that 97.5% of the TAC of this stock goes to Canada. This was a significant increase, and we felt it was a positive outcome for fishermen in Newfoundland who are reliant on this stock.

    With respect to 3L shrimp, there was agreement to delay adopting any sort of new TAC until all the scientific advice was received. The scientific advice is just now coming in, and we would expect to be dealing with 3L shrimp within the December-January period. We're quite optimistic that we have laid the foundation for Canada's share to remain at the level that was negotiated last year, which provides us with about 83% of the total allowable catch of 3L shrimp.

    On oceanic redfish, which is a stock that has recently appeared in the NAFO regulatory area, a TAC was set at 7,500 tonnes. That was an important achievement because it ensures that previous high levels of harvest will now be regulated by a TAC.

    Finally, the one area where there has been concern expressed about what was adopted at NAFO was the TAC for Greenland halibut. Through the course of this year, the TAC that had been set for Greenland halibut was 44,000 metric tonnes. The scientific advice that was before us in September indicated that this TAC should decline to 36,000 tonnes. It said total catches should not exceed 36,000 tonnes. NAFO did not adopt the scientific advice with respect to this stock. What it did was reduce the TAC from 44,000 tonnes to 42,000 tonnes, which does not take us down to the level that was recommended by the scientific advice. Clearly, this has been a concern for the Canadian delegation and definitely was a concern for fishermen in Newfoundland, Labrador, and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, because there are concerns that this fishing at 42,000 tonnes may in fact be too high for the stock. That was one of the outcomes that were not positive for Canada.

    I've talked about levels of TAC. The second area I'd like to talk about is measures to improve compliance of foreign fleets.

    At the NAFO meeting in September, Canada again made a presentation that highlighted the behaviour or performance of foreign fleets in terms of their compliance with the rules set by NAFO. We identified a number of areas where some contracting parties are breaking the rules, such as parties who are conducting directed fisheries for species under moratoria. We identified instances where there has been misreporting of catch. There are some instances where quotas were being exceeded. We identified some areas where some contracting parties are using illegal gear.

    We presented that report to NAFO not only as a means to highlight our concern about the performance of foreign fleets, but also to use it to press for improved compliance within NAFO. The outcome, which we think is positive, is that NAFO accepted the concerns we were expressing and they have adopted a new compliance framework.

Á  (1110)  

    What this means is that each year now, instead of Canada having to be the only party that brings forward instances where non-compliance has been a problem, from this point NAFO itself will be doing an assessment of the compliance of each party. The parties that are not operating consistently within the rules will be called to account and they will be asked to explain before the institution why they have not complied and what they will be doing to fix the problem. We think that is an important step forward.

    The third area that was important was the adoption of new conservation measures. These would be measures designed to improve the rules and to make sure stocks are given a better opportunity to be conserved and to rebuild.

    Going into the meeting we had set two objectives. One was that we wanted to reduce the bycatch of species under moratorium. Secondly, we wanted to try to achieve a regulated regime for a stock called 3O redfish, which currently has no TAC and is not regulated by any restrictions so it allows fleets to simply catch to the extent that they can. We were successful in achieving both of the objectives that we set.

    For the bycatch a new definition was adopted of what constitutes a directed fishery. This sounds like a fairly mundane improvement, but in fact it is a significant improvement because with the new definition that was adopted it does allow an improved ability to enforce against those vessels that were actually targeting catch of moratoria species.

    We also have some other improvements in our enforcement ability dealing with how to calculate bycatch, which will simplify the procedures and make it much more effective so that when parties are directing for species under moratoria we will be able to identify that and to take measures to address it. On 3O redfish we did get agreement to seek scientific advice and to consider the adoption of a total allowable catch for 2004.

    Finally, I'd like to talk about the discussion at NAFO that involved a review of the scheme for 100% observer coverage. As you know, one of the important enforcement components that has been adopted by NAFO is the requirement that all vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area must carry an observer. It's the use of these observers and the reports they provide that give us the ability to assess the performance of fleets, because we carefully review the reports they provide and they do itemize instances where compliance is not being achieved.

    The review of the observer scheme at NAFO was probably one of the most difficult issues for us. I think it's safe to say that the majority of contracting parties at NAFO do not fully support the 100% observer scheme because it does introduce a cost. It increases the cost of fishing in the area, and many parties would prefer not to incur that cost. But clearly we see the maintenance of the observer program as an essential component of our ability to ensure compliance and enforcement.

    What was finally agreed to at NAFO is that there would be continuation of 100% observer coverage through the 2003 fishing season. We also agreed to the establishment of a technical working group that would be put together to try to examine whether or not alternatives can be put in place that will provide us with improved ability to detect violations and to ensure that we know what is going on.

Á  (1115)  

    There are discussions underway that will allow us to look at designing a system that might, for example, be a combination of observers and satellite monitoring, and satellite tracking with real time transmission of data, that might actually improve the effectiveness and improve the confidence we have in terms of monitoring the behaviour of foreign fleets. That working group is in place. It is going to provide a report to NAFO in September. In the meantime there is continuation of the 100% observer coverage.

    That is essentially the outcome of the meeting. In looking at the overall results, I think we achieved most of the objectives we set. We were disappointed about the level of harvest of Greenland halibut, but overall I think the outcome was positive.

    My final comment, Mr. Chairman, is simply to mention that obviously the NAFO meeting in September has been concluded, but we're already beginning to prepare for the meeting in 2003. We have meetings coming up with the Canadian delegation, which will be held the week after next in Halifax. We are preparing to have a round table forum looking at custodial management. That will be held in St. John's early in the new year. We're also looking at all of the work that needs to be done to prepare for the upcoming meeting in September, because this is obviously the most important commission in which Canada is a member. It takes a large amount of time and effort, working with all of our partners, to make sure we're properly prepared. It means we need to start early, which we have done, so that we can be fully prepared and ready to deliver our responsibilities at the meeting in 2003.

    Thank you. I welcome questions from members.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Chamut.

    Colleagues, just so you know, Mr. Chamut is also prepared to discuss in detail the government response to the committee report on custodial management. I just wanted him to give us, at my request, some background on what happened.

    Yes, Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Since Mr. Chamut is here, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if we could take advantage of his expertise in having some exchange on yesterday's announcement, if I can call it that, about the cod stocks.

    The Chair: The answer to the question would be that you have five minutes when it's your turn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'm just thinking about his time here.

    The Chair: I'd prefer that we focus our examination on the government response to our report. However, there will be some latitude in the questioning, because obviously part of it will be what do we do with the non-existent cod and that sort of thing.

    I don't want to take any more time away from members' questioning. I just want to remind you that the way we've agreed to do it is that we will begin with the Canadian Alliance. Then we'll go to the Bloc and then to the Liberals. All you have to do is put up your hand and get either my attention or the clerk's, and we'll go from there.

    We'll start with Mr. Cummins for 10 minutes.

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for your presentation this morning, Mr. Chamut. What you seem to be telling us is that the government went into these NAFO meetings with a series of objectives. It appears to me that the government in fact went into these meetings thinking of itself as just one of fifteen or so countries that are members of NAFO, not as a dominant member but just one of fifteen. It also seems to me that the government, as I say, went in there with some limited objectives.

    If government is satisfied with small incremental changes, as you suggest, and if government is satisfied to wait for 15 or 20 years before it sees substantive changes, are you not concerned that there won't be any fish left?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: First of all, Mr. Cummins, I would like to confirm one point. Canada goes into NAFO as the coastal state. At the table, yes, Canada sits as one of 18 members of NAFO, but it's very clear in the presentations that are made and in the weight we have at the table that Canada is the coastal state. We have pre-eminent interests and we make sure that we present ourselves as the coastal state with a very overwhelming interest in the well-being of those stocks. While we sit as one of 18 parties around the table, we are one of the most special parties at the table. Another coastal state is Greenland, but certainly Canada is the dominant influence at that table. We behave as such and we get respect for our position as a coastal state.

