EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 12, 1998
• 0938
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Order. I'm told there's probably a vote in the House of Commons in less than hour, so we're going to have to be very quick in our deliberations this morning.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, could we not come back after the vote? It's only a vote on closure to try to get the bill through.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary suggests we come back after, and that's a very good idea. Do committee members agree with that: if we have to leave because of the vote, we return immediately after, because it's only a simple vote on closure? Maybe we could ask Mr. Duncan to just cancel the vote and we would be okay.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): We could ask the government not to invoke closure and we would be okay.
The Chairman: Let's continue with the committee meeting.
Our witnesses today are from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have Mr. Earl Wiseman, whom all committee members know. He's the director general of the international affairs directorate. David Bevan is the director general of conservation and protection. Ben Whelan is an offshore surveillance officer from the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Dr. Leonard Chepel is the executive secretary.
I'm wondering, Mr. Wiseman, how you would prefer to proceed. Do you have an opening statement, or would you like to go directly to questions?
Mr. Earl Wiseman (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chair, we're in your hands. We're prepared to provide some brief opening statements and then go to questions. Or if you would like to start with questions, feel free.
The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans suggests you make an opening statement and then give an overview.
Do committee members agree? Then we'll go to questions.
Mr. Wiseman.
• 0940
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may suggest, perhaps I could provide a brief opening statement on Canada's foreign fishing relations policy, Dr. Chepel can make a brief statement on how NAFO works and what NAFO is, and then Mr. Whelan and Mr. Bevan can make a presentation on how we control and provide surveillance to ensure that measures that are in place are followed.
I appreciate this opportunity to be here today to try to set the record straight. If one reads the press, there seem to be a lot of myths that appear to be based on facts that are quite old and out of date in relation to what has actually been happening in the northwest Atlantic since 1995. I hope today we can demonstrate that Canada does have a responsible foreign fisheries relations policy, and that in fact the northwest Atlantic has in place the toughest and best surveillance measures in the world.
I think it's important to understand a bit of the context as to why we have a 200-mile zone and what it does for us.
The 200-mile zone came about through an international consensus during the negotiation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is called UNCLOS. That consensus is reflected in part V of the convention.
What it does is provide a balance between the rights and duties of coastal states and the rights and duties of states that fish on the high seas. Prior to the 200-mile zones, these states could fish to within 12 miles of the Canadian coast, and there was massive overfishing in the years before 1977. It was the identification of these problems that had Canada, amongst others, taking a lead and moving these massive fleets further away from our shores, to try to put into place some protections so that Canadians could rebuild the stocks for Canadians.
There is a balance, though, of those duties and obligations. The coastal state has an obligation, and this is the price we pay for having a 200-mile zone. Our obligation is that we can explore and exploit, but we have to conserve and manage the stocks within 200 miles.
States that fish beyond 200 miles must cooperate with the coastal states. Part of what they get out of cooperating and working with the coastal states is that the coastal states will also make available to these states that had traditionally fished, then, up to 12 miles, an opportunity to fish stocks that are surplus to the harvesting capacity of the coastal states.
Canada has put in place a series of measures in order to be able to implement our obligations and ensure that the countries that fish on the high seas now, or in Canadian waters, do so in fulfilling their international obligations.
It's important to know that there are really two kinds of foreign fishing activities. Sometimes I think they get confused.
There's foreign fishing activity that is licensed, that is authorized by Canada, within Canadian waters to the benefit of Canadians. There has never really been, at least in recent times, any major problem with this in that this is thoroughly, fully and stringently managed by Canada.
There is, of course, foreign fishing that takes place beyond 200 miles, in the NAFO regulatory area, and Dr. Chepel could give you a bit more background on that in a few moments. There Canada doesn't have full control. Canada has no control. We are simply members of an international organization, and we try to work within that organization to make sure that organization has controls to manage the stocks beyond 200 miles.
So to implement the Law of the Sea arrangement of a 200-mile zone, Canada sought support from other countries, and we negotiated bilateral agreements with the countries that had traditionally fished in the waters off Canada. These agreements restate Canada's obligation to provide access to stocks that are surplus to Canadian harvesting capacity, with the understanding that the partner would follow all relevant Canadian laws within Canadian waters.
The more important aspect is to cooperate with Canada through the international fisheries management organizations. We do this for cod and flatfish and groundfish, through NAFO in the northwest Atlantic. But we also have cooperation on highly migratory species through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and I'll get to these multilateral organizations in a moment.
• 0945
Our objective is to maintain the support for these
countries on our international conservation measures.
Any party that doesn't cooperate with Canada on
international conservation measures is denied access to
our waters. That's not only for fishing rights; it's
for access to our ports as well. They're denied
opportunities to seek provisions or transship fish
products in our ports.
Access in our waters has dropped significantly over the years. When we first established a 200-mile zone, there still was a massive amount of foreign participation within the Canadian 200-mile zone, because Canada did not at that time have a fleet that was large enough to take advantage of the fish we believed were there.
Foreign catches in Canadian waters were an average of 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In recent years, those foreign catches are less than 2,000 tonnes. There is no massive foreign fishing taking place in Canadian waters under Canadian allocations. And the fishing that takes place in Canadian waters is carefully monitored.
The fishing that takes place by foreign vessels in Canadian waters under foreign allocations is the result of extensive consultations with the industry. These are fish that our industry has indicated they are not intending to fish, for one reason or another. They may not be able to fish these fish because they require special equipment, special handling, or very costly investment in new harvesting gear, which at this point they have not made because much of this fish has a very low market value and there isn't any market for these fish for Canadians. But there may be an interest by foreign fleets to fish these.
Canadians still leave large parts of the Canadian quota for silver hake and squid, for example, in the water every year. Technically there's even more fish that we probably could be allocating to other parties, but there isn't a great demand for this fish, and therefore we're meeting our international obligations. Fish is still being left in the waters, and if Canadians want to fish that fish, it's theirs to fish. If Canadians catch all of that fish and want more, then we take it from the parties that have foreign allocations. Our objective is not to keep foreigners fishing in our waters; our objective is to provide maximum opportunities for Canadian fishermen.
Why are these vessels fishing in Canadian waters? Well, besides Canada fulfilling its international obligation in making these surpluses available, we also get other benefits out of these activities. Up until 1990 we gave the fish to the foreign nations. We felt there must be a better way for Canada to Canadianize these resources than just giving the allocation to foreign nations. So in the early 1990s, we started a number of programs, particularly in the Atlantic, on silver hake and turbot in area 0, which is off Baffin Island. We did that by giving certain Canadians quota and allowing them to charter vessels to fish that quota for them, with the proviso that the product that was caught would be landed in Canadian plants for processing.
This therefore created hundreds of new jobs in Canadian processing plants that would not exist if there had been simply foreign allocations. This was a definite benefit for Canada. Furthermore, it allowed Canadians to get their hands on the product, to try to develop certain product forms, and to try to develop markets, and from there, to find some markets to develop some interest to encourage Canadians to fish, to allow greater participation in the fishery, and therefore to Canadianize the fishery. We can see that in the silver hake fishery, where for years, with quotas between 60,000 and 80,000 tonnes a year, Canadians caught virtually zero.
In the last few years, with developmental programs linked with the Cubans, there has been a significant increase in Canadian fishing activity, because the companies doing business with the foreign companies under charter in fact are getting free product as part of these arrangements, getting part of the catch landed in their plant. And they can use that to subsidize the price they would pay Canadians. Canadians normally, if they were paid the market price, would find it unattractive to fish and would not fish. But because there can be a subsidized price due to the foreign participation, Canadian fishermen have started to fish silver hake.
• 0950
This is all done under the umbrella of a
Canadianization committee for silver hake. This
committee is strongly supporting and very much involved
in coordinating these activities. So the foreign
participation and activity in something like silver
hake has long been coordinated and done under the
advice and direction of industry that is interested in
developing this fishery.
On the Pacific coast, we've had an extremely successful program for Pacific hake for many years. Again, it's a product that Canadian processors don't have the capability to handle in large volumes because it comes very quickly at a certain time of the year, and therefore they can't buy the fish. So we have a choice. We either shut down the fishery and Canadians don't fish, or we allow foreign vessels to come into our waters to buy the fish directly from the Canadian fishermen at sea, providing jobs to the fishermen. That's what we've chosen to do, and that's fully managed by the Pacific hake consortium, again an industry-organized group. Here, foreign participation in Canadian waters is of direct benefit to the industry.
It's also important to note that the policies we have in place have evolved over the years, but they very much come out of discussions that were led in the early 1990s by Dr. Leslie Harris in a panel he chaired. They had extensive consultations on foreign allocations and the activities of foreign vessels in Canadian waters. The panel not only had Dr. Harris, it had representatives from the processing sector, Earle McCurdy the president of the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers, and members of provincial and federal governments. It consulted widely on an annual basis for several years about these programs, particularly in Atlantic Canada. The recommendations of the Harris panel formed the basis of today's Canadian international fisheries relations policy inside 200 miles.
Now let's look at the outside 200 miles and the importance of international cooperation. I mentioned earlier that part of the obligations we have in our bilateral agreement is that the countries that fish inside Canadian waters must cooperate with Canada in moving forward on Canada's conservation and rational management objectives outside 200 miles in international organizations such as NAFO; ICCAT, the international tuna conservation organization; NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization; and the North Pacific Anadromous Species Convention. These are some of a number of international, multilateral fisheries organizations to which Canada is a member.
If we were to refuse our international obligations by, for example, saying we would no longer allow any foreigner to fish in our waters even if we had surplus, we would lose a significant amount of our leverage in working with other parties to try to get them to work together to ensure everyone lives within the international rules. International law—the bilateral and multilateral fisheries agreements we have—provides Canada with the only opportunity to influence the decisions and establish measures to conserve stocks of importance to Canada.
We have been badly burned in Canada, there's no doubt. We've experienced party fishing, the potential for massive overfishing, and disregard for international rules in the past. We've suffered from the effects of some of these practices on Canadian stocks of importance to us. It would have been extremely difficult for Canada to denounce these kinds of practices and build a coalition to end them if we had been seen by the rest of the world as being arbitrary and not acting consistently with international obligations ourselves. Without these international agreements, responsible actions by all parties would not be possible.
Canada has also been successful in moving the international community significantly ahead, largely due to our experience in the late 1980s with massive amounts of foreign overfishing outside 200 miles. Canada created the idea, promoted the idea and worked it through a number of multilateral organizations and processes, to create the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. It's a very important Canadian accomplishment that will provide us with much of what we've been looking for over the past twenty years. Many of the complaints that one hears or reads in the media about the problems of foreign overfishing can be solved in this international convention.
• 0955
One would hope that Bill C-27 can be proclaimed and
passed as quickly as possible so that Canada can ratify
this agreement. With the new UN agreement, we will
have not only an international agreement for managing
straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks that
applies a precautionary approach, but much more
transparent operations on the high seas; enhanced
enforcement; the ability for Canadian officials to stop
illegal activities on the high seas, an ability we do
not now have except under Bill C-29, which is very
limited in its scope; and most importantly, a
compulsory dispute settlement mechanism to deal with
any problems that may come out of the use of the
objection procedure or any other disagreement that may
exist.
To conclude, then, the problem of foreign overfishing outside our zone has really passed—and Mr. Bevan and Mr. Whelan will give you an idea of exactly what the activities out there are. The focus now has to be on international cooperation to rebuild a sustainable level of the fish stocks that are out there. We have to promote the respect for and implementation of accepted principles of international law by others. We must also demonstrate our commitment by fulfilling our international obligations.
Foreign fishing activity in Canadian waters has benefited Canada. By building alliances, we have developed the capacity for Canadians to start to exploit underutilized Canadian resources. If we were to expel all foreign fleets, we would be leaving fish in the water.
The Cubans fish the majority of silver hake. That is protein for the Cuban people. That is a fish that those people require. Cuba is not a country out selling that fish in international markets. It's a poor country that needs that fish product, and access to the surplus stocks provides the Cuban people with a real benefit.
We would also be creating significant tensions if we moved to disregard our international obligations. To be inconsistent in our application of our international obligations could put at risk the framework on which we rely to protect and promote Canadian fishing interests. Canada cannot pick and choose between the international obligations it wants to keep and those it may consider convenient to abandon, while at the same time actively promoting the full implementation of international law and its application to all parties.
I'll stop there. As part of this deck, there is a series of what we've called myths and realities. I think they get into some of the questions and answers we'll be dealing with later on.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I may have gone on a little longer than I had planned.
