FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

• 1105

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Order, please. We're meeting under Standing Order 108(2) for consideration of the Canada-United States Tuna Treaty. This is an issue Mr. Duncan brought forward and wanted us to deal with.

We have as a witness, by video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia, as an individual, Joe Graceffo.

Mr. Joe Graceffo (Individual Presentation): I'm losing your audio. I can't hear everything you're saying. You're coming in and out.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

The Chair: Okay. Joe, the procedure we normally follow is for you to make as brief a presentation as possible, but get all your points in. You are the only witness today. Then we will turn to questions. Again, welcome. The floor is yours.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Good morning, gentlemen, and ladies, if present. I'm a commercial tuna fisherman out here on the west coast. I run a boat called the Red Sky I. I'm a member of the Western Fishboat Owners Association, which is a U.S.-based organization. I'm director of the B.C. district.

In the last couple of years there have been international negotiations to manage highly migratory species in the western and central Pacific. The albacore tuna we fish for falls under that new management agreement. Part of this management agreement is going to require Canada to manage all its fisheries.

I haven't actually prepared a statement. I've prepared a number of points I need to discuss.

One of the requirements of this new agreement is going to be to limit fleet capacity. The U.S. has already started on this process. They've announced a control date to let any new entrants into the fisheries know their investment may or may not garner them a limited-entry permit when that time comes. They are requesting of Canada to do the same. We've petitioned our Department of Fisheries and Oceans out here on the west coast to get the ball rolling.

We have a treaty with the United States right now, which has worked quite well, whereby fishermen from either country can enter the other country's fishery zone and ports to catch fish and unload fish. In the last couple of years we've seen ocean conditions change, and the majority of the fishing effort is happening in the U.S. zone. We've had a lot of new entrants into the tuna fishery, Canadian fishermen as well as U.S. fishermen, and the U.S. fishermen are starting to get a little annoyed with the extra participants and the extra competition. So they've been grumbling quite loudly this last fall and winter. It's become known in the official circles down in the United States that there is a problem with the treaty and that certain sectors in the U.S. would like to see the treaty abolished.

The organization I belong to is trying to maintain this treaty, because they know full well ocean conditions will change in the future and the fishing opportunities will be had off the coast of British Columbia, and their U.S. fishermen will be able to participate, as they have in the past, when that is the only spot where there are fishing opportunities for albacore. But there are a number of people within the organization—that is, the WFOA—and non-affiliated fishermen who want to see the treaty ended.

• 1110

One of the things the WFOA needs to see from Canada is a move towards fleet rationalization. The first step is to announce a control date. We—that is, tuna industry reps—had a meeting with officials of DFO last Monday in Nanaimo, and I was encouraged. I believe we got through to the DFO officials at that meeting the need to announce a control date. They will be getting back to us on 24 March to let us know what their decision is, and they will also be sending a representative to our spring directors' meeting in Reno, Nevada, on 29 and 30 March.

As I said, I am hopeful that DFO will start to move and at least announce a control date, as the U.S. North Pacific Fishery Management Council has done. That will go a long way towards re-establishing good relations with our fishermen friends south of the border. That's the first item.

The second issue is also related to this highly migratory species agreement that's being drafted now. There is a meeting called MHLC-6. MHLC stands for multilateral high-level conference. The sixth session is in Honolulu on April 11 through 19. I attended the fourth session a year ago February. At these sessions, the language for international management of these highly migratory species is being drafted. Industry feels we need to be there to make sure any agreements the Canadian delegation makes regarding management regimes do not suffocate our ability to go out there and make a living at albacore.

It's still a relatively new and developing fishery for us. Although albacore has been present in our waters and we have had landings as far back as the 1940s, it was basically a day-type fishery early on. Now we're venturing further and further into the ocean. Personally, I fish as far as the date line. I'll be leaving in another month to head for northwest of Hawaii and fish out to the date line. We have boats that fish in the South Pacific for albacore. So in that sense we are a new and developing fishery, and we want to make sure any agreements Canada signs onto don't hamper our ability to grow in this fishery or stifle our ability to earn a living at it.