    Secondly, in terms of being satisfied with incremental steps, working within NAFO our objective has been to try to improve the functioning of it. If we go in and try to make radical change that would fundamentally alter the way in which the institution operates, I think it's probably not likely to be successful. Our objective is to try to bring about improvements to the rules, improvements to the way in which enforcement is conducted, as well as to the response and to the reaction or the follow-up that is taken by contracting parties. We think that working in that manner is more likely to give us a more productive outcome than trying to achieve radical transformation.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. John Cummins: NAFO and the federal government were at the wheel in the early nineties when the cod stocks collapsed. We have been hoping for a rebuilding of the stocks over that time. As we well know from the minister's announcements yesterday, that rebuilding hasn't occurred. To me, the real issue here is that NAFO is an ineffective organization when it comes to fisheries management, and at the end of the day, we're on our own. You're suggesting we have a dominant role in NAFO. But where are the results then?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: First of all, rebuilding of stocks has not occurred for a number of stocks that are under NAFO's responsibility. Fish such as American plaice have not yet rebuilt. They are in fact rebuilding. Stocks are increasing, but they're not at a level that would permit directed fishing.

    There are other stocks as well that are at low levels and are not showing signs of rebuilding. But that is balanced by comments that I made earlier about stocks such as yellowtail flounder. I might also add that the Greenland halibut fishery is a stock in which there have been increased harvest opportunities since 1997. I believe that the fishery in 1997 was at about 27,000 metric tonnes. Scientific advice authorized the fishery on that stock to increase. So there are some stocks that haven't rebuilt, some that have. The record is a little bit mixed.

    In terms of NAFO being ineffective, we need to look not only at the role of the institution but at the role of the environment. We have seen situations where stocks are not rebuilding because of unfavourable conditions. I don't want to begin the debate on cod, but I would point to the difficulty that we're having with respect to cod stocks rebuilding in the Gulf. I would point out that the lack of rebuilding of cod stocks in the Gulf is not a result of a failure of NAFO; there is a variety of other reasons that have to do with it. It's not unique to stocks under NAFO jurisdiction, as there are other stocks in other areas where problems have been encountered.

    Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate your comments. I guess the issue here is that you mention the issue of environment. It seems that when there's a problem with fish stocks on the east or west coast and DFO doesn't seem to have an answer, it talks to environmental conditions, sea conditions, and so on. There are other problems that are endemic to the fishery here. There's the failure of reporting on these observer reports. The reports are wrong. They're not filled out on time. They're not accurate. There are a number of questions about observer reports.

    Canada does a good job, in a sense, of calling attention to the problems at NAFO, but the real problem is that NAFO hasn't acted, that there has been no action on these issues, which are human issues over which there should be some control. I don't hear anything in your comments today that tells me there has been a change there.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: The situation with observer reports, again, is mixed. You're quite right, Mr. Cummins, about the quality of some of the observer reports. In some cases they are of very good quality, in other cases less so. In some cases they are not timely, and in some cases they are incomplete.

    That's all a matter of record from the presentation Canada has made now on two occasions at the NAFO meeting. What we're trying to do is draw attention to those problems, which we have done, and to achieve better taking of responsibility by contracting parties, because at the end of the day it's the contracting party that's responsible for making sure they provide the reports, that those reports are complete, and that they are in fact timely.

    We believe by working through the NAFO institution we will see improvements. The intent is to continue to draw attention to these problems and make sure we achieve the level of compliance and completeness of reporting that we think is necessary. We are making progress.

    The Chair: This will be your last question for this round, Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: The point I'm making is the one you address last. You say the problem with the observers is one you're working through with NAFO. You're trying to deal with a contracting party and you're hoping somehow there's going to be a change.

    In the response to the committee document, in recommendation number 3, the minister notes that foreign patrol vessels could be sent to protect their fishing vessels and protect their rights under international law to fish on the high seas.

    The conclusion I'm coming to when I listen to you is that the government is satisfied with incremental change and somehow is afraid to defend Canadian interests here--afraid that somehow it may offend some of the NAFO members. Why should I feel differently?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think, Mr. Cummins, inherent in what I have said is that clearly we want to work within the NAFO forum because we think that is probably, in our opinion, without question the most effective way of proceeding. I would disagree with the characterization, though, that Canada is afraid to defend Canadian interests. We are certainly protecting Canadian interests within the forum of NAFO and we make very vigorous and effective presentations and declarations to ensure that the Canadian interest is expressed and advanced.

    I think it's a question of what would be achieved if Canada were to take a more aggressive stance, which I think is the point you're getting to. Clearly there is a conclusion that proceeding in the way the committee had recommended, which was to essentially have Canada withdraw from NAFO and have Canada assert custodial management, would first of all not result in improved management of stocks outside 200 miles. And it definitely would create a whole series of problems in terms of Canada's ability to be able to assert that jurisdiction and to be able to defend Canadian interests. And there would be a host of other implications in terms of our relationships with other countries, as well as the cost we would face in trying to assert that kind of jurisdiction.

    The basic issue is that doing something like that would be against the wishes and against the will of most other countries that believe they have the right to fish on the high seas, and it's a judgment that trying to assert Canadian authority at this point outside 200 miles in the way that has been recommended would not be advantageous from the point of view of managing fish stocks and would definitely be disadvantageous with respect to other interests.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, you have the floor for five minutes.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chamut, I'd like to focus on the first recommendation. You talk of NAFO as an organization that moves along at a tortoise's pace. Yet, when an emergency arises, we know what a tortoise is capable of doing.

    Currently, we are facing a real crisis in terms of the conservation of stocks managed by NAFO, among others. My question concerns recommendation number one. When we discussed this recommendation previously in committee, not only were the reports not supplied on time or poorly written, but in addition, the impartiality of observers was called into question. For these reasons, I'm not satisfied with the government's response.

    You mentioned that there is some reluctance to pay observers who accompany fishing fleets because this calls into question their livelihood. Nevertheless, the main problem, in so far as observers are concerned, is that they are not impartial, or independent. They are paid by the fleets. How reliable can we expect these reports to be, considering that they are produced by observers paid by the vessel captains? Just how accurate are these reports? Committee members were told repeatedly during the hearings that these reports could not be considered reliable, since the people producing them were not impartial.

    How is it possible for us to assess the extent of the overfishing based on the reports we receive? What is the level of compliance with NAFO regulations? NAFO's effectiveness is tied to observer reports. In my view, these reports are unreliable and therein lies the problem.

    Would NAFO member countries agree to having independent observers on board their vessels, individuals who would provide reliable, intelligent, and above all, accurate reports?

[English]

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, sir.

    You've made an assertion that all of the observers are not operating independently and that their reports can not be relied upon. In the Canadian presentation about compliance, we have flagged problems with the independence of observers, so I agree with your assertion in part. There are some countries that do not have fully independent observers, and I would point to situations--I think the Faeroe Islands would be a good example--where they had an observer on board who was the third engineer of the vessel and a part-owner of the vessel. We have pointed out that problem and have indicated it is inconsistent with the requirements, and we expect it will be rectified. In fact the Faeroe Islands are currently in discussions with us this week to deal with that problem.

    But not all observers are like those in the example I've cited. For example, all of the observers on vessels from the European Union, which is obviously one of the fleets of primary concern to us, are genuinely independent. They are put on board the vessels and paid for by the government of the European Union. They are individuals who are contracted and trained observers. They are not simply hand-picked by the captain; they are selected by the government and put on board the vessels. Of the observer reports that go in to NAFO, their reports are probably among the very best. We're confident they are reliable. The observers operate independently, and we have confidence in the results. In fact, we used them in our assessment of compliance.

    I'd also cite the example of a country like Norway. Norway uses Canadian observers. They hire observers out of St. John's and put them on their boats, and we're confident that those observer reports are accurate. So we have a range of experience, and the majority of the reports we get, we believe, are providing accurate and reliable information. For those where we have concerns, we have constantly worked hard to try to improve the situation, because the observer scheme--the written requirements--make it clear that full compliance means you have to have an independent observer on board. Where that is not the case, we're working hard with those parties to make sure they do it.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: However, we cannot state with certainty at this time that all of the reports produced are reliable. What percentage of these reports are in fact accurate or meet our expectations?