The Chairman: Mr. Lunn.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): George, could we just have an indication of the time? We're not seated where we can see the countdown.
The Chairman: I think the clerk can verify that. Is that a fifteen-minute bell, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: I'm going to hand to the committee.... It's not The Young and the Restless, Bill. It's the House of Commons.
The Clerk: That is the young and the restless.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the committee.
Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Wayne Easter: We're all right for another seven or eight minutes.
The Chairman: Seven or eight minutes? Continue, Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Perhaps we could ask Dr. Chepel to give a brief overview of NAFO.
The Chairman: Dr. Chepel.
Dr. Leonard I. Chepel (Executive Secretary, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honour to be at this committee to enlighten you or just to bring some information about NAFO. I don't want to take a lot of your time to explain what NAFO is, because it's actually well-known fact.
NAFO was established on January 1, 1979. It was a recipient of the policy from a previous organization, ICNAF, which was established in 1950. You are all well aware that ICNAF was a very important organization for this country, and actually Canada and the United States were the first to advocate for establishment of such an international organization.
• 1000
The reason for the establishment of NAFO was this
proclamation of the 200-mile zone limits for our
coastal states, which happened in Canada in 1976. In
similar negotiations in 1979 a new convention, the NAFO
Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries, was signed by six signatories.
The NAFO convention came into force on January 1, 1979.
Presently NAFO consists of 17 contractual parties, including the European Union with 15 countries and Denmark with 2 countries, namely the Faroes and Greenland.
In speaking about the management of resources, NAFO is responsible for the management, conservation, and regulation of all fisheries and resources outside the 200-mile limit of the coastal states. Those coastal states of the NAFO convention area are Canada, the United States, and Denmark on behalf of Greenland.
The area outside the 200-mile zone is called the regulatory area, and this is the complete responsibility of NAFO for management. With respect to investigation, research, recommendations, and use of resources, NAFO is responsible as well for the whole group of stocks inside the NAFO convention area. The number of such stocks that the scientific council of NAFO presently considers is 26.
Outside of the convention area, in the regulatory area, we have only 12 stocks. Of these 12 stocks, 11 stocks are officially recognized by the scientific council and can be appraised. The shrimp stock in 3M, 3N, and 4 in the NAFO regulatory area and in the convention area inside the 200-mile Canadian zone is not yet under such appraisal. Scientists still debate how to estimate and how to approach this issue and to allocate TAC.
Actually, we have 11 stocks that officially allocate total allowable catch. Presently from 11 stocks we have only 5 stocks...
[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...and 6 stocks under moratorium. I don't want to repeat them, but major stocks like redfish, cod, and all flatfish except yellowtail flounder are presently under moratorium due to a very deplorable state of stocks and very low abundance. Such a moratorium continues from 1995; we just keep going on with this moratorium. This moratorium was reconfirmed for 1998; there would be no fishery for those stocks.
To compare what the contractual parties of NAFO have to fish in the NAFO regulatory area, we presently have only 46,000 tonnes from those 5 stocks. We have very insignificant figures for some stocks. For cod we have only 2,000 tonnes, and for yellowtail flounder it's 4,000 tonnes. The figures are so insignificant that you would have a very small portion if you divided such numbers among 17 contractual parties, so it would not be viable for many countries to go overseas and take such stocks.
Actually, even this 46,000 tonnes will not be fished; probably a very small percentage of this amount would be taken from the NAFO regulatory area. In the best times, between say 1985 and 1991, we would have approximately 160,000 to 180,000 tonnes of only ground species, including capelin, of course.
One stock that is still regarded in very good state by scientific appraisal is squid. The TAC for squid is 150,000 tonnes, but it's such an enigmatic stock nobody for the last 10 years has fished even a couple of thousand tonnes.
• 1005
In terms of the NAFO role in enforcement and
regulation, I would state clearly that presently
this international organization is the most regulated
and most profound in its approach to its major
NAFO convention objective. You know this objective;
NAFO was built for this purpose. Its main objective
is to provide, through consultation and cooperation,
for conservation and optimal utilization
and management of fish resources. To this end,
NAFO presently is extremely well balanced
and well established to fulfil such a mission.
When I looked through all of the conventions and regulatory measures of all international bodies around the world—the famous Antarctic Commission, say, or the tuna commission, ICES, and NEAFC—I I couldn't find a comprehensive set of rules even close to such NAFO's regulatory measures. NAFO regulatory measures consist of almost 100 pages of very exact, very profound regulations to conserve and preserve fish resources. These are the NAFO conservation enforcement measures. No other organization can challenge such a good set of rules and such very comprehensive regulations, especially beginning from 1991.
I've made some calculations that from 1991 to 1997 NAFO developed or accepted almost 100 different proposals for the purpose of conservation and enforcement measures. In comparison, from 1979 to 1991, almost 12 years, we made only 35 such measures. As Mr. Wiseman mentioned, this is because in 1991 we recognized that we should stop overfishing. We should go ahead with more profound and more precise regulation.
Currently, we would say NAFO is well positioned to do this, especially in light of new developments and new measures that were adopted, such as this very important scheme to control compliance of non-contractual parties' activities.
There are other measures, but I don't want to take your time. I could talk and talk for hours.
The Chairman: Dr. Chepel, we have to go over for the vote.
Mr. Lunn.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, I understand that bell was for the opening of Parliament. We'll next hear a 30-minute bell, which hasn't started yet.
The Chairman: Very good information.
Continue, Dr. Chepel.
Dr. Leonard Chepel: Thank you.
I would mention one more very important document, probably the most important document adopted, by consensus, by the general council of NAFO at the last session in St. John's, Newfoundland. This is a scheme to promote compliance of non-contractual parties with NAFO conservation policy.
Really, this is a very good achievement. This scheme was developed in light of, and as a follow-up to, the United Nations fish agreement. As you all should understand, this fish agreement was actually first proposed by Canada, then moved quickly through the negotiation process, and was actually very close to adoption after being signed by 34 countries.
I would like to mention one very important document in the NAFO convention that is probably unique. It's still a project pilot. It's a project for observing through satellite tracking systems. I would say not one organization, and not even many coastal state countries with very good regulatory regimes, would challenge such a comprehensive document that NAFO has developed and incorporated in its conservation and enforcement measures. The provisions of this document provide that all contractual parties should place 100% coverage of observers on board their vessels.
• 1010
This system, I would say, probably works very well.
On a regular basis I would receive a number of observer
reports with very good, commendable reflection on
the behaviour of vessels and on performance.
Actually, the function of observers for NAFO conservation enforcement measures is to control the activity of the vessel. If, say, an observer noticed something is wrong with the catches, with mesh size or whatever, then the observer has full rights to call the NAFO executive secretary or inspector on the fishing ground and inform him. Such an activity would be stopped and prosecuted by the NAFO fisheries commission and by quick action in accordance with established procedures.
The other part of this document is a satellite tracking system. It means 35% of all vessels fishing in the NAFO area should be equipped with a satellite tracking system. This means each and every time you could find out the position of the vessel and its activity.
Secondly, and the third part of our conservation efforts, very important, is the so-called NAFO hailing system. We had a lot of debates from 1992 to 1993 on how to incorporate it, and there was some opposition, but in the end all contracting parties adopted this hailing system and now we receive on a regular basis all movements of vessels in the NAFO regulatory area, their catches, transshipments.
Actually, in our files we have a a full picture of the activity of each vessel. This system is computerized and is accessible to those contracting parties with an inspection presence.
Because of some concerns about commercial confidentiality and commercial secrets of fisheries, this system is designed to provide information to the contracting parties with an inspection presence. Those contracting parties are two major contracting parties, Canada and the European Union. The European Union would provide one or two vessels year-round and Canada would send a number of patrol vessels which would go to the NAFO area with a mandate for NAFO inspection, so Canada receives such information on a regular basis.
I would say, and probably Mr. Bevan would confirm, that we would have a complete daily picture of the position of vessels, on their catches, and on their activities. In addition to this, as I mentioned previously, each vessel would have an observer. I am confident that such a system is very precise, a very good one, and such a system would fulfil this major mandate which NAFO is for.
At this committee, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to mention one very important point. This has to do with scientific research. I would say about the scientific exploration of the NAFO regulatory area—I'm not talking about the 200-mile zone; I don't want to interfere with the internal affairs of Canada—we have a lot of potential, a lot of new species that could be utilized for the benefit of all the contracting parties, including this country. But we are very short of scientific resources.
In previous times several prominent countries would deploy vessels for the research programs in the NAFO convention area. Canada and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian federation.... But the Russian federation is now very strict with their own policy and resources, so we have a truly great shortage of scientific resources to deploy in the NAFO regulatory area. I could name several species, such as anchovies and the skates.
Similarly, we don't know the full picture about the abundance and distribution of such an important resource as shrimp. At present shrimp is a very important resource to all contracting parties. Actually, contracting parties still come to this part of the ocean because of shrimp and some limited resources for the European Union in, say, the level of 11,000 tonnes. But shrimp would be a very important and permanent resource even for Canadian fishermen.
• 1015
There are a lot of other species, such as oceanic distribution of
mackerel and beryx splendens, or alfonsino, and other species,
and even deep-water redfish, which is available—I
know this from my experience—and deep-water Greenland
halibut from a depth of 2,000 metres.
So, seriously speaking, we need a lot of improvement in this area. If it's possible for Canada to allocate some resources to this, of course I would be very thankful on behalf of all contracting parties.
This is my short introduction. If you have any questions, I would be happy to respond. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Chepel.
Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I thank you for the opportunity to describe our surveillance and enforcement activities in Atlantic Canada, and in the NAFO regulatory area in particular.
This area of the continental shelf of course is very important to us. It goes beyond our economic zone and we have to work with NAFO to manage stocks in that area.
We invest a significant amount of money and time in surveying that area and ensuring that standards are met. This is because the straddling stocks upon which so many Canadians depend and which we are trying to rebuild require a high degree of compliance, not only in Canadian waters but also in the NAFO regulatory area.
We have seven elements to our surveillance and enforcement programs.
The first two are related to satellite technology. Dr. Chepel has mentioned satellite transponders, which are on 35% of the vessels from other contracting parties in the NAFO regulatory area. All Canadian vessels in that area carry satellite transponders. Those help us identify the distribution of the fleet. We also use data from RADARSAT, which is a space-based radar system that can pick up fishing vessels in the area. We use that data then to direct our aerial surveillance. And it's with the aerial surveillance and the highly sophisticated surveillance equipment on the aircraft that we can actually identify what's out there and to a certain extent what they're doing.
Through those systems I can tell you that yesterday—we don't have today's flights—there were 21 foreign vessels fishing off our waters. There were 15 contracting parties fishing groundfish, one flag of convenience vessel fishing on the Flemish Cap and five vessels fishing shrimp. In a couple of minutes we'll provide a practical demonstration of how we know that with such a high degree of assurance.
In addition, then, to the satellite technology and the air surveillance, we have patrol vessels active in the area. Dr. Chepel mentioned that the Europeans have one vessel. We try to run two vessels in that area on an ongoing basis. Those vessels have as a primary role the delivery of fishery officers to foreign and Canadian vessels fishing in the zone so that they can conduct inspections on the vessels.
When the fishery officers board the vessels, they check the logs, find out what the captain is maintaining he's caught. They then verify that data through the inspection of the hold, observing the haulback of the nets and in discussion with observers.
Observers are the fifth component of our program. Dr. Chepel mentioned that 100% of the vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area are covered by observers. All foreign vessels that fish in Canadian waters are also covered by observers, and a number of Canadian vessels are as well; for example, northern shrimp and the large offshore units are all covered by 100% observer coverage. Observers provide us with data on catch composition, discards and other vital information. We corroborate that information and the estimates from observers, captains and fishery officers through dockside monitoring programs, the sixth element of the program.
Dockside monitoring is required by all vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. It's usually conducted in the flag state, although there are a number of foreign vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area that transship through Canada and we provide the dockside monitoring service for them. It's at this point, then, that we verify the actual catch composition and can compare that to what we have from observer records and from our own inspection records and estimates.
• 1020
The final component is called the Canadian fisheries
information network. We have information coming in
from satellites, from air surveillance, from at-sea
inspections, from observers, dockside inspections, etc.
To bring it all together, to assimilate it, to integrate
it and make it available to those people who need to
know what's going on out there, we have the Canadian
fisheries information network. That allows us to have
a system of surveillance. It's not like a chain;
one weak link cannot break the integrity of the system.
It's more like a net, where each element is like the
filament of a net, and through CFIN we can make
sure it's woven together in a integrated fashion so
that we can have a high degree of confidence that we
know what's going in the NAFO regulatory area, and
indeed in our own zone.