We've tried to raise our own money to send industry advisers to this meeting. We may have raised enough to send one person. The organization I belong to is going to be funding my participation there, and we've been told by an official at DFO they may or may not be able to fund another person. So in conversation with Mr. Duncan, who is my MP—I reside in his riding—I asked if there would be any possibility that we would be able to get some funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or other government sources.

We've approached Fisheries Renewal B.C., and they've turned us down. We've asked individual fishermen to make contributions, and they have, but as I mentioned, probably only enough to send one person. We've asked all the fish buyers and gear suppliers to the tuna fleet to make contributions, and most of them have agreed they would, but none has been forthcoming yet, and time is getting very short to make airline and hotel arrangements. So that is item two.

• 1115

I'm not doing this in any particular order of need. Item three is DFO reorganization. Right now tuna is managed.... Well, it's not really managed; it's under the purview of the groundfish management hook and line division.

Up until the last year or year and a half we've had very little to do with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We've been basically an open access fishery with no need to be managed. We have neither wanted nor needed the management expertise of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now we see that we will need to have personnel dedicated to the data collection and management of our fishery. We need a separate division within DFO to look after our needs.

Pursuant to that, in order for DFO to manage this properly, they will need to create a separate tuna licence. Right now their tuna is under a schedule 2 privilege and there are some 3,000 licences that have tuna privilege, although only about 10% of that number are actually going out and fishing tuna. That number is a totally unmanageable number. Without an accurate figure as to who is participating in the fishery, DFO cannot manage the fishery. We see the need for the creation of a separate tuna licence just so that DFO knows who is participating in their Canadian fleet in this fishery and whether the number of participants is suitable for the catches that are available to us.

Item 4 on my list is access to Mexican waters for chasing albacore and other tuna species. We've sent a letter to Pat Chamut. I don't believe we've had a response yet. This was about a month ago. In talks with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we were told that was the route to go.

As Canadian albacore fishermen, we would like to have access to Mexican waters. It would extend our fishing season to practically a year-round fishery for our coastal vessels. The albacore migrate up and down the North American coast with the movement of water temperatures, pushing up in the summertime and then receding back down the North American coast in the wintertime. Our fleet would be able to participate in that fishery, follow the fish down south as the temperatures recede and back up again in the summertime. This would offer us lots of opportunity to maintain a year-round fishery.

At the present time, Mexican fishermen do not target albacore so we believe it would not be any infringement on their fishermen. They have an annual bycatch of about 100 tonnes of albacore per year, and that's a bycatch to their seine fishery. There is no targeted albacore fishery down there.

Another reason we'd like to get access to Mexican waters is the Port of Ensenada. There are a number of tuna canneries in Ensenada that we feel would open up more market opportunities for us. One of the canners that has canning facilities in Ensenada is called BumbleBee Seafoods. They have recently purchased the labels of British Columbia Packers out here. They own the Clover Leaf and Paramount brand labels. You see those labels on the store shelves with canned tunas, but they're all packed in Thailand or similar places, and none of it is with Canadian-caught fish.

• 1120

We believe there would be an opportunity to introduce into Canada Canadian-caught albacore on labels that Canadians are familiar with, packed in Ensenada, Mexico. I don't know what we'd give in return. We've been told that the Mexicans have made some requests to the Department of Foreign Affairs for fishery access on the east coast. I don't know if that would be appropriate or not. This is just something we should look into, if possible. I believe it would be a win-win situation.

If any of you gentlemen have any questions, I'm here to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Joe.

I'll first turn to John Duncan, and then Yvan and then Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thanks, Joe, for coming today and showing up. This has been quite helpful. I think your presentation was fairly clear, although this is relatively new material for most of the committee. I know we've had conversations before, but many of the people here are quite unfamiliar with this fishery.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Speak for yourself, John. You don't know what you're saying. It's about time you get it right.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. I'll hold you to that, Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Yes. I'm going to take you down to the east coast and show you some real fishing.