[English]

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I can't give you a precise percentage of those we regard as being reliable, but I can tell you that the majority of the reports we receive I would class as giving us good, reliable information. Most of the vessels that are fishing--the majority of the vessels--are from the European Union, and we have confidence in those reports. In the case of some of the other countries that have a small number of vessels fishing shrimp--for example, some of the Baltic states--we're less convinced the reports are fully independent. But the majority of the reports, simply given that the majority of the vessels that are fishing are from countries like the European Union, we think are quite reliable.

    The Chair: Mr. Efford, you may have ten minutes.

    Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chamut, I sense a tone in your voice, and I want to determine what that tone is, but I'll express it this way. Last year you came away from the NAFO meetings and earned a great deal of respect from me, as a person who, as you know, has been very involved in the fishery over the years and in the position you take. I think you've taken a 360-degree turn this year in your support for NAFO.

    You said you feel NAFO has made some significant gains and that it is working. That is not what you said last year. What changed from last year to this year?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, last year we came here, and we had recently attended the NAFO meeting that was held in Denmark in January. At that time we had very serious concerns about what we saw as a deterioration in compliance, and I think I've shared with you some of the statistics. We certainly had very strong concerns about the trend toward non-compliance. We saw a return to the bad old days, and I think I reflected that in my presentation here at the committee. It was a candid representation of what we saw happening.

    Since that time I think there have been changes made. I'm not here to indicate that NAFO is by any means a perfect institution. For those who have ever had the misfortune of sitting through a NAFO meeting, it is a very difficult, frustrating, and oftentimes tedious forum, but I think improvements have been made. We are seeing declines in the non-compliance, in the number of violations. We've also seen situations, some very positive signs, that I take some heart from.

    For example, Spain, an area we have concerns about in terms of the behaviour of some of their vessels, has taken the step of actually putting inspectors, not observers but enforcement specialists from Spain, on some of the vessels that are fishing in the NAFO regulatory area.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. R. John Efford: From what you've said, the TACs, the total allowable catches, have been set. We have Spain, Portugal, the Faeroes, and a number of other countries fishing out there, yet you can't give us a percentage of how many of the reports are reliable. You said you don't know. You feel that the majority of the reports you're getting are reliable, but you can't give us any percentage.

    If you can't give us the reports, you can't give us any confidence that the TACs are followed. Therefore, we have to draw the conclusion that the total allowable catch that's set on paper is not being followed by the companies, because we all know how Spain has carried out their position on the downsizing of the fishery in the EU. So how can you then represent Canada and represent the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada in a particular part of the world food chain to give us a level of confidence that we should believe and accept what you're saying?

    The question I'm asking is, how do you know that the total allowable catches are being followed?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: A number of steps are followed that allow us to assess whether or not TACs are being adhered to. First of all, we look at observer reports, which provide information on catch; secondly, there are port inspection procedures done by contracting parties; thirdly, there are reports to NAFO that are provided by contracting parties; and finally, there are scientific assessments that validate or not what's actually happening. So that is the process.

    But, Mr. Efford, in my comments I mentioned to you that we made a report to NAFO that talked about areas of non-compliance. One of the areas I mentioned in my brief remarks was that we had concerns about whether quotas were being respected. We have evidence that in some cases there is misreporting. I'm not sitting here today telling you that every quota is respected. We know from reports that we have provided to NAFO and reports that have been very public that we have concerns about the adherence of some parties with respect to the quota.

    Let me give you two examples. The Faeroe Islands had a small quota of shrimp in division 3L. They did not adhere to that quota, and we took action and closed our ports to the Faeroe Islands' vessels. The same situation holds with respect to Estonia.

    So there are those situations where we do acknowledge and have acknowledged publicly and repeatedly at NAFO that those are problems that we want to see rectified.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Let me just ask you a question about this. We closed the port of Bay Roberts, where I live, to the Estonians and the Faeroese. We lost $30 million a year because we said--you said, I said--that they were overfishing. Now that we've closed the ports, what has changed in their overfishing methods?

    The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Efford, both Estonia and the Faeroe Islands ceased fishing for the remainder of 2002 in division 3L.

    The Chair: Mr. Efford.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Next question then is on the extension of custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. You'll never change my mind. You know my position on that. And I think most Canadians, and particularly the members of this committee, believe it very strongly.

    But I have to ask you this question. You expressed concern about the relationship with those countries if we proceeded to extend the coastal management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. What do you mean by the relationship with those countries? And we've said clearly in our report, and it's in all discussions I've ever read, that those countries that are fishing out there now, all of them that have a historical attachment, would continue fishing but under a regime of conservation management by the country of Canada. So what do you mean by the relationship with those countries? Are you talking about trade relationships or are you talking about fishing opportunities?

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Essentially when you talk about implementing custodial management in the proposal from the standing committee, it would essentially mean that there would be an application of Canadian management jurisdiction on any vessels that are fishing outside 200 miles. The proposal would be that the parties would continue to fish, but they would be fishing under rules set by Canada; they would be fishing under Canadian enforcement, subject to boarding of Canadian inspection vessels outside 200 miles; and in the event of violations, those vessels would be subject to application of Canadian courts.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Absolutely.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Many of the parties who are currently members of NAFO would see all of those steps being essentially a unilateral assertion of jurisdiction by Canada and they would be strongly opposed to it. They would simply not be prepared to have their vessels fishing on the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian law and Canadian courts.

    And I'm not saying, Mr. Efford, please understand, that I wouldn't necessarily see this as a good thing myself, but the parties out there would certainly be opposed to this. It would set a precedent for other countries around the world, and for that reason I think the reaction from these countries would be extremely harsh. I'm not an expert in foreign affairs and I don't purport to be, but I do know that those parties would react in certain ways to protect what they see as their legitimate interest to fish on the high seas without jurisdiction expressed by Canada. That's the heart of the issue. And I think they would have a variety of reactions.

    Mr. R. John Efford: I have a final question and then I'll let somebody else speak, because I'll have some others later.

    Mr. Chamut, I'm going to say this, and I don't mean to say this in an insulting way to you, but I have to reference relating to what you're saying. I know that the fishing states wouldn't be happy, but goddamn it, we would be stopping them from doing piracy on the high seas that they've been doing over those years. When I grew up in Newfoundland we used to have chickens. And we used to have to be concerned about the rats getting in after the chickens. And if we drove the rats away, or the fox, from the chickenhouse they weren't happy; you know, they couldn't get the chickens, so they weren't happy. I'm not concerned with France, or Spain, or Portugal or any of them being happy; I'm concerned about the future of the fish stocks. So we'll leave that alone for another time.

    My question is on the observers. You mentioned an observer being an engineer.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: In one case.

    Mr. R. John Efford: In one case.

    Tell me--and I know the answer to this question. I don't know the exact answer, but I know what's going on--how many of the observers participate in fishing as crew members.

    The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question. I simply cannot give you an answer, because this is not—

    The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I've given you one example, and there are others.

    The Chair: Mr. Chamut, are there statistics on this that you could put your hands on, or are there not?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I can take a look, but for the committee just to have some appreciation, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of data entries and reports. It's a very large volume. I regret that I can't give you an answer, but I hope you appreciate that we're dealing with an enormous volume of material. We're talking about documents that do not just go into a box, we're talking about documents that fill rooms. The analysis of those takes a large amount of staff time, and it takes a large number of people to go through each and every report, identify problems and violations, and put everything into a succinct summary. It's a very major task.

    The Chair: Just so we're clear on these hundreds of thousands of pieces of information, I presume you're talking about all information amassed since the beginning. This wouldn't be, let's say, information for 2002 alone. There wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of observers in 2002 alone, isn't that correct?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: No, I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of data entries each year. That's why I hope you appreciate the magnitude of the information. We're not talking about reports like this that you can carry in a box. There is quite a very large volume of data.

    The Chair: Okay, I don't want to take any more time on that. When we get to the next round, we can proceed further.