I would ask Ben Whelan to demonstrate the data that came in up to yesterday. The data indicates, as I mentioned earlier, that there are 21 vessels in the zone, currently only on the Flemish Cap and on the nose. There are several vessels on the tail but they're all Canadian.
Ben, perhaps you can explain what we have here.
Mr. Ben Whelan (Offshore Surveillance Officer, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): This system is a system that's on board the aircraft that the fishery officers fly out to identify vessels that are fishing in our waters and outside of our waters. This system is connected to all the navigation devices and the photography equipment. Everything on board is connected to this computer system, and what happens is the radar will pick up as you leave St. John's. You can see this white line here, which is the actual track that the aircraft takes. The red dots are the foreign vessels we encounter and identify. You'll see some green ones here, they're our patrol boats, and you'll see farther down there are some Canadian vessels—
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): What are the Canadians fishing?
Mr. Ben Whelan: There's one Canadian that fishes surf clams, right here, and I think there's one out of Nova Scotia that fishes turbot down off the tail.
The Chairman: A small boat.
Mr. Ben Whelan: A small boat. She's about 55—
Mr. Bill Matthews: The surf clam one is not a small boat. It's about 45 to 55 feet if you're fishing turbot.
Mr. Ben Whelan: The surf clam is a large ship.
The Chairman: But the foreign vessels are foreign factory freezer ships.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Mr. Ben Whelan: So what happens is the aircraft leaves St. John's, and as she leaves St. John's the radar starts picking up the targets. The range is somewhere around 200 miles. So as you leave St. John's, your first responsibility as a fishery officer is the 200-mile limit, our sovereignty. We head right for the 200-mile limit. Then we start looking and ask, do we have any targets that are near the 200-mile limit? That's my prime target. If we don't pick up any targets near the 200-mile limit we keep going, and we go out as far as the Flemish Cap. This aircraft, because of her ability, has only enough fuel for six hours, so we try to time our flight for five hours and have at least an hour's fuel left to get back.
Mr. Wayne Easter: You want to get home.
Mr. Ben Whelan: You want to get home. I'd hate to have to stay out there. As you can see here, the information is gathered on the vessels, and if you click on the target vessel, it'll bring up the information that was gathered on the vessel. You can see here we gathered the information: the size, the name of the vessel, the fishing side number, the call sign, the nationality, the type of class of vessel—the type here is a stern trawler. This one is a Spanish vessel and the activity is fishing.
Because it's from the aircraft we can't tell the target species. So at this point in time what we would do is say it's an undetermined species until that vessel is inspected, when you can tell what particular species they were fishing for.
Then what we can do as we fly over the vessel, because the system carries photographs of most vessels, is check our database to see if there is an actual photograph of that vessel. Bear with me for a second here while she looks up the vessel. The system actually carries the latest photograph of the vessel.
• 1025
What I would do as I'm passing by...as you can see
here, you can see a side number. You can see the
activity at the stern of the vessel. That's my job. I
make sure that the activity is what it's supposed to be.
If it's outside, they're permitted to fish, so that's
part of it all. Then you would check whether the
colours are the same. Does she have the same equipment as
she always had? Does she have the same number of
radars? That is the kind of information you check for.
You look at the photograph to compare and say that the
vessel hasn't changed. If it has
changed, we photograph it again. Then the system is
updated. You now have a new photograph. You have the
most up-to-date information.
So the aircraft keeps going, as I say, and we identify all the targets in the area.
Then what happens is the aircraft lands back in St. John's and the information is automatically checked by the fisheries officer for accuracy and then it's sent to our CFIN database, the fishing information network, where it's added to all the other information on the system.
Another feature of the system that comes with the aircraft is that each of our patrol boats also has one of these systems, so that when the aircraft lands, this flight and all the information from the flight is sent to the patrol boat. When the aircraft lands it's sent to a number of locations, our operations centres, our location here in Ottawa, and to the patrol boats. So our patrol boats—
Mr. Gary Lunn: I wonder if I could interrupt you for a minute. You said that with these factory freezer vessels you get their data or whatever, and if you don't know what their catch is you can compare that when they come on the dockside. Do all those boats come into our ports?
The Chairman: No, they don't.
Mr. Gary Lunn: So how do you do the dockside checks?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Any vessel that does come to our ports is dockside monitored by us, but other contracting parties are required to do it when they land in their ports. The other check that we have is.... As a fishery officer I don't only do flights, I do trips on our patrol boats. When I go out, after this information is all accumulated, I look at this and decide who I want to board. Who has been boarded lately, who hasn't been boarded, who's new in the area? Where do I want to go? What is likely my most productive boarding? I'll pick that vessel. If that vessel is a new vessel, I'll go aboard that vessel.
The Chairman: Anywhere?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Anywhere. Wherever they're to.
The Chairman: But the information Mr. Lunn is asking for is how do you check what they were fishing? You would get that from when they unloaded their catch in Spain, say.
Mr. Gary Lunn: If you didn't board that vessel.
The Chairman: If you didn't board the vessel. Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of checks and balances as well. The vessels are hailing. There are observers on the vessels and we get copies of the observer reports, so we'll get copies of that. Plus there is the dockside inspection in Spain. One also should recognize that the majority of vessels that are fishing out there are fishing for shrimp and the majority of the shrimp product is transshipped in Canada. Therefore, virtually 90% of the shrimp vessels are inspected by Canadians when they come into port.
The Chairman: As for Mr. Lunn's question, though, Mr. Wiseman, I don't think you got the substance of what he asked. What he asked for is how you check it. The answer given was that you check it from the country that was doing the fishing. I think that was Mr. Lunn's question. If they don't come into a Canadian port, they don't have a Canadian observer aboard, do they? So Mr. Lunn's question was, how do you check it in Canada?
Mr. Gary Lunn: If we don't have a DFO officer that does a boarding on that vessel—
The Chairman: Or a Canadian observer aboard.
Mr. Gary Lunn: —that we're relying on for information. My other quick question that you just alluded to was this. You said the majority of the vessels out there are fishing shrimp. Your colleague just told me we've got 21 vessels out there: 15 groundfish, 5 shrimp, and one under a flag of convenience.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That was yesterday, but if you look over the year, the amount of activity that's out there spreads out differently.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: I think we should point out that right now there are three patrol vessels in the area and only 21 ships.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. David Bevan: I think it's fair to say that virtually every vessel in the area is inspected at some point during its trip. So we have a chance on every vessel to verify the captain's log by going on board and looking at what's in the hold.
The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Are you telling me that for those 21 vessels that were there yesterday, during their trip each one will be boarded at least once?
The Chairman: Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: Yes.
Mr. Ben Whelan: At least once, if not more, because a lot of times we end up doing them every two weeks.
Mr. Bill Matthews: How long does a trip last?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Three months.
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.
Mr. John Duncan: How can we have a circumstance where we have a boat like the Estai, with a hidden hold...? Under those circumstances, how can that boat still be fishing?
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: What we're describing and what Dr. Chepel alluded to are changes that have been put in place since 1991-92, which were geometrically increased in 1995. The 100% observer program, the rapid response to apparent infringements at sea, and the greater transparency in control activities at sea came out of an international agreement arising from the Estai incident. What happened during the Estai and before the Estai is history. We have a much more efficient system in place since 1995. That's what's been in place all through 1996 and 1997.
The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, make it short.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Wiseman, I'll give you a short question, but I'm sure it needs at least half an hour to answer. With all respect, I'm just going to rattle off a couple of quick points where I see holes in all of this information you're telling us.
The Chairman: He's a typical lawyer, Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Gary Lunn: First of all, you're telling us that all of these foreign quotas inside our 200-mile limit are only surpluses that our fishermen cannot harvest or do not want. I've heard to the contrary from hundreds of fishermen in Atlantic Canada, so I don't know where the credibility's coming from there.
I even go further to say we just spent $1.9 billion on tanks. For God's sake, if we're spending that kind of money on tanks, why the hell aren't we spending that kind of money to expand our own fishery, to make sure we can harvest and to make sure we can process?
The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, I'll have to call you to order, as the impartial chairman of the committee. It's a very good question, but it's not the subject we're dealing with here, and I don't think the witnesses are here to answer a question like that.
Mr. Gary Lunn: That's true.
The Chairman: That's a very political question, as the parliamentary secretary was motioning to me a moment ago. So we'll ask Ben Whelan to continue.
Mr. Whelan, what you're pointing out is very interesting, sir.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Okay. This computer system actually carries most of the missions that came up over the last couple of years, and I can call up from different areas, depending on what type of information we require. But usually the last couple of flights are used in the surveillance to pick which boats you want to board, what they're doing, and what they're up to.
We can also do a composite so we know on a weekly or daily basis how many vessels are there and where they're going. So you just run this system against the CFIN database, which is our national database, to gather the information on the system so you can see how many boats are out there and where they're going.
I ran one yesterday afternoon, just to give you an idea. I'll call up the query I did yesterday afternoon. The query gathers all the last positions of every vessel we've sighted, whether it be through aircraft or through patrol boats. What this actually shows is a composite of all of our information for a 10-day period. So what you see here are all the targets of all the vessels we've sighted, whether it be through the patrol boat sightings, through an aircraft sighting, or through the targets from RADARSAT or from satellite tracking information we get from NAFO.
As you can see, these are the last known positions of all these vessels. You can pick up the data on it and say this is that particular boat.
The Chairman: So 35% of the vessels carry these satellite transponders.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: And the remainder you hope to sight by your aircraft and also your patrol vessels.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
• 1035
The Chairman: So these are certainly not all of the vessels there. Would you say they're all of the vessels there?
Mr. Ben Whelan: I would stake my life on that—
The Chairman: You would stake your life on it, but yet you're telling.... Yes, 35% of them have transponders aboard, but you're saying that you have aircraft that actually go over that entire area—
Mr. Ben Whelan: With radar.
The Chairman: —the vast northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: You can have radar, yes, but you're pretty accurate, pretty definite—
Mr. Ben Whelan: The radar is so accurate that when I've been out there we've picked up a pod of whales from 50 miles.
The Chairman: A pod of whales from 50 miles. That's pretty accurate.
Mr. Ben Whelan: So I can tell you that's what is out there right now.
The Chairman: Yes. Okay, and that's only 21 vessels.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Twenty-one.
The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, did you have a short intervention or question?
Mr. Bill Matthews: No. I just want to be sure that for yesterday we said 15, 5 and 1: 15 groundfish, 5 shrimp, and 1 flag of convenience fishing what?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Groundfish species.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay, I have another question. You monitor on an annual basis. What would be the highest concentration of vessels that you would know of in that 3M area?
Mr. Ben Whelan: 3M?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Wherever you're looking.
The Chairman: He's looking at the nose—
Mr. Bill Matthews: You're looking at the shrimpers there. If I look at this correctly, there were 106 foreign vessels that fished shrimp in 1996.
Mr. Ben Whelan: At different times, yes.
Mr. Bill Matthews: At different times. My question is this: is it correct that 106 different vessels—foreign vessels, now, in addition to a few Canadians—fished shrimp in the Flemish Cap area?
Mr. Ben Whelan: I don't know what numbers you're looking at.
The Chairman: He's looking at the NAFO numbers, the official figures.
Mr. Bill Matthews: I'm looking at this report, which says 106.
Mr. Ben Whelan: That's the number of vessels we sighted.
Mr. Bill Matthews: That's the number, 106 foreign vessels, that fished that area in a year for shrimp. My question is how many of that 106 would be in that zone at any one time, the maximum number that you think would be there?
The Chairman: At any given time.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Certainly the 106 are not there, because they would cut each other out.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: Did Mr. Wiseman want to take a crack at that?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I think these numbers can easily get confused. I'm not sure which document Mr. Matthews is referring to.
The Chairman: The document from your office, Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: All right. What there is in one of these documents is a list of all of the vessels that have notified NAFO of their intention to fish shrimp. It doesn't mean they all show up. So that's one phase. The other one is the actual number of vessels. My understanding is that in 1997 the total number of vessels at any one time did not exceed 35.
Mr. Bill Matthews: At any one time.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay. But the thing about it is that your document clearly shows—as a matter of fact, it lists the countries, or whoever sent it—that there were 106 foreign vessels fishing there in addition to 16 Canadian, I think it was. So that's why—
The Chairman: That's the one with the $100-million landed value on the foreign catches. Is that the same one you're looking at?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Oh, it's far more than that, Mr. Chairman. The landed catch was away more than that. How much did you say?
The Chairman: The landed value of the foreign catch was $110 million.