The Chair: Let's get to Joe.

Mr. John Duncan: The question I have is about the control date you're asking for. I believe the Americans have already announced March 9 as their control date, the date when they will start a limited entry on their tuna licensing. You talked about the need for DFO to do that. Now, in other conversations I've had with you, you expressed to me that this really must happen this month or there's a danger that the American fishery stakeholders may pre-empt anything we might do by going to the state department and really jeopardizing the tuna fishery. Are you still feeling that way?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Yes, it's jeopardizing the tuna treaty.

Maybe I should explain “control date”. A control date does not prevent any new entrants into the fishery. It is merely the first step. What a control date does is let new entrants know that any investment they make in the fishery after the control date may or may not get them a limited entry licence when limited entry comes down. So the control date is not limiting in itself. It is just putting everyone on notice that if you're going to go out and invest a lot of money, either building a boat or converting a vessel to participate in this fishery, your investment may be lost if at the time of limited entry it's deemed that there are already too many participants in the fishery.

The organization I belong to, the Western Fishboat Owners Association, at their annual general meeting last November, made a motion to eliminate the treaty. That motion was tabled at this spring's directors' meeting, which is at the end of this month, pending what action Canada takes as far as control dates or getting the ball rolling to prevent further entrants into the fishery. They are concerned that because we have had other fisheries that have been collapsing, the tuna fishery is seen as a dumping ground for these other failed fisheries and that the licence buy-back has created a number of vessels without any licences on them. If they so wished, they could put section 68 licences on and go out tuna fishing. We would be creating a situation where....

Let me back up a bit. A section 68 licence is a bit of a problem. It hasn't been so far because there have only been about 28 issued. Section 68 licences are issued to a vessel that has no other fishing licence. The section 68 licence allows us to fish for tuna species, of which there are a number listed, but it does not allow us to fish in Canadian waters. Because we have the treaty, we can only fish in U.S. waters and on the high seas.

• 1125

The Americans view this section 68 licence as a licence to fish in U.S. waters. They are concerned that with the recent rounds of buy-backs...and vessels that don't have other licences can't put on a licence to fish in U.S. waters...and they already see it as there being too many Canadians fishing in U.S. waters. There has to be some slowing down of the Canadian fleet entering the fishery, and section 68 is just one of those areas that needs to be slowed down.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

I understand that when you talk about the need for dedicated tuna licences or separate tuna licences, limited entry can't really work unless you have a separate tuna licence. So the two things are really tied together, are they not?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: That's correct. You can't have a limited entry when you have 3,000 licences on the coast right now that have tuna access if they want it. In the last five years, only 366 Canadian vessels have participated in the fishery at one time or another. That is probably a reasonable number. I don't think the Americans would have a problem with that number. I'm sure they would if all 366 fished to a much harder extent than they have in the past, because some of those fishermen have only landed one trip or half a trip, or they've only done it one year out of the last five, or something like that.

Creating a separate licence gives DFO a mechanism whereby they know who's actually participating in the fishery, whereas right now it could be any one of 3,000 plus who are participating in the fishery.

Mr. John Duncan: Can you speak to the sustainability of the fishery? This has ramifications for lots of things, but particularly for the Mexican access. Also, who is providing the tuna for the Ensenada canneries now?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Predominantly, that tuna comes from Mexican seine fishermen. Most of that tuna would be skipjack or yellowfin. Last year, we sent 400 tonnes on a carrier from the date line fishery to Ensenada, Mexico, where they canned albacore for us. So that was the first time we actually sent any amount of fish to Ensenada, so we know they have the capability to do it.