    The next person is Mr. Burton, for five minutes.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chamut, the committee spent some time on the east coast last March and heard a number of witnesses. I'd just like to read you a few comments from a couple of them, and then I'll ask a question.

    “If you want to look at what happened at the last NAFO meeting...it becomes obvious that NAFO is not working for the benefit of Canada....” That was a comment by the Honourable Gerry Reid, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador.

    “NAFO was an organization that failed desperately....” That's from Jim Morgan, of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association.

    “NAFO is an extremely ineffective organization....” That's a comment from Alastair O'Reilly, president of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

    And “NAFO is clearly not working....” That's from Earle McCurdy, of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.

    I can go on and on, because there have been numerous comments made by very knowledgeable people in the fishing industry.

    With that sort of input and information, do we do something different? Do we accept that information? Or are they all wrong? It's one way or the other. Either NAFO is working or it isn't working. But we heard, with all due respect, that it's not working.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, sir.

    The comments you are referring to were collected over a period in 2001, I believe, following the very—

    The Chair: No, 2002.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: This year? Yes, that's right. I'm sorry. I'm a year out of date. Time flies when you're having fun.

    The comments were actually coming on the heels of the 2002 meeting of NAFO in January. I think Mr. Efford, in his comments, was talking about a change in tone. Coming out of the January meeting, we were extremely concerned about what we saw happening in NAFO. We talked about the compliance problems. The trend was worsening.

    We had also come off a very difficult meeting at which there had been a voting procedure put in place that resulted in an increase in the Greenland halibut quota and resulted in an increase in the number of vessel days for shrimp. And there were also a couple of other instances that caused a lot of concern within Canada. I think the comments that were being made reflected that concern to some extent.

    In fairness, though, if you went back and talked to those same individuals, I think you would probably still get a lot of concern. I'm not going to suggest to you that they've reversed their views. I'm trying to express here that our conclusion is that we feel it's more appropriate to try to work within the institution of NAFO to try to make improvements.

    We think we are making progress. By no means are we achieving perfection with that institution, but our conclusion is that it's better to try to work within that forum than it is to simply abandon it and result in what I think would be an unregulated, chaotic fishery outside 200 miles. I don't think that's in anyone's interest.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Further to that, obviously we've heard a lot about NAFO being ineffective and so on. You're saying it's better to work with an ineffective organization than no organization.

    The concern I have, and that I think most of the committee has, is that even though you delineate problems, you realize there are problems with observers, with reporting, and so on, nothing seems to happen. There seems to be no teeth to deal with offenders. This is, I think, the crux of the matter. If there are problems, they have to be dealt with. How we deal with them, we obviously have yet to.... We've made recommendations, and hopefully government will listen. But you have to deal with problems when they arise.

    So how do we get more teeth? If you're recommending continuing with this obviously weak and ineffective operation, how do we get more teeth into it if you wish to do that?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: We're dealing within a forum that, as I've mentioned, has 18 individual members, all of whom believe they have the right to fish on the high seas outside 200 miles.

    Our conclusion, and what I've been expressing here, is that we think we can work within NAFO and actually achieve improvements. We think we are making progress and we are looking at ways that we can constantly improve the conservation measures, improve the level of compliance, and improve the deterrence that is practised by other parties.

    We're also looking at other things we can do. We're not merely saying let's simply try to make NAFO more effective. We think that is a clear first step that we need to take and we think that progress is being made.

    The second thing we're looking at is making greater use of the UN fish stocks agreement. That's a regime that has been ratified. It is in place with a number of parties around the NAFO table, and we think that in addition to working within NAFO we can make better use of the UN fish stocks agreement amongst those countries that are party to the agreement. That is the second initiative we would want to pursue.

    I've also mentioned we are looking at hosting a forum, which will be held in St. John's. It is intended to look at what else may be feasible for us to do.

    We recognize there are problems, and I don't think I've tried to say there aren't; clearly there are. We think our approach of working through NAFO, of trying to make greater use of the UN fish stocks agreement, and continuing to look for other opportunities represents a sensible and responsible approach to dealing with the problem. We too are concerned about the behaviour of foreign fleets and are looking for ways in which we can make improvements in a number of different areas.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Just so we're clear for the record, I think there are five countries out of eighteen in NAFO that have ratified the UN fish stocks agreement, one of which is Canada.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, sir. There are five countries. That includes--

    The Chair: So less than one-third of the countries in NAFO have ratified the UN fish stocks agreement?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: That's right, but let me make a comment. We have Russia, Norway, Iceland, the United States, and Canada that are currently signatory. You're right, those countries represent less than one-third.

    We also expect other parties will be joining, and in particular we're expecting the European Union to sign the UN fish stocks agreement. They intend to ratify en bloc, all together, and we think once that happens it will also provide an opportunity to use that agreement with respect to our relations with the European Union.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Being realistic in trying to solve this problem, which is a major one for all of us, we have to work with what we have. We can say we want this, that, or the other thing, but to get what we've recommended, custodial management, certainly is going to take a lot of political will and a lot of international dealings, as you know--unless we just declare it, and then we realize the implications of that also.

    But since last year's meeting--not this past one, but the one before--from which some of these comments were made, and what have you, there has also been a change throughout the world, more realization of the state of not only the cod stocks but stocks generally. When the minister and I and Mr. Chamut were there in Russia, almost every country that fishes in the North Atlantic expressed major concerns: lack of scientific knowledge, a complete unawareness of what's really happening in the ocean. So the atmosphere internationally is changing also.

    Mr. Chamut--I don't disagree at all--the government made, the country made, some positive moves this year at NAFO despite the fact that other things didn't happen. How does it fit with the big picture? Well, there'll be arguments; however, I'm wondering if the atmosphere is right and proper to push for custodial management.

    When custodial management was raised a little earlier, you mentioned that it would mean taking over; you would have to administer the whole situation. We would be the ones boarding the ships, or whatever. But that's not necessarily so, because custodial management means you have custody of the management. That doesn't mean you need to do it exclusively yourself; it could be done in relationship and partnership with the other countries. So those who have historical rights to many of the stocks and quotas that we can't do anything about.... Some of them fished there before or just as early as any of us did. However, with their participation, I think a custodial management regime can be created, hopefully with Canada, the adjacent state, being in charge, because I think all of them are becoming much more conscious of what's happening to the stocks. Again, if we can create the proper atmosphere, we can move towards that. I'd like your views on that.

    The other question, briefly--and then I'll let you answer both--is this. We are in another crisis, as you know, in relation to cod in Atlantic Canada. We're not the only ones; the European countries are concerned about the North Sea. Again, there's no sense in the minister dealing with boats within our own jurisdiction if we are going to let directed fisheries overfish and whatever occurs outside. So it's another reason, coupled with the European involvement in the North Sea, or the European concern, that all of these clearly illustrate the need for more prudent management, and somebody has to be in charge of the shop. I'd like your comments on that.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think these comments are quite insightful and I would agree with a lot of what you've said, Mr. Hearn. I think there is a very strong concern emerging internationally about fish stocks globally. We've seen that concern reflected in things like the Johannesburg conference, which talked about sustainable development and concerns about oceans.

    We're certainly seeing a very strong expression of concern now coming out of the European Union because they're facing moratoria on cod stocks in their own waters. Their scientists are telling them that the cod stocks are extremely low, that the only way they see that those stocks can be protected would be to have a total cessation of fishing. So they're certainly concerned.

    In terms of the issue about using the current situation to push for custodial management, I think we're certainly in a position where we would be prepared to explore those sorts of things, and that's why I think one of the important things I've talked about is that forum on custodial management coming up in the new year.

    But to the extent that we do share responsibility outside 200 miles, which I think is the tenor of your comment, there is currently a sharing of enforcement responsibility now. Canada is not the only party that operates inspection vessels outside 200 miles. We do have enforcement officers on Canadian vessels who board and inspect foreign vessels, but the European Union does as well. I know that the Faeroe Islands have sent over an inspection vessel and periodically other countries do as well, and I know they would be prepared to continue that, but the real sticker is the application of Canadian jurisdiction in terms of the courts in setting the rules. I think they would be steadfastly opposed to that, although I think they are quite prepared to work with us together and provide support and platforms to look at the compliance with the various rules. But it wouldn't be compliance with Canadian rules, but rather, compliance with NAFO rules. I think that's where they would draw the line.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Matthews, five minutes.

    Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    An observation off the top, Mr. Chairman, is that, if my memory serves me correctly, we went from a 3-mile zone to a 12-mile zone, and then I think we went to the 200-mile limit in 1977, 25 years ago. And certainly when we went to the 200-mile zone those countries that we're talking about today were not very pleased and did not send us letters of congratulations, wishing us any good luck. So I think we try to slough it off a little too easily by saying that we're not going to get any international support. I think we realize that and I don't think we had a lot before.

    That's just an observation. I think we need the political will to do it, and I think it's very obvious that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Foreign Affairs, and the committee are more than 200 miles apart on their thoughts on this.

    Mr. Chamut, I'd like to ask you a couple of quick questions, because I don't have much time. I think last year there were some 26 violations reported. How many have been reported this year to date?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: To this point 18. We're seeing a decline over last year.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: That's good. A significant amount of time this morning has been spent talking about observer coverage, and the problem we have is that none of us trust the observers and none of trust the foreign nations, and there's good reason for this for those of us who live in Atlantic Canada and represent coastal communities. We've been decimated by what's happened.

    Do you know the cost of the NAFO observer program?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, the question is one that I can't answer. I'd give you a ballpark, but because the contracting parties pay varying degrees of costs on a daily basis for the observers, it's very difficult to give any sort of an absolute answer. But I would guess that we're looking at an amount that could be $15 million to $20 million annually.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay. Has there ever been any thought that you're aware of by Canada and by the Canadian delegation to push for a totally Canadian observer coverage on those vessels? Realizing that Canada would have to pick up the tab, has there ever been any thought or any suggestion to the other contracting parties that the observer coverage would be 100% Canadian?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Matthews, within the confines of our own boardroom walls we do spend a lot of time looking at various options we might want to consider. Yes, we have considered that within the department. But we have not put an offer like that on the table with other parties, because one could not make an offer without also having confidence one will have the money to pick up the cost. Yes, we've considered those sorts of things but have not had active negotiations with other parties.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay, I realize that, but I guess my point is, if as a country we have any commitment to addressing this issue at all, there has to be financial commitment. I realize your point. You can't commit $20 million if you don't know if you're going to get it. Then I guess the question is.... Obviously, from what you've told me, there has been some consideration given to it, which I think is encouraging.

    On the bycatch, I want to just ask you a quick question or so. You've referenced the yellowtail flounder and you've referenced that last year we got an increase of, I believe, 1,500 metric tonnes. I guess my concern is the American plaice, and for good reason. You know the situation very well.

    On the south coast of Newfoundland I have three plants, FPI plants. They shut down their yellowtail fishery last year sometime because the bycatch of American plaice was so high. The company made a conservation decision that hurt its employees and, I guess, probably hurt the bottom line of the company, but in the name of conservation--it's a conservation-minded company--they shut down the yellowtail fishery because the bycatch of American plaice was so high.

    There's no directed American plaice fishery, is there? I'm just looking for clarification.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: No, not in the NAFO regulatory area. There is a small American plaice fishery in the Gulf--of about 1,000 tonnes, I believe. Outside, in the NAFO regulatory area, there's no directed fishery on American plaice.

    Mr. Bill Matthews: I guess the question I'm asking, then, is are there any companies or countries that are fishing American plaice illegally?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: The concern we've had and that I expressed, I think, the last time I was here to talk about foreign overfishing was that some parties were in fact directing for American plaice. The way the rules worked, there was a bycatch limit of 5%. For a species under moratorium, there's inevitably some small amount of catch when they're targeting for other species.

    What some parties were doing was abusing that 5% privilege. Instead of seeing it as an absolute limit, they saw it as an opportunity. What they were doing was this. They could prosecute a fishery for Greenland halibut without catching a lot of American plaice. What they would do is fill up on Greenland halibut and then say, “If I've got 100 tonnes of Greenland halibut, I'm allowed up to 5% American plaice”. What they would do is prosecute their fishery for Greenland halibut and catch 100 tonnes, then move into the shallow waters and actually direct for American plaice.

    I've talked about what sounds like a mundane change in definition adopted at the last NAFO meeting. There was a change in the rules that essentially will prevent, or make it much more difficult--I won't be so categorical about preventing it--for parties to actually do that.

    The other thing that was done was there was an increase in mesh size in the skate fishery. There's a high bycatch of plaice in the skate fishery, but only if you use smaller-mesh gear. What we have done is get agreement to adopt a 280-mesh for fishing for skate, and that allows the American plaice to escape. It has really reduced the bycatch of plaice.

    Those things have been positive, but trying to block the ability of people to abuse the rules is what we've been at for a couple of years.

    The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In his presentation to the committee last spring, the Newfoundland fisheries minister, Mr. Reid, said:

In total, overfishing of NAFO regulated straddling stocks by the EU and non-NAFO countries exceeded 850,000 tonnes over the 1986-1994 period, at least 240,000 tonnes of which was Northern cod. Stock depletion has been so extensive that key fisheries are no longer commercially viable and are under NAFO imposed moratoria.

    He goes on to say that in 1995 Canada sent its navy into the area and there was compliance, but he says that “these conservation measures, however, were short lived” and that the analysis shows “increasing trends of non-compliance, since 1999” and “these trends include increased landings of moratoria species, overfishing of 3L shrimp”, etc.

    Now you tell us that we're making progress, and as I say, that's in contradiction to what others have said before this committee. My question is this. How do you measure this progress that you're talking about?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Cummins, I think the ultimate measure is going to be the statistics on compliance of vessels with NAFO rules. But I think the real test is going to be looking at the rebuilding of stocks. That's really what we're trying to achieve, and ultimately success in NAFO should be measured in terms of the ability to see a return of stocks to former abundance. We've got a long way to go, but at the end of the day that's what we're trying to achieve.

    Mr. John Cummins: Isn't that what this is all about? We've had 10 years of playing ball, if you will, with NAFO, of looking for incremental change, and nothing has happened.

    The response by the minister to the committee's suggestion that we take over custodial management was an outright rejection. The minister felt that this more proactive approach wouldn't work. Yet our problem is that what's gone on up to now hasn't worked and we're suggesting that some changes have to be made--something has to happen.

    Our suggestion of custodial management is not outlandish or outrageous or without precedent. In fact I'd suggest to you that it's not even outside the law. The United Nations Fisheries Agreement, UNFA, notes something that I think is of importance to Canada, and those are the provisions that allow for non-flag state boarding and inspection of fishing vessels flying the flag of any UNFA party, and there's a binding dispute settlement procedure.

    Now, it seems to me that what we're suggesting--custodial management--is merely an extension or an enactment, if you will, of UNFA. It's not outrageous, it's not outlandish, it's not unreasonable; it's merely exerting our rights as a coastal nation under UNFA. So how do you respond to that?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: As we said earlier, five countries are party to UNFA. Until those other parties join or ratify UNFA and become subject to its provisions, we will not be in a position to simply decide, as Canadian inspection officers, to board those vessels and arrest them.

    I have to clarify that even when all countries have ratified the UN fish stocks agreement--which we hope will happen--it still won't mean Canada will be able to board foreign vessels, arrest them, and bring them into port in Canada. It will authorize us to board, but where we find a violation, UNFA makes it clear that the flag state will be notified and will have the opportunity to decide whether they will take it into their custody and deal with it or whether it can be brought into Canada. But until all those parties have ratified, we will not have the ability to go out and simply board, as Canadians.

    But I would like to draw to the attention of members of the committee that Canadian officers on board Canadian vessels operating as NAFO inspectors do have the ability to board each and every foreign vessel fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. We currently do that, not as Canadians but as inspection officers operating under the authority of the NAFO inspection regime.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

[Translation]

    You have five minutes, Mr. Roy.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Chamut, we all agree that the main role of Fisheries and Oceans is resource protection.