Mr. Bill Matthews: It's away more than that.
The Chairman: Yes, but that was the estimate given by NAFO.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, but it was away more than even that. I don't believe that's accurate, what they gave—
The Chairman: Yes, but I'm just asking you. I don't want to get into an argument with you.
Mr. Bill Matthews: It was $116 million.
The Chairman: Okay, $116 million landed.
Go ahead, Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: The document from NAFO that's in the documents that were sent to you, Mr. Chairman, on November 14, says that in 1996 the total number of vessels was 123; in 1997, to August, it was 43.
The Chairman: To August. So we don't have September, October, November and December. Mr. Matthews, that's the difference.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's the NAFO document that was supplied.
The Chairman: Yes.
Now, have you made your intervention, Mr. Matthews? Does that satisfy you, sir?
Mr. Bill Matthews: No, but I don't want to delay the committee. I guess the question is, with that much activity in that zone on shrimp, what are we doing to that?
Mr. Wayne Easter: That's something for another day. That's policy.
The Chairman: Maybe the parliamentary secretary—
Mr. Bill Matthews: It's still a problem. We can't ignore it.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. John Duncan: The vote is at 10:50 a.m., apparently, so we have about eight minutes.
The Chairman: We could go for the vote and come back after.
Would you gentlemen mind waiting? We'll just go for the vote and then we'll come back. To all those listeners on the FM radio dial, we'll be back in what, 20 minutes? This is on FM, by the way.
The meeting is adjourned until we get back.
• 1040
• 1120
The Chairman: We'll come to order. The parliamentary secretary has now arrived, so we can continue with our hearings. I think Mr. Whelan was in the process of giving his presentation.
Did you have anything further to add, Mr. Whelan?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Not really. That basically sums it up, in that this is the information we use in order to do our surveillance. I do have some photographs here that show night photography and stuff, where we've taken pictures of vessels, just to give an indication of how accurately we can tell, even at night, what activities are going on on board.
The Chairman: That actually shows the number on the vessel?
Mr. Ben Whelan: Side numbers—the whole nine yards. I think in one picture here you can actually see the guy on deck.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Is that from the air?
Mr. Ben Whelan: That's from the air. It's taken from the aircraft.
The Chairman: You go by the numbers, and of course the numbers have to be a specific colour and so on, in agreement with the international agreement.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes—a particular size and colour, and it has to be in a certain location on board the vessel.
The Chairman: And when they don't do that, you can charge them.
Mr. Ben Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: Let's go to questions, then. I want to go first of all to Mr. Duncan.
Before I do, though, there is just one question, Mr. Wiseman, that the committee has been struggling with. Perhaps you can just set the record straight on this. I don't know if you want to even answer this question, but it has to do with your jurisdiction.
The question is quite a simple one. The committee was examining basically five different ways in which there is foreign fishing on Canada's continental shelf. Four of those ways in which foreign vessels are presently fishing every year are inside the 200-mile zone, and the remaining way is in the NAFO zone. The question is this: can Canada unilaterally cancel the following quotas, and at what time could they cancel them?
Let me ask you specifically, and just give you the five different quotas. One is the use of foreign vessels by Canadian fish companies in area 0, which is off Baffin Island and north of Labrador, and in 4VWX on the coastline of Nova Scotia—the use of foreign vessels by Canadian fish companies. The reason the committee was interested in this is because 21 Canadian fish companies wrote to us and said, all these quotas should be cancelled, because we have Canadian vessels and Canadian crews; DFO won't listen to us and won't allow us to access these quotas.
The second area is in the fishery that's called “in excess of Canada's needs”, which involves foreign vessels that catch silver hake and to a certain degree squid, but certainly silver hake. On a particular day in Nova Scotia, there were 12 foreign vessels fishing—11 of them for Canadian companies, but one of them in a national quota of so-called fish “in excess of Canada's needs”.
The third area was under international agreement, with objections given in all of our meetings from fishermen who said, how come Japan has a quota of bluefin four times the quota we have in our particular province?
The question to you is not to pass judgment on the quota—because you've given us the information—but to tell us whether this agreement can be cancelled unilaterally by Canada so that Japan wouldn't be allowed to fish inside.
Those are the three different areas. One is use of foreign vessels. Can that be cancelled immediately by Canada, if the government so wished? The fish in excess of Canada's needs—can that be cancelled immediately by the Government of Canada if it so wished? The tuna, specifically Japan—can that be cancelled by Canada if they so wish? Regarding the fish in excess of Canada's needs, can that be cancelled immediately by the Government of Canada if it so wished? In regard to the tuna, and specifically Japan, can that be cancelled by Canada if they so wish?
• 1125
Then there's the presence of vessels from France, as
you point out, with turbot in 2J and the fact that they
have a 30% quota of roundnose grenadier,
which is presently not fished but is a very lucrative
fishery off Baffin Island, off Nancy's riding. They
have percentages of quotas right down the coast: 15%
of the redfish in 3O, which is a
Canadian-managed fish stock.
That's the fourth, so those are four different ways in which foreign vessels are fishing inside. Can that be cancelled, and if so, how soon could it be, if the Canadian government decided they wanted to cancel?
Finally, Mr. Wiseman, there's the NAFO regulatory area, specifically turbot in 3L and redfish in 3N and 3L, which we heard a lot of testimony on here today, because those zones are almost exclusively within Canada's 200-mile zone but it's a NAFO-managed stock.
Those are the five or six areas where foreign vessels fish inside Canada's 200-mile zone. So on the question that Mr. Bernier actually put to the committee—he hasn't been here to ask the question, but you will give the answer, so he will hear your answer—there are six ways in which foreign vessels fish in what we call Canada's continental zone. Five of those ways are inside the 200-mile zone, and the remaining one is transporter stocks in the nose and tail, and to a certain degree, in the Flemish Cap.
Can the six of those ways be cancelled by the federal government if they so wish? Which ones cannot be cancelled by the federal government immediately, and why not, Mr. Wiseman? Then we'll go to Mr. Duncan and then to the parliamentary secretary.
We want to get this out of the way because this is a discussion that went for hours last night here in this very room—until 11 p.m., right, Mr. Duncan? This was one of the primary discussions, among other things—I'm not going to say what the other things were, but they're very interesting. But this is a contention, and you're the only person who can answer that question, so can you go ahead and take those six different areas and tell us which ones could be cancelled if the government so wished?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I'll start with the last one first, the NAFO regulatory area. There is a moratorium on 3L in redfish, so no one is fishing 3L in redfish in 1998.
The Chairman: In 1998 there's a moratorium on it, or there's going to be a moratorium on it in 1998?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's in place now.
The Chairman: Well, this is 1998, but there wasn't one on in 1997.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
The Chairman: So what you're saying is there's going to be a moratorium on the redfish quota in 3N and 3L?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: In 3LN. That's correct.
The Chairman: But not in 3O?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, 3O redfish is under Canadian management.
The Chairman: That's right. So our question to you, then, is on the redfish portion that's fished by France, 1,500 metric tonnes.
Okay, you've dealt with redfish—
Mr. Earl Wiseman: I'll answer that when I get to France.
The Chairman: Okay, let's go.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: For the NAFO quotas, NAFO has established a quota for 3LMNO turbot of 20,000 tonnes.
The parties that have quota shares are entitled to fish their quota shares in 3LMNO, and they can choose to fish it in any of those parts, outside 200 miles.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Canada does not license any of these parties to fish within 200 miles. This is a fishery that is very closely monitored. It's obviously a very sensitive fishery to Canadians, and we watch it carefully. Canadians are not catching their full quota in 3L.
The Chairman: Of 3,000 tonnes.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
Perhaps working up your list—
The Chairman: Okay, but you haven't told us how this can be cancelled.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It cannot be cancelled by Canada. It's a fishery on the high seas. Canada has no control over the fisheries on the high seas. That stock and stocks that are in the NAFO regulatory area are managed by NAFO. NAFO sets the rules—Dr. Chepel and Ben Whelan have given you an indication of how comprehensive they are—and the parties of NAFO who have quotas are obliged to fish them under those rules. We have had no indication over the last two years, since the turbot crisis in 1995, that there have been any significant violations of the rules, that the quotas have been massively overfished, or that there have been major attempts to violate the rules. In fact, the behaviour of vessels has significantly improved by having 100% observers on board.
• 1130
The Chairman: Yes, but Mr. Wiseman, you still haven't answered the question. What we're asking is if the government so wished, is there any way Canada could influence...? They are signatory to these quotas. We sign. We meet once a year with all our partners. Is there any mechanism for the cancelling of these foreign quotas?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Canada could vote against them in NAFO. At the next annual meeting, which will be in September, Canada could try to convince others that there should be no quotas. However, Canada's position is based on the precautionary approach and on accepting scientific advice for the establishment of quotas. If the scientists are saying that 20,000 tonnes can be fished and Canada is saying therefore we should not fish, we are not following the policy of the Government of Canada.
The Chairman: Okay. What about the remaining five?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: France? The quota shares for France in Canadian waters and shares for Canada in French waters, around St. Pierre, are based on a 1994 agreement called a procès-verbal, which was to implement a 1972 treaty which Canada and France signed. That treaty followed from treaties going back literally hundreds of years and giving certain rights to France for fishing in Canadian waters.
Those quotas are highly restrictive. Those quotas are primarily being fished by Canadians. The French quota for redfish is being fished by Canadians 100%.
The Chairman: National Sea Products.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
The French quota for cod last year was fished 70% by Canadians.
The Chairman: Landed in St. Pierre.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's the agreement. They have the quota because they have the historic right, but they have chosen not to go back to a large fleet. They use small dories. They use very small vessels. That's why the number of vessels licensed by France is 29. Only 21 fished last year. Most of these vessels are under 10 metres. They are very small boats. They are two-man boats with hook and line.
The Chairman: That's in 3Ps.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's in 3Ps. They have one large vessel, the St. Pierre. That vessel is the vessel that went up to 2J to fish the turbot. That vessel also fishes in the NAFO regulatory area for some stocks which France has a right to fish. We cannot unilaterally terminate this agreement, which is in place for another nine years.
The Chairman: It would take nine years to terminate that.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
The Chairman: I thought, Mr. Wiseman, there was a section in there that said the agreement would come into effect 10 years following the lifting of the cod moratorium.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: And it was lifted in 1997 for 3Ps cod, because that's the cod it referred to. Year one was last year.
The Chairman: So we're talking about only another nine or ten years.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's right.
The Chairman: We have to live with that for nine or ten years.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
The Chairman: What about the four other remaining areas?
Mr. Wayne Easter: I still want to be clear on one thing. Give me what you said again. The French quota on cod is fished 90% by Canadians.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's 70%. It's in the agreement: 70% of the French cod quotas in 3Ps and in the north and south of the gulf, should there be cod fisheries there, because they also get small quotas there; 70% of their cod quotas will be fished by Canadians. That's a minimum of the French quotas, because they have only one boat, or in fact they want us to catch their other quotas.
Mr. Wayne Easter: But it is processed on their islands.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That is correct. They have decided that rather than trying to maintain a fishing sector and a processing sector, they will concentrate their efforts on the processing sector for their quotas.
The Chairman: So 30% of the roundnose grenadier.... That's a paper fish, I imagine; what you would call a “paper fish”.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: They haven't asked us to fish it, and we're not—-
The Chairman: Well, there's no fishery there.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's true.
The Chairman: But if there were a fishery there, they would have 30% of it.
Again, though, your statement is it would take nine years. We're tied down to that for ten years. We can't get out of it.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
The Chairman: Okay, let's go to the other ones.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: About Japan, you were talking about the bluefin. You were correct that we don't control the quotas. The quotas are given by ICCAT. The ICCAT quotas are for the northwest Atlantic, and the Japanese can fish them from the Gulf of Mexico up along the coast of North America.
We have given the Japanese rights to fish in our waters in the 1997-98 season. That season is on right now and they are in our waters. I think it would not be appropriate to cancel something without any just cause in the middle of a season. No decision has been made on the 1997-98 fishing season.
The Chairman: You mean the 1998-99 fishing season.
• 1135
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, that's correct. But Canada has sole jurisdiction over all activities in Canadian waters. We can, if we choose, cancel it.
The Chairman: Now, what about the other three?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: On the surplus for silver hake and squid, first of all no party has really directed for squid under a national allocation for over ten years. It's a quota that's available but not being taken advantage of.
When we have surpluses—and I tried to make this point in my opening remarks—one of the obligations we have is to make them available. If Canada had surpluses but for some reason was just going to leave them in the water and told the Cubans “You may need this silver hake to feed your people but we don't care any more. That's your problem, stay outside and just fish your NAFO quotas”, that kind of attitude would again undermine our emphasis.