As far as the sustainability goes, in the North Pacific the scientists believe we're at around 80% of maximum sustainable yield. We're not quite at maximum sustainable yield. However, fisheries scientists and managers are afraid that once you've created a licence that has value...and this is one of the pitfalls of getting into limited entry. You have to create a limited entry scheme that doesn't create a value on something that had no value before. If you've created a scheme whereby the limited entry permit has a value, you are going to increase fishing capacity without actually having increased the number of fishermen. Whenever there's a total allowable catch and you have a derby-style fishery and you create a licence category so that a person who only fishes one trip now has this licence and it has some value to it, if he decides to sell it to somebody who might have a little more ambition, that person is going to fish considerably harder than the person who sold the licence. Even though we're below maximum sustainable yield, we could easily end up in a situation of overfishing if limited entry is not entered into properly.

• 1130

In the past we've had limited entry schemes that have created overfishing. So we have to be careful when we devise a plan that we don't fall into the same problems we've had in the past with limited entry schemes.

The Chair: Do you have one more question, John?

Mr. John Duncan: No.

The Chair: Okay, we'll have the last question on this round and then go to Mr. Bernier.

Go ahead, Bill.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): As John says at the beginning, this is relatively new. What is the extent? You've described the Canadian component of about 366 boats. What about the American and Mexican components? What is the global size of the fleet that is accessing this fishery?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: The Mexicans don't really access the albacore fishery. They just have it as an incidental catch. In the North Pacific the Japanese catch most of the albacore. Probably 80% is caught by Japanese fishermen. Korea and Taiwan also have some albacore fishing fleets operating in the North Pacific. In the South Pacific there are basically the same participants although using different vessels. South Pacific albacore is mostly a longline-caught fish. Worldwide, albacore is in all the oceans. So it's possible. Even off the Spanish coast...there's albacore everywhere, basically. In the Pacific most of the albacore is caught by Japanese fishing fleets. We are a small player actually.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That was more the direction of my question. How big are we in the total picture? We're quite tiny.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: We are quite tiny.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I too am unfamiliar with this fishery. I'd like the witness to tell us a little about the treaty in place because I'm hearing about some of the problems that fishers are having. I understood you to say that the albacore treaty is up for renewal shortly. Who oversees the treaty at the international level? Is there an international organization that monitors so- called migratory species that pass through different zones? Have various countries signed a treaty? As my colleague who spoke before me said, Canada is a small player in this industry. I'm trying to get a good grasp of the issue. I'd like you to tell me as succinctly as possible how this particular fishery is managed at the international level and perhaps then I can better understand the demands that you are making here in Canada. You can go ahead and answer these questions.

[English]

Mr. Joe Graceffo: There are two levels of management. Right now Canada has a treaty with the United States called the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty. It was established in 1981. It allows fishermen from either country to fish and land fish, specifically albacore, in the other country's fishery zone and ports. That treaty has been in place since 1981. There has been no real management of tuna stocks or at least albacore until the last couple of years, where an international agreement is being formulated much along the lines of the UN fish stocks agreement and the highly migratory species agreement, which Canada has ratified for the east coast.

On the west coast, in the western and central Pacific we now have a commission that is drafting the language for the management of highly migratory species. This is called the multilateral high-level conference. This is to manage all highly migratory species in the Pacific Ocean. Much of this language is based on the UN fish stocks agreement, which Canada, I believe, ratified last August.

• 1135

So they're having similar language to manage highly migratory species in the Pacific, and this is ongoing. They expect this next round of meetings in Honolulu will be the last round, where the language is basically written in stone, and then there will be a signing ceremony probably in August. Then there will be a two-year period, which they will allow for ratification.

I hope I've answered your question.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm fine for now. I plan to listen carefully to my colleagues' questions to be certain that I've understood everything clearly. I'll turn the floor over to them.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Joe is listed as an individual, but he mentioned “we” a couple of times.

You did mention your organization when you were questioned about it. Can you tell me about your organization? How many members are in that organization. Is there a mix there between natives and non-natives, or are they all natives? What is the makeup of your so-called “we”?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: The organization that I belong to and that I am a director of is called the Western Fishboat Owners Association. It has approximately 500 members. In B.C., in our district, we have approximately 60 members and they are from all fishing sectors. Basically, anyone who wants to fish tuna and wants to belong to this organization can.