    We know that overfishing outside the 200-mile zone affects resources within this zone, particularly off the coast of Newfoundland. Can we say that since the creation of NAFO, stocks inside the 200-mile zone, particularly straddling fish stocks, have been saved and that they are healthy and accessible to our fishers, as was the case in the past?

    Has the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization had a genuine impact on stock conservation and on quota levels within the 200-mile zone? Have stocks rebounded within the last decade?

[English]

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you.

    There is no question that overfishing affects straddling stocks. We can't achieve our objectives domestically unless we're also effective in dealing with the harvesting activities of foreign fleets.

    You've asked the question of whether or not straddling stocks in the NAFO regulatory area have been conserved, and the answer to that is clearly no. I need to go back to a comment that Mr. Cummins made where he reported on a presentation that Minister Reid, from Newfoundland, made. There's no question that during the late 1980s and early 1990s members of NAFO overfished very many stocks. The figures quoted by Mr. Cummins of in excess of 850,000 metric tonnes are correct. The situation in NAFO in the late 1980s and early 1990s was dramatically different from what we see now. I'm not saying it's by any means perfect at this point, but what we had in the late 1980s and early 1990s was an absolutely, totally unacceptable arrangement within NAFO. There was no agreement to follow the scientific advice. Parties set unilateral quotas far in excess of what the scientists recommended and then they ignored those quotas.

    So there's no question that foreign overfishing contributed to the demise of the stocks that we currently see and which we are trying to rebuild. The question, though, is whether those practices are continuing. I think we've seen a very dramatic change if you compare what we went through in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

    I mentioned in my opening remarks that for almost all of the stocks we followed the scientific advice in setting quotas. That wasn't the case in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We have much tighter rules, we have more effective enforcement, we have more effective follow-up, we have a better understanding of what's going on because of the use of observers, because of the satellite monitoring, because of the dockside port inspection. All of those things have reversed what we saw as an absolutely and totally unacceptable arrangement in the late 1980s and 1990s.

    Are we satisfied? No, we're not. But we do not see the situation being the same as it was 10 to 15 years ago. There are improvements, there is progress, there has been some rebuilding of some stocks. I mentioned yellowtail as one in particular. I think there is an opportunity to continue to work through NAFO and to continue to look for any and all levers to try to deal with the problem.

    As a fisheries manager--and I have very strong personal views on this--we're committed to trying to deal with this problem, and we're going to deal with it in whatever way is feasible through NAFO, and we'll look for other opportunities as well. But we want to do something that will be constructive for the stocks and that will not make the situation worse. We are looking for those and we're hopeful that in the next number of months we will continue to make more progress.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, five minutes.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I just have a brief question. It seems that for any compliance with the quotas fished in the area we've hung it on the integrity of the observer program and the monitoring of the resource. You've identified the sheer quantity of the information that's taken from that area. Could you walk me through how we manage that after reports are submitted?

    I was encouraged, as was my colleague Mr. Matthews, with the idea that you guys have gone that far and talked about a Canadian monitoring system. I think this is something that would be a step in the right direction. You made note of the Norwegians being totally monitored by Canadian observers, and I think that's significant.

    After the reports are taken they're given to a NAFO panel, I would imagine, and entered, and then what access do we have? How do we monitor the monitors? Could you enlighten me on that process?

  (1230)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'd like to begin by saying we obviously look very carefully at observer reports, but the information we have on measuring compliance is more than just observer reports. I'll come back to your question, but I did want to make the point that for the report we provided to NAFO, for example, we use our own inspectors, who have eyes and ears that identify violations. We also have aerial surveillance out there with some really interesting long-range photography that allows us to validate parties that are fishing with illegal gear. So there's a variety of techniques we use to try to identify the performance of the various fleets.

    The way the system works is the observers provide their reports, and they go to the contracting party. I'll use the example of the European Union. The observers file their reports seven days after the end of the voyage; the reports go to the European Union; in turn the reports are to be submitted to the NAFO secretariat. This is the body that services NAFO and operates out of Dartmouth. The reports go from contracting parties into NAFO, and once a month we get essentially a very large dump of reports. We in turn take those reports and go through them. We have a system now of computerizing the information and all of the data entries that deal with the fishing activities on a tow-by-tow and day-by-day basis by species, by area.

    As you can see, it rapidly becomes a very large volume of information. But we enter all the data and are able to do some analysis that allows us to identify what's happening in specific instances with various vessels and to total what they're doing to assess the overall compliance. It's a program initiative we started about two years ago. I think it takes about three staff members working not quite but pretty well full time to try to compile all the information and put the reports together.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Are you confident in your own capacity to monitor this?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: We've reallocated people into this because it is obviously very important to us. The three people I mentioned were not there two years ago, but they are there now, working out of Newfoundland. We have a little core group of people who are doing a very fine job in terms of providing us with staff support to do this work.

    The Chair: Rodger, is there anything else?

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No, that's fine.

    The Chair: There's one minute left, so with your permission I would ask a couple of questions on his time.

    Was there any discussion by the contracting states about our report at the NAFO meeting?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, there was no formal discussion at the table, although I made an opening statement and did very much refer to the report of the standing committee. I advised members of the recommendations that had been made. There was certainly an awareness of the work the standing committee had done. I will call it “hallway discussion”. There was no formal agenda item, nor was there a formal discussion at the table, but a lot of discussion around the margins.

    The Chair: Thank you for at least mentioning our report in your remarks.

    We're going to Mr. Burton for five minutes.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

    Here are a couple of things. First, we talked about and I asked earlier about there being teeth or penalties when violations of overfishing and so on are discovered. I'm still not really comfortable with where that goes. Are there really penalties?

    Second to that, in terms of monitoring and patrolling with patrol vessels out on our high seas, basically we've had a number of reports over the last year that there are not enough government patrol vessels out on the waters to check on these foreign vessels and their overfishing. With all the cutbacks we've heard about in funding for coast guard and so on, and fishery patrol vessels tied up, how do we even do half a job? How can we monitor what's going on out there when it appears to us, from what we're hearing, there isn't even enough money to send these vessels out on the high seas? We can't buy fuel, never mind uniforms for some of these people. How do we actually find out what is going on and keep a good handle on it, other than from observer reports that I think we still feel are somewhat inaccurate?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Mr. Chamut.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'll deal with your question about penalties first. Let's take an example of the way the system works. We see a vessel fishing outside 200 miles. We board that vessel; we inspect it; we find a violation. We register that violation both with NAFO and with the contracting party, and it's up to the contracting party that is the flag state to use its legal process to pursue the violation--to prosecute the vessel. There's not an opportunity for that prosecution process to involve Canadians, because it is the responsibility of the flag state.

    In some situations in the past, Canada would identify violations, and the flag state would not take appropriate follow-up because they felt the evidence was not sufficiently compelling. More recently, this has been obviously an area of great concern to us, and we've been emphasizing the importance of flag states taking strong action; otherwise, identifying a violation is of no consequence if there is no consequence.

    Lately we are satisfied that there has been improvement in the performance of flag states in dealing with those responsibilities. For example, we identified Russian vessels that were fishing contrary to the NAFO rules. These violations and problems were reported to Russia. They in turn investigated, were satisfied that the violations were valid, and took action by penalizing the vessel. They took the licence away and I think in a couple of cases reassigned the captain to other vessels. So there were, in fact, fairly effective penalties.

    More recently there have also been situations involving vessels from Spain where Spain has taken follow-up action, where they have prosecuted and in some cases denied access of that vessel to the zone for a year and imposed fairly significant financial penalties.

    So I think there is much improved action being taken, and I think it gets to Mr. Hearn's earlier point about much greater global recognition that this is a serious problem that needs to be taken seriously.

    In terms of monitoring, there are a number of ways we do monitor. First of all, as you've mentioned, we have a dedicated patrol vessel that operates outside 200 miles. It's called the Leonard J. Cowley. It's a coast guard vessel, but it's funded out of money essentially from my budget and is out there, I'm thinking, probably 280 to 300 days a year.