It has been the underlying position of Canada that parties must follow international rules. We were successful in obtaining what we did after that turbot dispute because we demonstrated that other parties were not following international rules. The only way you can have any kind of cooperation is for all parties to follow the rules. For us to pick and choose between the rules we like and don't like, ignore an obligation and expect others to fulfil their obligations to us raises serious problems. We have to show we're committed to our obligations in order to have enough leverage to convince others they're committed to their obligations.
The Chairman: The question is whether Canada could cancel this immediately if it so wished.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, we could. In our waters we have full jurisdiction. The real question perhaps is why would we do it?
The Chairman: Before I go to the last way the foreigners fish inside, why did you permit Korea and the United States new quotas last year for squid and redfish?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: First of all, when you say “you”—
The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Wiseman, you're not the Government of Canada. Was there a rationale there? I'm just trying to clear it up, because people were very upset that this happened and I just want to get your official position.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely. The United States and Korea are relatively new members to NAFO. They have joined NAFO. By the way, both of those parties had fished as non-contracting parties and non-members of NAFO before joining. The Koreans used to fish as much as 20,000 tonnes a year. The Americans had also fished. By joining NAFO, they stopped fishing anything unless they had a quota or a legitimate right under NAFO to fish. Part of being a member of the international organization is playing by the rules. They won't be outside the organization ignoring international rules; they'll be in the organization playing by the rules.
But if they join the organization, surely the organization should try to make available to them some opportunity to fish something. The organization looked at what was available to be fished and said that Bulgaria hadn't been fishing for many years. Bulgaria hadn't paid its dues. Bulgaria hadn't been coming to meetings, so the organization took some of the Bulgarian quota and allocated it to Korea and the United States. I believe we also allocated some to France for St. Pierre and Miquelon and a small amount to another's quota for other members of NAFO.
We were responding to these parties who joined NAFO who were saying that if there was any fish available within the NAFO context, they would like to have a share, please. We sought to look at what was surplus and not being fished by parties in NAFO and make an additional distribution. The agreement in NAFO was to provide some additional redfish in 3M and some squid to these parties.
The Chairman: Bulgaria did not have 6,000 tonnes of squid inside the 200 miles.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.
The Chairman: I thought you said it came from Bulgaria.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It wasn't all from Bulgaria but the Bulgarians provided the redfish in 3M. There was a broad unspecified quota in NAFO for squid and it was withdrawn from there.
The Chairman: You're saying Canada could cancel that if it so wished.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Do you mean the decisions in NAFO?
The Chairman: No. We're dealing now with in excess of Canada's needs, aren't we?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, we can.
• 1140
The Chairman: Now let's get to the final one. Could Canada cancel immediately the use of foreign vessels by Canadian fish companies in zones off Nova Scotia and off Nancy Karetak-Lindell's riding?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: For area O, I don't believe that a fishing plan has been established for 1998. So nothing is in place for 1998 for turbot in area O.
For 4VWX, the minister did announce—I think it was in November—a multi-year—I believe a three year—allocation for silver hake, involving developmental quotas. We're in for a three-year period.
The Chairman: With foreign vessels.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes.
The Chairman: So if all members understand this correctly, we're tied into a three-year period off the coast of Nova Scotia, according to Mr. Wiseman. But for area O no decision has been made.
That covers the six areas that were contentious in some of our discussions. We'll go to Mr. Duncan for questions.
Mr. John Duncan: I've got all these east coast guys here, so I'm going to talk about the west coast.
On the hake in the Pacific, you mentioned the problem we have with processing. Our committee went to Ucluelet. That's where we have the biggest hake processing capability. I lived there for seven years. That little community spent $7 million putting in a water system. They need as much water as the city of Nanaimo, with 100,000 people, in order to process this hake.
They've got investors. We talked to the investors. They came to our meeting. Their major concern was the fact that in January, here they are with a three- or four-year planning window to make these investments. They've got 200 people employed processing this hake now, and DFO announces a review of their hake policy and turns everything upside down on them. They're wondering what is going on.
There was no consultation with the community. There was no consultation with these investors.
I just wanted to point out that this is very problematic, and the committee, I think, is in general agreement. We shouldn't do that. If you can do anything on this front, it will be greatly appreciated.
I want to move to the tuna fishery. I'm going to read to you from a letter:
• 1145
This affects quite a few boats, and they've been trying
to deal with this now for three years. I can't
understand why we would have this circumstance carry on
for three years. Is there some rationale behind this
that I don't understand?
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: My area of responsibility is international affairs and international relations. I'd be responsible for the negotiation of the reciprocal tuna fishing agreement, which does provide access by Canadian vessels—many more Canadian vessels in U.S. waters than U.S. vessels in Canadian waters—and ports for Canadians to land their products. Canadians can land products in U.S. ports, much closer to the market.
But the domestic management of the fishery, how licences are issued, and who they're issued to are not my responsibility, and I really can't comment on that problem. I understand the problem, but I can't comment on it.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Bevan, can you comment on that?
Mr. David Bevan: No, that's the resource allocation side. Given the sensitivity of the situation you're describing, I'd like to go back to them and try to get an answer for you, and either provide it to you in writing or allow you to contact the appropriate people.
Mr. John Duncan: I'd greatly appreciate it.
Can I carry on? I have one more item.
In many cases, some of the best and brightest of the west coast fishermen have decided that the traditional fishery is not a place where they want to be. So we've had individuals who want to get into the offshore fishery in a big way. Some of them have been prepared to, and some of them have, invested between $500,000 and $1 million in technology and boats. We have what used to be west coast trawlers now fishing tuna out near Wake Island and other places.
We have a huge resource out there known as neon squid. We have foreign boats that are filling a vacuum. They're picking this biomass up. They're getting up to $3 and $4 a pound for it. When our people ask for licensing and access to compete in that marketplace, they're being given the runaround by DFO. They're either being refused or being made to run through so many hoops in terms of biology, in terms of the rigging on the boat, and in terms of determining who's viable and who's not. I know of one instance where the individual has actually left; he's taken his money and his boat and moved to Australia, where he has a better opportunity to deal with the bureaucracy and to enter that fishery.
So I have concerns from an individual standpoint. Here we are trying to create new fisheries. But I also have a concern that we have all these foreign boats, other countries, rushing to fill a vacuum, and we're lagging behind, one, because of what appears to be policy, or lack of it, and two, because we're asking too much of our DFO people in terms of providing biological background, and we don't have the resources, so therefore we say no.
This also affects the tuna boats, because what's happening is the foreign boats are fishing tuna by day and jigging for neon squid by night. This makes them a very viable platform. Our guys can only fish tuna by day. They're not allowed to jig squid by night. This is a very clean fishery. There's no by-catch. Jigging this squid is very clean.
So I'm bringing this up as an issue. I don't know, once again, that you can answer me, but I'm pleading for us to get our act together. We're missing the boat. We're absolutely and totally missing the boat.
Can I carry on?
The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.
• 1150
Mr. John Duncan: We have similar problems on our inshore. We have neon squid on our inshore, too—lots of it. We get it just off Ucluelet, the same place I was just talking about in our continental shelf, well within our 200-mile limit. We're not being proactive on that. We have whelk and box crab probably worth millions of dollars a year. We're holding back on that.
We don't have biologists assigned to these tasks, and therefore DFO is saying there is not enough information. Therefore DFO doesn't issue the permits.
The frustrations of people who realize the traditional fishery can't keep them employed who want to go into all these new fisheries is growing day by day. Canada is missing a major opportunity.
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, would you like to comment on these issues?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: As Mr. Duncan pointed out, these are complicated issues and they do involve questions of science and of resource management, and not necessarily international issues.
But in terms of international issues—and I want to make it clear—when there's talk of foreign boats fishing neon squid, they're not doing it within the 200-mile zone of Canada. They're doing it on the high seas.
Mr. John Duncan: I agree.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: And I think—but I will have to check this—the Canadian vessels that fish tuna on the high seas with their offshore tuna licences could be licensed to fish neon squid on the high seas as well.
Mr. John Duncan: My understanding this morning.... I woke a guy up in British Columbia to ask him that question, and he said no.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: I will check that, because I'm not sure why we're not allowing him to do it on the high seas. It is not a species that's managed by any international organization.
Mr. John Duncan: We're allowing it to some, but we're being very hesitant. This is where we're denying people, because we've got DFO people telling these guys how to rig their boats and whether they're going to be viable or not. Why not let the operator figure that out?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's their money if they want to lose it.
Research was done inshore on neon squid in the 1970s, and I think there is a lot of information available on that stock.
On your point about science, there are a lot of scientific priorities and there are just so many places to direct the scientists to at one time. How to do this are questions of management in the regions determining the best way to manage the fisheries.
Mr. John Duncan: Right now in Nanaimo one of the difficulties is that only one biologist is assigned to all these new fisheries and they can't possibly—
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Wiseman.
We'll now go to Mr. Easter of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Wayne Easter: I thank you gentlemen for the information. I especially enjoyed finding out how you really do the observing and calculate the data.
On that point, on the sophistication of the data, the data collection and basically the record keeping on it, can you give us a timeframe for when this came into effect? I ask this because when we held hearings out there we were certainly told a story different from the one you're telling us today.
How recent is this? Is this the last two years? Is it the last year?
Mr. David Bevan: The last five years.
It should be pointed out that it started with five years. There are always upgrades. Certainly after the 1995 incidents and improvements to the system, there was a dramatic change at that point. Before 1995 there were more vessels, and more than that, there was less capacity in NAFO to deal with infractions or citations. We had a lot of citations in 1994 and in the initial stages of 1995, citations where we find problems that were not then dealt with effectively by the flag states.
After the changes in the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures, that was significantly altered. When we find problems now, we stay on board. The flag state inspectors come. We have a whole set of new processes that allow us to have much more effective response to problems.
Because of that, the numbers of problems that we're finding in the NAFO regulatory area have dropped significantly as well. Before, I think in 1994, we had 50 or more citations. After that, it's down significantly. We've had 10 or more perhaps in some recent years, but those are different kinds of citations. We don't find liners used; we don't find those kinds of infractions.
• 1155
So there was significant change in 1995, and this
system is always under improvement with new technology
and new development in the system. I think that's the
ADAMS 6, which is the sixth version
of the process since we went into this kind of work.
Mr. Wayne Easter: I have a couple of straightforward questions too, but just on this, one of the problems in dealing with foreign fishing issues is who do you believe?
We can go to the fishing community. We heard some pretty radical statements in the fishing community. They said things like the French are taking all of Charlie's Miramichi salmon and they're putting up a wall of nets off there. You can actually see the foreign vessels pulled in St. John's harbour while you actually have Newfoundland fishermen sitting in the docks. One particular individual told us that they were fishing only a gunshot away and he was standing on the dock.
I don't know how you overcome that problem, but it's probably the biggest problem we have: if your information is accurate, how do you get people to believe it? I'll just make that point, Mr. Chairman, because I see that as one of the most serious issues we have to address: how do you get people in the community to believe what you're saying is in fact true. In fact, how do you get us to believe it, since we've heard it from every side?
Consider foreign boats inside and outside the 200-mile limit. I understand there are Canadian observers on the boat inside the limit. But say it's a Spanish vessel outside the 200-mile limit. Is there a Spanish observer or a Canadian one on that vessel?
Mr. David Bevan: Neither. Canadians don't put observers on the European Union vessels. We do, by the way, have observers at the request of Norway. We supply observers to them. So Canadian observers are on Norwegian vessels. We supply them to the Baltic states, as well as to Russia. So there are Canadian observers on those vessels.
But the European Union decided that the flag state is the EU, so to speak. They are putting other nationalities from the EU on the Spanish and Portuguese vessels, which are the predominant vessels fishing in our NAFO regulatory area. So it's not a Spaniard or a Portuguese person on a Portuguese vessel, they'll be from Britain or somewhere else.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Primarily British.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Coming back to this, who do you believe? Here's one of the problems. If you have a European vessel fishing with a European observer on it, then certainly the impression that's left in the fishing communities is that this country is looking after itself and isn't giving us the accurate figures. How do we ensure the accuracy of that kind of data on those vessels?
I'd like you to answer, at the same time, one other question, Mr. Chairman. You talked a lot about catching what's surplus to Canada's needs. But I think one of the big areas of concern is the by-catch.