There are no boundaries or different individuals from different communities. We don't even look at where you're from or anything like that. The Western Fishboat Owners Association is predominantly U.S.-based. We have members from the South Pacific, Tahiti, New Zealand, and the Hawaiian Islands, but most of the members come from the U.S. mainland.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Joe, for your presentation.

Sir, in terms of the trade-off you talked about, if you can have access to Mexican waters, would part of that trade-off be access to our fishery stocks on the Atlantic coast? Would you consider that as a trade-off?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I can't answer that. I wouldn't want to trade off anybody's fishing rights. There may be other avenues that Mexico would want to pursue, perhaps market access.

I wouldn't want anybody trading my rights away for east coast access to something. Similarly, I don't think they would want me suggesting that we trade away east coast fishing rights, but I understand that Mexico has requested informally of DFAIT some access to fishery stocks on the east coast. The only reason I brought it up was because Mexico had made some request. Perhaps there is some way to work around it. I don't know.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

You mentioned that you brought 400 tonnes of tuna to the plant in Mexico. Why was that done? Were there not any facilities in Canada where that fish could have been processed?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I didn't personally bring the 400 tonnes. We have high-seas carriers that service our fishing fleets. It takes us a couple of weeks to run in and out. It takes us anywhere from 14 to 17 days of steaming time to get out to the fishing grounds. So we don't want to come in and out unless it's absolutely necessary. So we have high-seas carriers that unload our fish and take them to a cannery port. Usually those carriers bring fish to Samoa for canning. Canada does not have any albacore canning facilities, and I believe they probably couldn't do it because of the cost factor. They wouldn't be able to can a product and market it because the labour costs would be too high.

Mr. Lou Sekora: When you ask for funding to attend that conference how much money is your organization looking for?

• 1140

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I don't have a specific number. We'd be happy with enough funding to send two people, which is probably in the neighbourhood of $4,000 or $5,000.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question, sir, is, do the United States fishermen have access to Mexican waters, which is what you're looking for as well?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: They do not have formal access. American fishermen do fish illegally across the line, and they have done so for quite a number of years. They are pursuing getting fishing permits for some of their fishing vessels so they can do so legally.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Joe, I would like to follow up on something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that DFO does not know who is fishing. What did you mean by that? Should they know? Do they not know now? What are you really getting at there?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: They do not now know ahead of time who is fishing. When they have the manpower to do it, they assemble sales slip data and compile a list of vessels that have participated in the fishery. In the period from 1993 to 1998, I believe it was, they came up with 366 different fishing vessels that had made at least one landing.

As I mentioned before, there are some 3,000 fishing vessels on the west coast that have tuna capability. They could fish albacore if they wanted to. It's allowed under different licences. Tuna is a schedule 2 species, so there are quite a number of different fishing licences on the west coast that have tuna privilege.

In order to manage a fishery the department has to know who the fishing fleet is, how many there are, and if that fleet has a fishing capacity to catch what is available in our fishing zones. If Canada is given an allocation from the fishing agreement that's being drafted for the central Pacific, will the amount of fishing we have be too much fishing capacity for the allocation we are given? These are all questions that are going to need to be answered within the next couple of years. You have to know how big your fishing fleet is and what your fishing capacity is in order to properly manage a TAC, if it's ever given.

Another consideration is market. Our markets are very price sensitive. If there's too much fish, the price drops precipitously. So it makes it not worth while to go out and fish if you can't get a decent price for your fish. The cost of fishing is quite high.