    We have the one vessel, but that's not all we have. We have aerial surveillance operated on contract with Provincial Airlines Limited, which provides us with very effective service. They're out there flying a very large number of hours each year to identify the location and do what else they can to assess the performance of vessels through things like aerial photography. We also have satellite tracking that is required to be on all the foreign vessels, which is an additional assistance; plus, as you know, we have the observer reports. So we have a fairly good degree of coverage.

    It's like everything else, though. If you asked me if we could use more, I'd say clearly we could. More would provide greater coverage, but I think at the present time we have our hands full dealing with all the information we currently collect.

    The Chair: But you mentioned Mr. Hearn. Mr. Hearn, do you have any questions?

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: It's ironic, Mr. Chairman, but of the two questions I had taken note of, one has been asked by Mr. Burton and the other, concerning resources, has been answered by Mr. Chamut.

    You talk about aerial surveillance. I agree--I think all of us do--because along with having the job done, we have a Newfoundland company doing the aerial surveillance, and they do a very good job. However, it's not much good for a plane to identify a breach in regulations if we don't have a boat somewhere around to be able to then board, because I presume that unless we're going to pull another Estai, we can't chase them into international waters and bring them back. So that's difficult.

    You mentioned you could use more resources. You also mentioned the amount of information that's coming from observer reports. Perhaps we should be pushing also for more resources, because you can't do a job if you haven't got the resources. If we haven't got the boats on the water, if we haven't got the technical staff to analyse and to get out the information with which government can deal or we can push to get government to deal--whatever--we're not going to move ahead in this area at all.

    But mainly I'd like to come back to the general concern for control. Somebody has to be in charge. NAFO to me is almost like our committee. We try to operate under consensus quite often, and I guess it's almost the same way. There is nobody really calling the shots in relation to what has to be done for surveillance. We hope the offending state will deal with the boats involved. Some do and some may not. How can we...? We know how we can do it: by taking custodial management. But leading up to that, how can we try to get better teeth in the NAFO organization, Mr. Chair, to deal with issues instead of hoping someone is to make decisions, to do proper surveillance, to punish offending nations? Within the organization itself, as we move to more involvement and control, isn't there a way that can be done?

  (1240)  

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Hearn, the difficulty we have is we're dealing with a situation where vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area outside 200 miles are obliged to follow the rules set by the regional fisheries management organization, and the accountable party for making vessels comply with the rules is the flag state.

    I'm not trying to duck your question. Your point is that someone has to be in control, and my response is the flag state is in control. I think your contention would be the flag state is not necessarily doing its right duty, because it's 3,000, or 5,000, or 10,000 miles away from where the vessel is.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: But can we have the enforcement arm within the new NAFO?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: We've looked at a variety of different alternatives. There is not any agreement on the part of NAFO to have some sort of independent enforcement arm that would take over the responsibility that currently is exercised by flag states. This is the nub of the question. Clearly the way international law currently is, I don't see that there's anything we can expect in the short term that will change the current responsibility structure, which puts flag states as the party that is responsible for the behaviour of their fleets.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Isn't that's just making the argument, then, for custodial management or some proper form of management?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Well, let me put it this way. There are a number of people who would certainly welcome the notion of custodial management. Clearly, if as a fisheries manager you have control over the entire stock range, it becomes much easier to manage and conserve. But having said that, the reality we're operating in is that there are many different parties who would strongly oppose any move to try to change the current regime. It took us 40 years to move from 12 miles to 200. In the long term it may well be that there will be sufficient concern or sufficient pressure among like-minded states that we might eventually see 200 become 240 or 300, but that is in the long term. I think at the present time there is no appetite amongst most members in the world community to change the 200-mile limit or to change the regime that provides for the freedom to fish the high seas.

    There were comments made earlier about how 200 miles was imposed on the world community. It was adopted by the world community by consensus, and when you look at the current situation, that consensus doesn't exist. Your contention is that we should continue to explore those, and my response to you is that this indeed is what we're doing. And if you read the response the government has made, it is stated that we will look for opportunities to advance that notion, certainly in the long term.

    But I do not think it's practical to expect that within the immediate future we can foresee that it's going to be a realistic outcome that people should expect. That's not to say that people can't continue to look for opportunities and continue to press that case, but imposing it unilaterally at this point I do not see as being a viable option, nor one that would be in the best interests of fish stocks or overall Canadian interests.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

    Colleagues, I am going to call on Mr. Efford, but with your permission I'd like to ask a few questions and I'd like to get us out of here at 1 p.m. I have about five minutes worth of business to do, so if you don't mind, we'll have Mr. Efford, a few questions from me, and then we'll thank the witnesses and just deal with what we need to deal with.

    Mr. Efford, please.

    Mr. R. John Efford: I will try to conclude quickly.

    The Chair: Take your five; there's no problem.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Okay.

    Mr. Chamut, the comments I am going to make are not directed at you in any manner as an individual or a civil servant of the Government of Canada, but I'll say clearly I'm going to leave this meeting today with no more confidence than when I came in that what's happening today is working. Yes, there are some measures being applied and in place, but nobody can measure. As you have said, you can't put any measurement on anything that's happening.

    I'll ask this question directly, and it doesn't require a detailed answer, but an answer nevertheless. Reference was made to the 886,000 tonnes of overfishing by the parties on the Grand Banks in a period of time. You said it's not happening today. Is the only reason, or the main reason--I shouldn't say “the only”--it's not happening today that the stocks are not there?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I would agree that it is probably the main reason, but I am also satisfied that people have learned a very bitter lesson from what happened 15 years ago, and I have probably a greater degree of confidence than do you that we would not see a repeat of that kind of behaviour.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Yes, Mr. Chamut, you can't tell us with any certainty whatsoever that the appropriate mesh size is being used on boats. You can't tell us with any level of confidence that yellowtail or any other species is not being directed. We don't know if the 5% bycatch is being observed. It's impossible when all those boats are fishing out there.

    But you mentioned that the Leonard J. Cowley spends 200 days a year outside the 200-mile limit. It can't be the same Leonard J. Cowley that I see in Newfoundland, I can assure you.

    Could you give us, the committee, a report on how many boardings they've made in the year 2002 to date and how many charges or how many violations they saw or reported back?

    The Chair: Are you going to give us that information at some point in time, Mr. Chamut?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll consult with regional colleagues, and we will provide that to the committee.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: And days at sea as well, please.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: That would be days at sea at some distance, because a day at sea can be at the mouth of the harbour.

    Mr. R. John Efford: That's right.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Give us the days in the zone.

    Mr. R. John Efford: I'm talking about days outside the 200-mile limit, in the zone.

    Anyhow, Mr. Chamut, being a citizen of Newfoundland, as you know, I have to take it very seriously. All the members from Newfoundland live with fish day in, day out. NAFO hasn't worked for 25 years. I know you're saying you have to continue on with discussions, but I'll conclude by saying this, because I'm only going to repeat myself and it's going to fall on deaf ears.

    I know what you said about the 40 years it took to get out to 200 miles. The only reason it was done then was that the political will was there to do it. Until the political will is within the Canadian government to protect a renewable resource that's part of the world food chain, and until your friends in Foreign Affairs come on side, it's not going to happen. You're going to continue on discussing, Newfoundland is going to continue suffering, and the stocks are going to continue going on the way they have been for the last 25 years. People's suffering will never change.

    I feel pain when I say that, but it's a fact. We've been beaten so much, but we don't have the forces in Newfoundland, the population, to do what's necessary. I only wish and pray sometimes that we did. But when the Government of Canada, which I am a part of, is taking the position that is taken this day, and when pirates on the high seas are allowed to do what they do to part of the world food chain.... I'm a Newfoundlander, and I've been out on my boat catching one fish—one fish!—and I've had officers board my boat with guns. They'll arrest me, they'll take me to court, and they'll take my boat, take my rights, and everything, whether I'm a personal or a commercial fisherman. Outside the 200-mile limit we can talk and talk, but we point the guns inside the 200-mile limit.

    The Chair: Do you have any comment, Mr. Chamut?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I take that as a statement, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there's really much I can say to respond. Thank you.