Is there any way that cod, for instance, can be caught and then, once the by-catch level is reached, you turf it overboard? That's because you're going to get it monitored when you come into dockside monitoring or whatever. Can we deal with the issue of the by-catch as well?
Mr. David Bevan: Okay. On the accuracy of observers, it's noted that when the vessels come to the NAFO regulatory area, they are targeted for an inspection. So we try to get a good handle on what they have on board when they enter. Then every couple of weeks thereafter, or perhaps a little longer, they're also inspected. So we have a fishery officer from Canada doing an inspection under the authority of NAFO to verify that the catch records by the captain and the observer are accurate.
We have had discrepancies in the past. In those cases, we actually had Canadian inspectors go to Spain to observe the unloading of the vessel. So there are mechanisms within NAFO conservation and enforcement measures that allow that kind of activity to take place.
• 1200
So we have a
reasonable degree of confidence that those are
accurate. I say “reasonable” because there is never any
perfect system in any kind of fish management or
enforcement regime.
What we're looking at is making sure the level of
accuracy is such that we can conserve the stocks.
We do it through inspection and through cross-checking. If we find a discrepancy that we think is significant, we bring in the European Union inspector and together we look at the product in the hold. If it's confirmed to be a problem, then we've had people go to Spain to look at the offloading.
The European Union, by the way, send people to Spain, as well as the Spanish. There are a lot of cross-checks in the system.
Mr. Wayne Easter: By-catch.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: By-catch. First of all, I know the sensitivity, obviously, of 2J-3KL cod. One of the myths dealt with at the back of the deck we presented to you is this myth of 1,000 tonnes of by-catch being given to foreigners to catch their turbot fish. The reality is under NAFO rules, for a stock that's under moratorium, the by-catch limit is a 5% maximum that can be taken. For stocks not under moratorium, the by-catch limit is 10%. In Canada we have similar kinds of by-catch limits. Some are lower for certain sensitive stock.
What that means, though, is that with a 20,000-tonne quota, the maximum amount of northern cod that could be taken, if it were taken—and it's not only northern cod, because it's 3LMNO, so anything taken in 3M is a different stock from northern cod and 3NO is a different stock from northern cod—is 1,000 tonnes. That's 5% of 20,000 tonnes. But that's not given to anybody. Nobody has that as a quota. Nobody is allowed to fish that.
The reality is, turbot is fished in very deep waters. It's fished on the deep-water slope of the Grand Banks. The cod is found on the banks, in much shallower waters. The reality, according to the weekly reports provided to NAFO, is that the catches by foreign vessels fishing out there are about 2 tonnes of cod, out of catches of 14,000 or 15,000 or 16,000 tonnes of turbot. They are not catching 1,000 tonnes. We're talking about 2 tonnes in the NAFO reports that have been provided in the information given to the chairman.
In the fishery for turbot the French fish, their 210-tonne quota in area 2J—that's part of the 2J-3KL northern cod stock—again, out of the 208 tonnes or so they caught, they caught maybe 50 kilograms of cod in their total fishery. Because it's a deep-water fishery, the by-catch is almost non-existent. So there is no problem there for cod particularly.
On the general question of by-catch, there are rules. There are rules that deal with small fish. We have small-fish protocols in our water. If the catches of fish, even if they are legitimate, are too small, then you have to stop your fishing and you have to move, or you have to stop your fishing until there's a change in the distribution of fish in the catches.
There are by-catch limits. We've provided the CFIN data in detail on virtually all the key fisheries where there are sworn activities. You'll see the by-catches are all listed there. You'll see they are far from 10% for stocks where a by-catch limit is 10%. Many of them are far from 1%. At times we're talking about 0.01% of by-catch. We're talking about extremely small measures.
For the silver hake fishery, that's because of the way the fishery is managed. The two main concerns Canada has are by-catch and gear conflict. We want to make sure the cod and haddock stocks off Nova Scotia are protected. So we have placed the fishery in a small, narrow box along the deeper part of the slope, where they are not likely to catch cod and haddock. The foreign fleet is purposely being kept to an area where they are not going to get a by-catch of sensitive species. That's part of the rules of the fishery.
Secondly, grates are put on the net to exclude the by-catch of the larger groundfish.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Why not lower the amount? If it is so minimal and proven to be so, why not lower the amount?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It is lower, sir. For cod on the Scotian shelf I believe it's lower than 2%, and maybe lower than 1%. I can't remember the number off the top of my head.
• 1205
Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay. This is my last question, Mr. Chairman.
You said earlier that foreigners must follow all relevant Canadian laws and regulations, and we talked about that fairly extensively last night in terms of why Canadian vessels are not doing some of this fishing. Is it because they're non-competitive due to different labour standards on vessels? What authority specifically on labour laws do we have over foreign vessels fishing within the 200-mile zone?
My other point is that George talked extensively at the beginning about potentially cancelling various foreign vessel quotas, on the six species, I believe. What are the implications of cancelling those arrangements inside the 200-mile limit for Canada as an international state and for our fishing people and plants?
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, did you understand the question?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, I did.
The Chairman: I didn't, but go ahead.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Hopefully I won't confuse you more with the answer. Some of this relates to the question of Canadian laws and labour standards on board vessels. No, we don't control the labour standards on board foreign vessels fishing in our waters. We do have a say, though, in the hygiene and the fish inspection standards. If they're going to land products in Canadian plants they must meet criteria for a sanitary product.
If today we were to cancel foreign fishing inside our waters, we would probably be cancelling several hundred Canadian jobs in fish-processing plants, and those plants are in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We'd be cancelling hundreds of jobs.
We would not be providing one more kilogram of fish for Canadians to fish. They have fish of most of those stocks that they're leaving in the waters. They're simply not fishing it. So if they can't take what they have as their own quota, if we give them 10,000 tonnes more what good is it doing? So we're not creating any new jobs in Canada; we're destroying some jobs in Canada.
On the international plane, we're not complying with our international obligation to make available stocks that are surplus. That is part of the balance of obligations, duties and rights that we had in setting up a 200-mile zone. The international community agreed that coastal states can push the foreigners from 12 miles to 200 miles, with the understanding that the coastal states would make available opportunities inside their 200-mile zones if there were surpluses.
So we would stop playing by the international rules. Then any time we go to another party not playing by international rules and say, “Look, we've all agreed that these are the rules, you're not following the rules, it's essential that you must put these measures into practice”, we would then be open to their saying, “Who are you to tell us about international rules when you don't follow them either?”
Becoming a party that doesn't cooperate internationally would, I think, undermine our credibility in putting forward forceful arguments on conservation and international cooperation. I think our strength is in building alliances with other countries on the basis of cooperation.
We succeeded in getting the new UN agreement by developing alliances with other countries. It's only through these alliances and working with other parties that we can be successful in putting in place conservation measures that will work, that will be successful in rebuilding stocks that are of importance to Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wiseman.
Before we go to Mr. Bernier, with respect to Mr. Easter's question concerning foreign workers in Canadian waters, are you aware, Mr. Wiseman, of instances where the Minister of Immigration had to give permission for certain positions on vessels in Canadian waters to be filled by crew members from the Faroe Islands, from Denmark? Are you aware of that? Was that just an oversight that you missed in answering Mr. Easter's question?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, I'm aware of the circumstances that relate to your question. They may be different.
• 1210
I talked before about how we've had
these development programs for northern turbot and for
silver hake whereby Canadians have been able to charter
foreign vessels to catch fish to develop the Canadian
industry. We've had a tremendously successful program
to do that, which Canadianized the Canadian shrimp
fishery, the northern shrimp fishery. At one time it
was all foreign vessels, all chartered by Canadians,
mainly from the Faroes and Denmark.
Canada moved to a Canadianization policy that put in place measures that said these vessels must be Canadianized by a certain date, and there were transitional periods for Canadianization. During that process to Canadianize these vessels, there were times when there weren't enough Canadians to start coming on board to take some of the key positions on board the vessels so they could fully operate—fishing masters, for example—so there were incidents where visas had to be given to foreign nationals to continue to work for a few years on these vessels. My understanding is that now these vessels are fully Canadianized and have been for several years, and are Canadian flagged.
The Chairman: These were ministerial permits given.
We'll go to Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): I will try to be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to understand how NAFO works. That sparked my interest earlier on. If I understood correctly, in zone 3M, shrimp is being fished and this species is not covered by NAFO. Who can go in there right now? Any country in the world might go in there if NAFO has no say in the matter.
Secondly, perhaps I am mixing things up, but when could this fishery be placed under the authority of NAFO? What is the process to have a species regulated?
I will follow up afterwards with another question.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Stocks within the NAFO regulatory area can be managed by NAFO if it chooses to manage them. NAFO has chosen to manage by setting total allowable catch—11 stocks, as Dr. Chepel pointed out. NAFO does manage shrimp on 3M and has managed shrimp on 3M, but not through a total allowable catch system. It has done it by an effort control system that limits the number of vessels by party to fish on the stock. So the number of vessels is the controlling factor as opposed to the amount of catch. That was a decision taken by the contracting parties of NAFO. So 3M shrimp is managed by NAFO.
Any country in the world that is not a member of NAFO that chooses to come over and fish would be doing it as a non-contracting party, a non-member of NAFO. As Dr. Chepel pointed out, this year NAFO put in place a regime that basically excludes the importation of any product taken by a non-contracting party in the NAFO area from the markets of any NAFO member. So there is no encouragement for a non-member to come. And there are no non-contracting parties fishing shrimp. Only members of NAFO are fishing shrimp.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I understood correctly, there is an agreement such that even if non member countries came to fish they would be unable to sell their product on the same markets. I would ask you to confirm if I have understood correctly.
When we say that we must get rid of our surpluses or that we cannot go and fish in Canadian waters for such and such a reason, sometimes it is because it would not be economically viable. The fishery might be viable, but if a country is capable of doing it at a better price than us, we will be forced to stand on the sidelines and that country will go and sell its products elsewhere. I sometimes wonder if it is not stupid on our part to let these countries take that market share. If we do not cram it ourselves, and if we tell them to wait until the scarcity of the product creates a better-paying market, then that could be interesting for all of us. But if we simply let them do what they want all the time, we will never become players in those markets.
• 1215
Is there no way for us to exploit the last principle, the one
you have just explained? How could we go about letting the other
countries know that we are planning on using that argument?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, many witnesses have asked, if we have not ratified the Law of the Sea, then why are we using the Law of the Sea to allow these nations in to get what DFO claims is fish in excess of our needs?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: If I understand Mr. Bernier's question, vessels that may fish inside our waters may be able to catch these products and sell them in other ports and upset Canadian markets. Did I miss the question? I'm sorry.
The Chairman: Take over the market.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That is something we are obviously concerned about and it's something that isn't really happening. Take the silver hake fishery, for example. The developmental quota lands product in Canada for processing. It's part of the developmental quota. The Cubans do take some fish back as part of the payment for catching fish for Canadian plants. The Cubans consume that product in Cuba. They need it for protein. The Cubans can't afford to buy it from us, so there is no market for us to sell it there if we caught it.
Canada is looking at trying to develop markets in Africa, Egypt and other places for silver hake, with the product we're getting off Cuban vessels and buying from Canadians, subsidized by the price we can afford to pay because we're getting some fish from the Cuban vessels. So there is no interference in any Canadian marketing opportunities for silver hake.
For squid there isn't any, but the primary market for squid is Japan. It's usually not a bad business opportunity to have Japanese buyers familiar with your fishery and your industry buying your product and, if possible, catching a little bit of it. It's one of the reasons we let the Japanese fish a small part of their ICCAT quota in Canadian waters, because they are virtually 100% of the market for bluefin tuna. It's in our business interest to have them linked in and close to Canadian suppliers of the product.
In terms of turbot, over 90% of it is landed in Canadian products for processing. There's nobody taking that product and competing with us anywhere on it.
The aspects of the Law of the Sea establishing 200-mile zones and most of the high seas fisheries regimes are deemed customary international law by now. No one had ratified the Law of the Sea in 1977 when most countries had extended jurisdiction to 200 miles. In fact, the agreement for the Law of the Sea wasn't completed until 1982.
As international law evolved and a number of countries chose to move in the same direction together, customary international law was created. So the fisheries provisions of the Law of the Sea are considered customary international law. They've been accepted by the international court. Whether a party has ratified the Law of the Sea or not does not excuse it from having to abide by the fisheries provisions of the Law of the Sea.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: You will have to excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am already 20 minutes late for another meeting. I must therefore leave.
The Chairman: Very well.
[English]
We'll go to New Brunswick and Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have an observation and a suggestion. We've heard, across Atlantic Canada and probably even on the west coast, very serious criticisms on foreign overfishing and probably just plain foreign fishing.