Mr. Paul Steckle: If this is a fairly open fishery, what science is used to determine whether the fish stocks are adequate to support the kind of fishing and the pressures that are being applied? How do we know, how do you know, how does anyone know, because we're talking about international waters? How do we come to some conclusion as to what really are the stocks available and what the long-term future of the albacore industry is?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Every two years a convention is held by scientists from Japan, China, the U.S., and Canada. It's called the North Pacific albacore something or other. I'm not entirely sure what the name of it is. We do have a fisheries biologist who attends these meetings. The last meeting was hosted by Canada. These scientists have their biological data where they determine what the biomass of North Pacific albacore is, and they determined that at this time the North Pacific albacore stock is only fished at about 80% of maximum sustainable yield.

• 1145

Mr. Paul Steckle: Are you comfortable with that kind of data?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I don't have the expertise to know whether or not that's an accurate reflection of the fishing effort. I have no reason to doubt it.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Joe, for your comments. It has been an interesting discussion. I want to make it clear that I appreciate your comments on the possible Mexican allocation of stocks on the east coast and the position you took on that. I think that was very clear and probably settled some misunderstandings from your original statement.

I have a couple of questions. I find it a bit amazing that you don't have a TAC on albacore tuna on the west coast now. I just want to clear that up and make sure I'm correct. There's no total allowable catch. There's no limit on the amount.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: That is correct.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're saying, as I understand it, there's also no specific tuna licence. On the east coast we have a specific licence that's for tuna only, and it is not lumped in with the rest of the groundfish. You're saying that on the west coast it's a hook-and-line fishery but it's lumped in with your groundfish licence.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: No. You can fish for tuna under a groundfish licence. You can also fish for tuna under a salmon licence, a halibut licence, or a shrimp licence. Under just about every other licence category, you're allowed to fish for tuna. I believe that in the early 1970s there was a dedicated tuna licence. This is just anecdotal, and I don't know it for a fact, but a fellow fisherman claims that he had a specific tuna licence issued to him back in the 1970s. But that licence no longer exists. I believe we need to get back to having a separate tuna licence category just so we know who the participants are.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That would make a lot of sense, in my mind.

I'm just trying to do some numbers here. You said that in your specific area there are around 60 boats in the tuna fishery.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: No. The number fluctuates from year to year. Approximately 60 of the boats are members of this organization. Last year we believe there were in the neighbourhood of 170 vessels fishing for albacore, and most of them were Canadian vessels in the U.S. fishing zone. What has created part of the tension with the Canada-U.S. treaty is that almost all of the fishing effort is happening in U.S. waters. The Americans are seeing a lot more Canadian effort, and they don't see any limit on the number of Canadian vessels that can participate.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So part of your fare, I would think, would be the fact that if we don't introduce a TAC and a limited entry fishery of some sort, the Americans could.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: No, TAC is not part of the equation yet. If a TAC ever happens, it will be on the international level, where individual countries will be allocated a total allowable catch perhaps based on past history. But I believe we're a number of years away from that. I think the only time that will happen is if the stock is overfished and a management regime is implemented. Then there will be TACs on countries. I believe that's down the road quite a way.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is my last question, Mr. Chairman. It would seem to me that there are a couple of big challenges here for you guys. You don't have a designated tuna licence. You're chasing a migratory species and spending 15 or 16 days, I understood, away from your home ports. You're fishing in international waters, with an increasing amount of nervousness on the part of the American fishermen you're fishing alongside. Certainly, those dynamics have never worked in any species on the east coast.

• 1150

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Right. We're fishing alongside the Americans inside the American 200-mile limit. We fish alongside them on the high seas. There is not a problem out there. The high seas are open to anyone who has the wherewithal to go out there. The problem, as far as our Canada-U.S. Albacore Treaty goes, occurs when we fish in each other's waters. Over the last two or three years, almost all the fishing effort has been in the U.S. 200-mile zone.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Before I go to Mr. Duncan—I have Mr. Duncan and Mr. Stoffer on the list—you talked in the beginning, Joe, about the Canada-U.S. treaty and that you had met with people in DFO.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: That's right.

The Chair: They were going to be back to you by March 24. Are you getting reasonable cooperation in terms of that? Are you satisfied with where discussions are, and that you're being responded to adequately?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I was encouraged, after the meeting we had with DFO on the 13th, that they understood the need to announce a control date as soon as possible.