    The Chair: That's your five minutes, Mr. Efford.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Thank you.

    The Chair: I just have a few questions of my own, if you don't mind.

    When do you expect the EU to ratify UNFA?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: After the most recent discussions, we understand that there are now two parties outstanding. I think one is Ireland, and the other one is Greece. They're working through legislative procedures to ratify UNFA, and what we are told is that this will happen sometime next year.

    I have to caution you that I was told that a year ago as well. I can only report what I understand the current situation to be, but I think it should be expected to be sometime next year.

    The Chair: In our report, we recommended custodial management. Within hours, it seemed to me—that's my recollection—the minister shut the door on that in his remarks in his scrums. We then waited about 150 days to get the official response, and it seems to me that the official response also shuts the door on custodial management. Given that, what is the point of having a round table on custodial management in St. John's in 2003?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: I think I did say the round table is a round table on custodial management. That round table is intended to look at a variety of topics—one of which is the current situation with respect to international law—and to look at opportunities that Canada may have to improve management and protection of straddling stocks. I think there's still a lot of value in proceeding with something like that, because, as I said in my remarks, we are looking for ways in which we can advance our interests in protecting and improving the management of these stocks that are so important to Atlantic Canadians.

    The Chair: Well, in the government's response to recommendation 2, you indicated that there would be a strong negative reaction if we did anything beyond our 200-mile zone. Is that not exactly what happened when we seized the Estai?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: There's no question that there was a strong negative reaction. That's right.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Is it not true that it was seized for activities that occurred beyond the 200-mile zone?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, it was seized under the authority of Bill C-29.

    The Chair: So is it not true that, under the authority of Bill C-29, already exercised by Canada, we could again take action beyond our 200-mile zone?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: The easy answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is, yes, the authority is still there, but these are issues that require more than just a one-word answer.

    Bill C-29 provides authorization to act when it is warranted under particular circumstances. As we've discussed earlier, the situation in 1995 was, no question, different from what we currently see. There would very definitely be questions as to whether or not activity outside 200 miles would be warranted by the current situation in terms of compliance and stock rebuilding and the like.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Chamut. Pardon me.

    Clearly the international community, I would argue, did not think the Estai incident was warranted. Indeed, we had to return that ship, the captain, all the money, and all the fish, when we made the deal. Notwithstanding that we knew the international community would not approve, we did it anyway. Under Bill C-29, we still have the authority to do it again if we feel, as a country, that our fish stocks are in danger. So I think it is possible to give a one-word answer.

    Is my statement not correct?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: The authority is there. The question becomes whether or not the circumstances that authorize the use of Bill C-29 outside 200 miles warrant its application. That would be a question that I, as a mere fisheries biologist, would be loath to answer, because it would get into questions of international law that I am not qualified to answer.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, sir and madam, for coming today. We certainly appreciate the evidence that you've given. We feel it was necessary for us to hear from you, given the response the government gave to our report.

    Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: If we're done with that portion of the meeting, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to comment very briefly on what went on this morning.

    I would be inclined to send the report back to the minister as unsatisfactory. Before I'd even make that kind of a motion, however, I think it would only be appropriate, and a matter or courtesy, if we asked the fisheries minister in Newfoundland to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity—hopefully next Tuesday—to give his view of what went on in those NAFO meetings, and to see if there may be some agreement with Mr. Chamut or some disagreement in any way. I think it would only be appropriate that we did that, so I'd like to move, if possible, that the committee do that, or I would seek a consensus.

    The Chair: Mr. Cummins, I see no problem with that, depending on what the committee says. What I would suggest, however, is that the minister have an opportunity to review the testimony in some fashion. Clearly, if we get him here on Tuesday, it will be very unlikely that he will have had an opportunity to hear what Mr. Chamut had to say. This wasn't a televised meeting, but I imagine we'll have a transcript of this at some point.

    Mr. John Cummins: The blues will be ready tomorrow.

    The Chair: The blues will be ready tomorrow?

    Mr. John Cummins: Certainly, given the timetable, I think we could have those available for him. If it's possible for him to do so, I don't think it would be unreasonable to do that next Tuesday. This is something he would be as familiar with—if not more familiar with—as any of us here.

    The Chair: Let me say this, Mr. Cummins. This will be confirmed later this afternoon, but on the timetable, it's my information that the minister will not be able to attend on Thursday.

    Mr. John Cummins: I was suggesting Tuesday.

    The Chair: I understand that, but if he's not going to be able to attend on Thursday, we've already slotted a day for the minister. That might give the fisheries minister....

    Mr. John Cummins: Oh, you're talking about Mr. Thibault. I'm sorry.

    The Chair: Yes, I'm talking about our minister, the federal minister.

    Since that time has already been slotted for him, if the committee is of the view that we wanted to hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps Thursday would be better. That would give him an opportunity to review transcripts or whatever, and to come in and make an intelligent comment.

    Mr. Efford.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Yes, I agree with John. I think it's appropriate to to do that. But I'd also add this: with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we should also bring in a commissioner, which is either Mr. McCurdy or Mr. O'Reilly.

    An hon. member: John Angel.

·  (1300)  

    Mr. R. John Efford: John Angel? I thought Mr. McCurdy was a commissioner.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, he is.

    Mr. R. John Efford: He is. Okay, then, so it would be the two of them at the same time, Mr. McCurdy and the minister. The minister wasn't actually in the meetings.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, he was.

    Mr. R. John Efford: He wasn't participating, he was only there as an observer.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: Yes, but he heard.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Yes, but I'm saying Mr. McCurdy was a participant in the meetings.

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. R. John Efford: Well, what does a commissioner do?

    The Chair: Who was a participant, Mr. Chamut?

    Mr. Patrick Chamut: At NAFO meetings, there's one spokesman, and that's the head of the delegation. That's the rule, and that means me. Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Angel are commissioners who provide advice, but they do not speak at the table. In that capacity, they're essentially like most. Their advice is regarded as obviously very important because of the constituents they represent, but they are like the observers in terms of their participation. That's the best way to put it.

    Mr. R. John Efford: That's fine, but I still recommend Mr. McCurdy.

    The Chair: Do we have a consensus, then, that we would try to get the Newfoundland fisheries minister and, let's say, Mr. McCurdy here by next Thursday if it's at all possible. Is that all right?

    Mr. John Cummins: Tuesday or Thursday, whichever would be convenient.

    The Chair: Okay, we'll ask them whichever of those two days is preferable, if they can make it on those two days. The clerk will do that today.

    On the only two issues I wanted to discuss, colleagues, I just really want to hand something out here. We were talking about seals, and we were talking about people who might be opposed to any opening of a discussion about seals. I came across a letter in my mail yesterday. It's only in English, but I want to distribute it to everybody. It's not for comment today, but just so you see what we're going to be up against when we discuss the issue of seals. In particular, some of the statements that are made are disingenuous at best. But this is just so that we know the kind of evidence we're going to have to deal with.

    Secondly, we do have the aquaculture report. I would like to give it to you today, and I would ask you to review it. We will deal with it beginning on Tuesday, unless the gentlemen we talked about today come on Tuesday. If they do come on Tuesday, then we'll begin dealing with it on Thursday. It's a long report. It will take at least a couple of hours to go through it, but I would ask you to be ready for it on Tuesday, on the assumption that we won't be able to get the gentlemen here that quickly. If we do, though, then we'll begin it on Thursday.

    Thanks very much.

    Mr. Efford.

    Mr. R. John Efford: Considering the crisis that's about to hit Newfoundland, and in light of the minister's announcement yesterday, at some point in the future—I don't know at what time—would the committee consider going to Newfoundland? Probably as many as 11,000 direct jobs are affected, with a spinoff factor that could be up toward 20,000 people. I think we should have some discussion at some point in the near future on how the committee will deal with this.

    The Chair: Mr. Efford, I think that issue will probably come up in the Atlantic groundfish crisis that we've agreed we're going to discuss. Undoubtedly, I would think we'll be travelling to hear evidence from a variety of places, and we'll certainly take that into consideration at that time.

    Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.