I'd like to first of all compliment the group this morning for making a very good presentation to us. I think the most unfortunate aspect is that DFO has never been able to communicate this information to our general public and, in particular, to our fishing public. The fishermen we saw were not just fishermen on boats but even some of the major players in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. They gave us information I guess you would describe as very distorted and very mythical.
• 1220
I'm not sure what the problem is within DFO.
Certainly you reflect a very high degree of competence,
yet that message is not getting out to our
communities. I think it's really a shame that somehow
within DFO we don't have people who are able to
communicate better with our fishing communities.
It's a great concern when people are so upset and their blood pressures are so high. In fact, even in our committee we've had blood pressures probably that would go through the ceiling with some of the information that witnesses have given us.
I have two or three short questions, probably in terms of your effort. You're putting considerable effort into monitoring this foreign fishing. I'm not an expert in terms of our government expenditures within DFO. You talk about foreign fleets being licensed. Is there money coming to Canada as a result of these quotas? That's the first question.
We talk about straddling stocks, about the migratory. We heard in Newfoundland great concerns about getting into the shrimp fishery, and it seems that DFO is limiting the opportunities for Canadian and Newfoundland fishermen in terms of the shrimp fishery.
I think we have to determine if that is a reality or if it's only a perception, because a lot of people want licences, not only within the upper area—2J is it, Mr. Chairman, they were looking for that—but also probably they'd be able to fish down in 3M.
The Chairman: And in 3L.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: And in 3L.
The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Wiseman could answer us as to why they don't have a shrimp quota down there because of some international agreement we signed. Perhaps he can identify that quote.
Go ahead, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: The other one, which is very dear to my own heart in terms of being a New Brunswicker, is the Atlantic salmon. It would appear that in terms of NAFO and in terms of the other international agreements, we should have fairly good records on the number, at least in tonnes or in pounds, of the Atlantic salmon being caught as a by-catch and also in that area of 3P, that narrow corridor off St. Pierre and Miquelon.
I think also, in terms of that, we must have some information in terms of the fishery off Greenland. I don't want to put you on the spot in terms of that catch for the last couple of years, but is there information you could provide our committee in terms of how much Atlantic salmon is being taken by France and by the Faroese and Danes off those coasts?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Perhaps both Mr. Easter and Mr. Hubbard have raised what I think is a major issue, which does concern us as well, about communication and the perceptions of people.
For a lot of what is seen and what people are observing there is a basis in fact, but it's a small part or piece that is not seen within a total context and it could be misinterpreted.
We're dealing with two issues. One is that we're dealing with history. A lot of people still think the problems that were going on in the early 1990s and late 1980s exist today. They don't, and I think we've shown that clearly today.
For example, when we have fishermen who fish cod in 3Ps, the south coast of Newfoundland, who have seasons in their fishery and they have to stop their fishing when that quota for the season ends, and they see French fishermen from St. Pierre continuing to fish, they perceive that they're being discriminated against and that it's not fair.
They can't fish; and these foreigners are in there fishing this cod and it's their cod too. What's happening? I can understand the frustration.
The answer is really quite simple. Canada had a quota of about 8,500 tonnes but have had about 1,200 fishermen trying to fish it. The fishermen themselves came together to develop conservation harvesting plans and said that if we all go out after our 8,500 tonnes at one time, we may overfish it, we may destroy it, we may have real problems in the management of the fishery. Let's slow things down; let's put in seasons and let's have certain quota limits for certain gear types. And the fishermen agreed to put in place this plan. That's what the Canadian fishermen agreed to do with the Canadian quota.
The French have a conservation harvesting plan as well. Within their plan, 70% of their cod quota was given to the Canadian company that fishes on their behalf, and that company would try to fish for maybe nine or ten months of the year so they can provide a steady supply of fish rather than just glut right in the summertime when the small boats fish. But because the small boat fleet is so small, with very low catches, there is no need to limit them to certain seasons. They could continue to fish all year until their quota was caught.
• 1225
So the French fishery continued to fish, catching
small amounts with 20 boats—and these are small
dories, carefully monitored, with verification—until
the point when the French thought they had caught their
quota of 500 or so tonnes, and they shut it down in
September. Unfortunately our fishermen, having three
seasons, had to stop at two other points, and during
the time when they couldn't fish, the French were
continuing to fish.
This is just a quota management question. The French didn't get one extra tonne of fish. There were no extra quotas to the French, and no quotas taken away from the Canadians. It was the fishing strategy.
I can understand how a Canadian sitting on the coast of Newfoundland, when he can't fish, seeing a French boat go by fishing—yes, he'll be frustrated and he'll be upset. But this doesn't mean that there was anything wrong going on, that the French are cheating, or that any massive destruction of the resource is taking place. It's simply the way both countries have implemented their fishing plans to fish the quotas they are legally entitled to fish. For almost any of the concerns you hear, I think if you try to look back and put it into context, you can find a reasonably rational explanation of this.
I have just one other point on communications before I get to the specific questions. You as members of Parliament know this perhaps better than we as bureaucrats know it, but the media doesn't like good news stories; they like conflict and controversy. Dr. Chepel pointed out the tremendous successes that NAFO has had in the last two years...a historic agreement to deal with non-contracting parties this year. The same kind of press conference we have had every year after NAFO meetings took place after the Newfoundland meeting this year. The press coverage was virtually zip, because everything was agreed on by consensus in NAFO this year. All the parties agreed. There was no conflict, so the media didn't pick it out.
We put out press releases. The information is out there, but it isn't picked up by the media, because it's good news. When there's a conflict or when somebody could accuse somebody of doing something wrong, that gets the media attention very quickly and you get the headlines. Only if we're asked to provide clarification can we try to get the other side of the story out, if there is one.
Quickly, to get into the questions that you were asking about, foreign vessels that do fish in Canadian waters do pay licence fees, yes, so there's a small amount of money. But since foreign vessels are not fishing—they're fishing less than 2,000 tonnes in our waters—we're not making a lot of money off this.
As for shrimp, Mr. Baker asked why Canadians can't fish shrimp in 3L. Well, the answer is because Canadians don't want to fish shrimp in 3L, and that's where the problem comes down. Yes, there are Canadians who want to fish, and yes, there are Canadians who don't want to fish.
Canadian policy is based on industry consultation, and this is another communication problem. The heads of the union, the heads of the fish processing organizations, the major organizations in the fishing industry—they know the facts. They come to consultation meetings; they're in the NAFO meeting. They provide advice to the head of Canadian delegations. They provide advice that is focused to the minister for the minister's decision.
These are not decisions that are taken in isolation. I referred in my opening remarks to the Harris panel. This was a—what do they call it—a blue ribbon panel that had credibility and that for four years went around, consulted and advised. Its advice was put into policy. To the point, it said, look, we've done this for four years; we don't need to do this any more. What's in place works, so let's leave it alone and let's disband ourselves. And that's what happened to the committee.
What has happened on shrimp is that in NAFO we have great, great concerns for the straddling stocks, just as members of this committee have, and as hundreds of people I'm sure you've spoken to have. Those straddling stocks are in 3LNO. There is a shrimp resource there, as Dr. Chepel referred to it, and NAFO is managing it by a moratorium. That moratorium is not because there is no shrimp and we want to save the shrimp. That moratorium is because we don't want trawlers to be trawling in the 3LNO where cod is. We want to protect the sensitive groundfish stocks, the flatfish stocks, on the tail of the banks as well.
• 1230
So we have a moratorium against shrimp trawling. Yes,
it's an international rule and it's an international
rule that Canada fought hard to achieve. Other members
of NAFO want to fish shrimp in 3LNO along the
200-mile line. They desperately want to fish there.
Shrimp is the biggest fishery in the NAFO area.
They're fishing in 3M and they'd love to come to
3LNO.
On the advice of the Canadian industry, including the president of the fishermen's union in Newfoundland and others, we fought hard. It's a tough battle to keep a moratorium on a stock that isn't in danger at all in order to protect 3LNO.
Again, here's picking and choosing between international laws. For Canada to say that nobody can fish 3L shrimp and then turn around and exempt ourselves because we're going to fish it inside will create a credibility problem in an international organization. If we had a 3L fishery, we would not be able to get a moratorium on 3L outside and we'd have shrimp trawlers outside. Those are choices that have to be made, and the choices are made for the benefit of the majority of the people in the industry. That's why we have a moratorium on 3L shrimp.
As I mentioned earlier, for 3M shrimp it's managed by NAFO, by an effort control system. The effort numbers are frozen and are being reduced because there has been too much fish taken according to the scientists. The number of vessels that are allowed to fish there is based on their history of fishing. Canada had a very low-level history, so Canada's share is not likely to change very much.
For the question I was asked about 2J opportunities, that's a domestic management issue and it's not one I think I should comment on.
Finally, on Atlantic salmon there are good records. There are good records among the scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. It's an international body that provides scientific advice to all of the European nations on management of stocks. A Canadian is actually president of ICES. It's headquartered in Copenhagen. It gets reports from all the parties that fish salmon. It does the scientific advice and it provides that advice to NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which manages the salmon resource.
I don't have here the catches in Greenland waters, but I can tell you the catches of France. The catches of France over the past 10 years have averaged about 2 tonnes a year. The catches in 1997 were 1.49 tonnes. France is not a member of NASCO, but as part of the agreement we signed with France in 1994, it has agreed to abide by any rules put in place by NASCO and it will agree to the NASCO provision that there shall be no increase in fishing effort. They have agreed to that, and to our knowledge and from what we've seen in 1995, 1996, and 1997, there has been no increased fishing effort by France and St. Pierre and Miquelon for salmon.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Just to confirm that, 2 tonnes, about 4,500 pounds, about 450 mature fish, is all that was caught by the French fleets and by the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: In 1997 it was 1.49 tonnes. The 2 tonnes is an average over 10 years, the highest being a little over 3 tonnes one year. The information is in this document.
The Chairman: It's by comparison.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, but that's the point.
The Chairman: I'll permit the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Wayne Easter: No, no.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think you're bringing up the television thing. Are you? Do you want to bring that up?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, I was going to. I recall vividly seeing boxes of Atlantic salmon rotting as a result of the truckers' strike in France, and that sticks in many people's minds. I guess it comes back to whether we can believe the 1.4 tonne figure. What evidence can you give us to assure us of its accuracy?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think Ben spoke to the monitoring regime that's in place and the cooperation. The cooperation regime we have with France is quite strong. At the local, regional, and district levels we have officers who communicate on a weekly basis on catches. We have Canadians who can be in port in St. Pierre watching catches, seeing what's happening, and we have people from St. Pierre who can come to Canadian ports to watch catches. It's monitored very carefully, and we have great confidence in the reporting system that's coming.
• 1235
But I think what you're describing, Mr. Easter—and
this is almost a rite of the new year in the European
Union—is that fishermen are very upset by the
importation of all fish products into their markets,
which they believe is going to force down prices to
them. Therefore they have for several years had riots.
You may recall several years ago fires arising, trucks
being overturned, and fish products being thrown across
the road. This is part of an internal problem
concerning prices to fishermen that happens in Europe
every year.
The European market is supplied by Atlantic salmon, largely from Norway, and there's tremendous concern about the massive dumping on the part of some parties of Norwegian salmon, which is an Atlantic salmon, into Europe. So Norwegian salmon is targeted. I didn't see the TV program you saw, but if you saw boxes of Atlantic salmon, they were likely Norwegian salmon, not from St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I have just one observation for the record. In the late 1950s and 1960s, one drift-netter on Miramichi Bay would catch that number of fish. And we had hundreds of them. So this really shows a great crisis.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.
The Chairman: Before we go to John, I'd like to point out to Mr. Wiseman that the reason the committee is interested in this is we heard all the evidence that the Canadian government bought out Canadian commercial salmon fishermen, they all sold their nets to the French in St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the Canadian government has known for four years that there's been a commercial fishery there, but not one objection has been forwarded to the Government of France concerning that.
Mr. Wiseman, we heard witnesses on 3L, which is the entire east coast of Newfoundland. As you verified, there's a great shrimp resource. There's no problem with the amount of it—loads are there—but they can't fish it because of an international agreement. Zone 3L is 95% inside Canada's zone, so you can understand that no amount of information is going to correct that, because those fishermen are right.
What you neglected to point out, Mr. Wiseman, is that the reason the fishermen said it was only a gunshot away and the French were fishing refers to the fact that France is allowed to catch cod for food, whereas Canadians cannot. We get one weekend on the south coast of Newfoundland, but as you know, the Government of France allows the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon to fish it whenever they want to, with no limits; this is for recreation and for food.