At this point, I'm optimistic that we've got through to them. They realize if they don't do it we're going to lose the treaty, and if we lose the treaty, 90% of our fleet will not have access to albacore. For the last couple of years, the albacore have not ranged into B.C. waters.

Without the treaty, we won't have an albacore fishery. Some of us have the capability of going far offshore, out to the date line or the South Pacific, but that will be the only place where there will be any kind of access. Our buyers will have to buy American fish or fish landed in the U.S. in order to fulfil their markets if our coastal fishermen do not have access to U.S. waters.

Most of the coastal fishermen bring their fish back to Canadian buyers, so if they have no fish to catch, our Canadian buyers will have to buy U.S.-caught fish or fish delivered in the U.S. from those of us who can fish offshore in order to fill their markets.

The Chair: I'm not quite clear, Joe, on the treaty itself. I probably should have looked into this before the committee, but what is the term of the treaty? When is it up? What are the specifics around the treaty itself? Certainly the Americans can't break a treaty unilaterally. Are we at the end of this treaty, and does a new one have to be put in place? I just don't have that information. I should have it, but I neglected to get it.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: There is no sunset clause on this treaty. It can go on as long as both parties wish it to. There is no date when it needs to be renewed. However, if one party wanted to cancel the treaty, they would have to give official notice, and six months after that notice, the treaty could be cancelled.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Joe.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I thank the chair for straightening out the first issue pretty well, I think. We'll obviously try to follow what happens on March 24.

In terms of the highly migratory species, you will want your tuna stakeholders to be in Honolulu because this will be the final meeting before an international agreement is signed. I think there will be real value to that. Right now, you'd be the only tuna stakeholder there for a very important document that's going to be arriving. This is really the first document that will take the high seas and put some rules in place. If we're not at the table in the proper way, we may see our future business opportunities on the high seas restricted. Is that a fair characterization?

• 1155

Mr. Joe Graceffo: It's not the first document Canada has been a part of. Canada, I believe, initiated the UN fishing stocks agreement and highly migratory species agreement on the east coast and ratified it last August. This document pertains to the Pacific Ocean, but it is fashioned after the UN fish stocks agreement.

There are parts of the UN fish stocks agreement that would be very onerous on fishing vessels participating in a Pacific fishery. We are concerned that some of the positions Canada is taking, which they've signed off to on east coast fishing, don't really pertain to west coast and Pacific fishing.

Right now, the UN fish stocks agreement requires 100% observer coverage. That is not what's being discussed on the west coast, but Canada's philosophical position is to have a high observer coverage rate. We need to make our officials understand that especially when you go on a 70- or 80-day trip and you're two weeks steaming time away from the nearest port, having an observer on board would basically cut your fishing trip, or could really impede your fishing trip.

The albacore fishery has extremely low bycatch. Whatever bycatch we get, we eat. We look forward to it as variety in our fishing diet. We don't believe we need the same kind of observer coverage that is required on fishing efforts on the east coast. Those are different fisheries with different dynamics. We are afraid that our department of fisheries is going to institute fishing regulations basically with a broad brush stroke, without regard to the individual fisheries and their needs.

Mr. John Duncan: Other than the two stakeholders now, are there other stakeholders in highly migratory species in Canada that are involved, or should be involved, to your knowledge?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: I believe at least one other organization, the Eastern Squid Association, is also involved. I believe ESA is their acronym. The squid they go after are considered a highly migratory species, or part of the food chain of a highly migratory species, so they are involved to a degree. I'm not sure if they're going to be sending a representative or not.

The Chair: Last question, John.

Mr. John Duncan: I'll pass.