That's the other side of the story. That's what all those witnesses were talking about, not the commercial take, as you suggested. It was that.
We'll go to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Mr. Chair, could I comment on your point?
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: The French fishery, including the French fishery for food, is within their quota. We have a fishery with a quota, and then we have a food fishery on top of the quota. We are allowing more to be taken than our quota by having the food fishery, so there's a difference. The French are respecting the quota for the total landings of cod.
The Chairman: According to them.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.
On the question of salmon, yes, we've noticed that there's a salmon fishery in St. Pierre and we've had concerns about it, and yes, major efforts have been made on it. That is why in 1994, when we signed the procès-verbal, we had an exchange of letters committing the French to follow international rules of an organization they're not even a member of, and to not increase their fishing effort. So we did something.
We continue to talk to them, because there are really serious problems in Atlantic salmon right now. This week, actually today, in Paris, talks are going on, and salmon is high on the Canadian agenda on how we're going to work together to reduce the French catch.
The Chairman: That's today.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's happening now.
The Chairman: I hope you're pointing out there's no salmon river on St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct. It's an interception fishery.
The Chairman: It's Canadian fish.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: And some American perhaps.
The Chairman: Well, if it's American, we'd better stop it for sure.
Mr. Duncan.
• 1240
Mr. John Duncan: The parliamentary secretary asked about Canadian labour standards. I would like to ask about Canadian gear regulations. Do those apply to foreign boats fishing within 200 miles—for example, mesh size and that kind of thing—and do we monitor and enforce that?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Absolutely. We set the standards for the fishery. As I mentioned for silver hake, their grates, we've established that and we insist they are put in place.
Mr. John Duncan: And how about outside the 200 zone and under the NAFO fishery?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: NAFO has mesh size regulations.
Mr. John Duncan: But can they be different from ours?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes, they can, and they are for some fisheries. Canada has a larger mesh size for groundfish than NAFO has now, but discussions are under way in NAFO to increase the mesh size on groundfish nets in the NAFO regulatory area.
The Chairman: You're saying inside 200 miles. In area O we're limited to a 7.5-inch mesh, gill-nets, to catch turbot. Those foreign draggers are not limited to a 7.5-inch mesh, Mr. Wiseman. I think it's 5 or 5.5.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: If you look at the vessels that have been licensed to fish in area O in 1996 and 1997, they were four Faroese vessels in 1996 and three in 1997. Those are long-liners.
The Chairman: Yes, but their mesh size is—
Mr. Earl Wiseman: They don't have any mesh size; they have long lines with hooks.
The Chairman: That's all?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's it. One Japanese vessel was chartered in 1996, none in 1997. I think it was a trawler.
The Chairman: The evidence we heard was that they were not long lines, that they were ships that dragged a net.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: They used to be.
The Chairman: Well, I'm sorry, but during 1997 that's the evidence that we heard. They were quite disgusted that the Canadians were limited to 7.5-inch whereas they were fishing next to the foreign vessels that moved in. When their quota was finished, they had to get out of area O, Canadian waters, and the foreign vessels took their place with a 5.5-inch mesh size.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: My understanding—
The Chairman: Now, I don't know what the cod end mesh size is. Perhaps Ben can—
Mr. Earl Wiseman: My understanding is that these are long-liners, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wayne Easter: They can be verified.
Mr. John Duncan: I'll move on to the next question. I want to talk about the sustainability of some of these catches, and I want to talk specifically about tuna, specifically the ICCAT quota.
As you know, this committee asked to go to those ICCAT meetings, but we were denied by the minister. We are under the impression that the bluefin resource has collapsed—in the last 25 years it's lost 90% of its breeding population in the north Atlantic—and that the current approved quota, the all-country or four-country quota of 2,200 tonnes, is four times what was recommended as an optimistic scenario to bring the populations back over a 20-year timeframe.
Am I operating from essentially pretty good information, and if so, did Canada buy into that or did we vote against it? I'd like to know what transpired there.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: There is no doubt that the bluefin tuna resource in the northwest Atlantic is in serious trouble, and it has been for a long time. There were efforts to try to stop fishing many years ago, but it would not be accepted by the international community.
• 1245
So what was put in place was a very restrictive fishery
for only the United States, Canada, and Japan at the
time—Bermuda only last year—for these four parties to
have a scientific fishery. If you shut down the
fishery and nobody fishes, you don't know what is out
there. You have to have some fishing pressure and
some fishing activity to get an idea of what the size
of the fish is, where they are, and what kind of catch
rates you can get.
The quota in ICCAT is really technically a scientific fishery quota. It's to gather information so the scientists know what the true state of the stock is.
They do review it on a regular basis, and they will be reviewing it again. The next ICCAT meeting is not until November. They will be reviewing it then. What they have been doing over the last few years is they have put in place two-year programs, with quotas having been reduced over time.
It will be reviewed again. It will be a major issue. It clearly is a concern about conserving the stock.
But Canada is just a party. There are 22 parties in ICCAT. We have to get international cooperation to be able to put restraints on fishing activity. We also have to get our own industry to agree to accept significant reductions.
Mr. John Duncan: Did we vote for or against that quota?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: We agreed to it. It was a quota level that was lower, though. We insisted that it be lowered, and we did succeed in getting it lowered.
Mr. John Duncan: We heard a lot of evidence on the east coast about vessel size regulations. The way that all operates stifles individual initiative and really has led to circumstances where a lot of individuals who would have liked to have got into fishing some of these fisheries which are being given to foreign boats...we haven't been able to exploit it, therefore they are considered surplus or they are not fished simply because of DFO vessel size regulations and things that are not natural incentives. This has some implications for your field here, and I wonder if this is something you would like to comment on.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: I have no expertise in the management of the domestic fishery, nor in vessel size regulations and how they work in the domestic fishery. If there are opportunities to improve Canadian fishing possibilities that are fair, I'm sure those are being looked at in the regions.
I would like to comment, though, on one thing you mentioned and I've seen reports of in the past, about the committee having been denied access to the ICCAT meeting. I'm not sure exactly what words were used, but my understanding is the committee members could attend an ICCAT meeting as observers. There's no problem. People can attend these meetings.
The problem was that the department was being asked to pay for committee members to travel to Madrid. That's where we had a problem, because we have people in the fishing industry who were directly involved in this fishery and who also want to go to the ICCAT meeting. They too were welcome to come. The meeting is open to representatives of the industry, but we don't have a budget to pay for them to go. We can't pay for fishermen's representatives. We can't pay for processor representatives. If they want to come, they have to come on their own.
This is the way it is for all international organizations. We had a large number of Canadian industry representatives in St. Petersburg for the NAFO meeting two years ago. We have Canadian industry representatives who do go to ICCAT meetings. But they pay for it. I think our concern was, and I think the message was, that if we paid for members of Parliament to go, then we would be subject to criticisms saying, well, why don't you pay for us; we have a vested interest in this.
If members of Parliament have the funds to go on their own, I see no problem with their attending as observers, although these are pretty technical and dry meetings.
Mr. John Duncan: The point is that the Canadian government paid for 20 bureaucrats to go—that's my understanding—and members of Parliament really don't have resources to travel outside the country without the minister's say-so.
• 1250
Mr. Earl Wiseman: I don't believe we have Canadian bureaucrats anywhere near that size. The Canadian delegation may have been that size, but a number of them would have been paying for themselves.
Mr. Wayne Easter: A point of information, Mr. Chair. I'd like information on how many bureaucrats did go, representing the Canadian government.
The Chairman: Can you give us that at some point in writing, Mr. Wiseman?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Wiseman, in conclusion, the committee examined, as John pointed out, the advice of the scientists versus what the government's position was. The classic example we looked at was 3M. There was an international moratorium. That's a cod spawning and nursery area in 3M, the Flemish Cap. It was reopened in 1991. We examined the scientific advice and it was against the reopening of that fishery. Every Canadian scientist on that commission and even the NAFO scientists, because we have copies of what they recommended, recommended against the reopening of that fishery. The Canadian government, together with the other governments, sat down and reopened it.
Let me ask you this question, and we discussed it last night. Perhaps that fishery should be closed again as a conservation measure. The scientists tell us they want it closed, or that it should be closed. But you're the person who goes to the meetings and you're the person who says no, it should remain open. You voted. We abstained from voting in 1991. We have the evidence on that. We voted in favour of it in 1992 and it went on from there.
So could you answer that question, because it's something that bothers us, that we have bureaucrats not following the advice of our scientists. Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: One accomplishes objectives in international organizations through compromise. I think you do the same in your work as well. You have a number of parties with a number of interests and a number of objectives. And to achieve your major objectives, you give up on some secondary objectives. 3M is not an area of great importance to Canada, historically or traditionally.
The Chairman: Canada's continental shelf, Mr. Wiseman.
Mr. Earl Wiseman: If you look at the NAFO stocks that are there and you look at the quotas that Canada has of those stocks, they are very small shares. We have not had historic fisheries there because we had no need to go that far. Other parties have interests there, and we have in fact been successful in keeping them there and away from the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Our objective in NAFO is to protect the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The straddling stocks are our primary objective. That's what we have to succeed in protecting.
If we need to build coalitions to get protection to meet our objectives, to get 100% observer coverage, to get the kinds of moratoria, if they are required, we need to have bargaining chips. We need to be able to come to some sort of package agreement, which we try to do in NAFO. It's not nice. That's why we abstained. And if you look at the actual records of the meetings, you will see that Canada usually proposed a moratorium every single year. And we fully wanted and sought a moratorium, but when it comes down to the end of the day and you have 16 members around the table and you've got to count votes, there are secondary objectives, which are of less importance to us, that we may have to give on in order to achieve our primary objectives.
So yes, we could not accept the scientific advice. We would have liked to accept the scientific advice, but we cannot get everything we want all the time we want it.
The Chairman: One concluding question by Mr. Duncan.
Mr. John Duncan: When you're talking about the Flemish Cap and straddling stocks, it was as if you were including the nose and tail as being straddling stocks but the Flemish Cap is not. I would beg to differ from the standpoint that we have information from Department of Fisheries that indicates that's a cod spawning area and that the cod that are spawned in that area travel up to 800 kilometres from the—
• 1255
The Chairman: The winter spawning ground.
Mr. John Duncan: —spawning area. And we know that the straddling stocks agreement says that Canada has the ability from a conservation measures standpoint to impose outside the 200-mile limit what we would impose on ourselves within the 200-mile limit when conservation concerns are paramount. So I think we have a lot more to say there than the tone of what I got out of what you were saying would suggest.
The Chairman: The limit on straddling stocks. That's in UNCLOS, isn't it?
Mr. Earl Wiseman: No. It's also in the NAFO convention, where the coastal state has a special interest in the straddling stocks. And that's one of the ways we've been successful in basically getting all the straddling stocks decisions in line with what we've wanted.
I don't know what document you're referring to, Mr. Duncan, but 3M is considered a discrete stock. It is managed separately; it is felt by scientists not to affect the stocks in 2J3KL nor the stock in 3NO. It's discrete and it's separate. If we thought there really was a connection and that the stock was a nursery area or a spawning area for 2J3KL, we would then have to be considering that as a straddling stock.
Turbot is a straddling stock in 3M. That's why it's 3LMNO. And we have ensured that turbot measures and turbot protection's in place. But the NAFO scientific council advice has been very clear that the 3M cod stock, the 3M redfish stock, the 3M American plaice stocks are discrete. They live in shallow waters on the bank of the Flemish Cap, they don't cross the deep waters of the Flemish Pass to the Grand Banks.
The Chairman: Before we conclude, the committee has decided that we're going to seize this map here. Whoever owns this map—
A voice: The minister. We borrowed it from his boardroom, sir.
The Chairman: We're going to borrow it from you, because it's a motion of the committee, which was accepted earlier. It's a marvellous map and we'll return it in about a week.
We want to thank the witnesses most sincerely for their appearance before the committee today. Perhaps we might have need to recall them when we get to our west coast report.
Mr. John Duncan: I hope, Mr. Chair, that I will hear back from the department in regard to some of the things I presented in my first round, because it's frustrating as a member of Parliament sometimes to bring up what I think is a legitimate concern and have everybody nod their head in here and then never hear back from them again. So I'd really appreciate that.
The Chairman: I would assure Mr. Duncan that the department, the entire department, is listening to this on the FM radio channel, especially the minister's office, because they just phoned a minute ago and said you can have the map. So somebody's listening.
We want to thank the witnesses very much and we look forward to our next meeting. Thank you.