The Chair: If you want to think about it, John, we can come back to you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Sir, am I correct in saying there are no observers on any international ships fishing for albacore at this time?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: In the North Pacific, there are none that I'm aware of. In the South Pacific, where the Pacific Island nations allow foreign vessels to fish in their fishery zones, I believe there are observers on those vessels.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is your fear also that if Canada signs an agreement that says you have to have observers on board, the cost of those observers will go to you and your fleet and not to the Government of Canada?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: That is absolutely correct. The costs will be borne by the vessel owner. Those costs are quite high.

The Chair: Do you have a further question? Are there any questions from the government members?

I have one last question, Joe. On the meeting in Honolulu, what's the date?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: April 11 through April 19.

• 1200

The Chair: I would assume that the Government of Canada is sending representation. Maybe Mr. O'Brien knows.

Lawrence, do you know? Do you know, Joe, or does Mr. O'Brien know?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Yes.

The Chair: Are we, Joe?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: Yes. Canada is sending a delegation of DFO people and people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The Chair: Are any fishermen from other organizations going with those officials? I know that in the farm sector sometimes that happens, that the Ministry of Agriculture takes a couple of farm leaders with them. Is anything happening along that line that you're aware of?

Mr. Joe Graceffo: DFO has told us that they are trying to secure funding for at least one person. When I attended the fourth meeting a little over a year ago, DFO funded my participation. We've been told that they are trying to secure funding for at least one person, but they don't know at this time whether that funding is going to be forthcoming.

The Chair: Thank you, Joe.

Do you have a last point, John?

Mr. John Duncan: I would just like to put notice of motion to the committee. I'd like the committee to recommend to the minister that two of the tuna stakeholders be financed to attend the April 11 to 19 meetings in Honolulu.

The Chair: We'll accept that as notice of motion.

I wonder, Mr. O'Brien, if you can talk to the department as well. Maybe they have it in mind to take an observer or something with them—you never know.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I'll take Mr. Duncan with me.

The Chair: No, but maybe you can check that out and we'll deal with the motion next meeting.

If there are no further questions, then, thank you very much, Joe. It has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for your presentation. We'll hopefully take it from here.

Mr. Joe Graceffo: My pleasure. Thanks for listening to me.

The Chair: Committee members, we have a motion to deal with. There is a notice of motion before you, members. I do want to just inform the committee that I do want to go in camera for a few minutes following dealing with this motion to deal with some problems that could be happening in this committee.

The following motion has been moved. John Duncan moved that the committee write to the minister urging him to ensure that the year 2000 fishing regulations be announced as soon as practically possible. The motion is on the table.

John.

Mr. John Duncan: I'd just like to say that every year we get this complaint and every year it's costing—for example, in our commercial sports industry—major money. January, February, and March are when people make their bookings for their summer fishing trips. Once again we were promised by the minister that we would have the recreational angling regulations and there's no sign of them. We don't know when they're going to arrive. So this is a request for this committee to recognize that this is a problem and to urge the minister to announce them as soon as possible.

The Chair: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm reading this notice of motion with great interest. The fact is, I don't think that in regard to what we're saying in this notice of motion that somehow the minister is dogging it or that the minister is not coming to the table as soon as he can.

Those are things that really bother me, that we have a notice of motion.... The minister knows when he can make the announcements, and I'm sure he will. I don't think for one minute that.... Even saying “as soon as practically possible” is a nothing kind of motion. The fact is, I think the minister knows that he'll announce it as soon as possible. I don't think we need to have a notice of motion, so I'll be voting against it.

• 1205

Mr. John Duncan: I wouldn't mind responding to that.

One of the difficulties we had last year, for example, Lou, was that we had the announced regulations and then on June 17 they were changed. Many of the lodges either opened that week or opened the weekend following that date, and that led to all kinds of cancellations. It led to a lot of things. It led to a very big stain on the lodge owners with respect to their international clientele who believed they had been misled by the business owner, who were thinking they were misrepresenting the government's actions.

Now as for the reason that happened, if you really go back and analyse why, it was politics. It was concern over what the aboriginal response would be to some of this sports fishery. This motion is an attempt to say that we can't allow ourselves, our entrepreneurs, to be hijacked by politics. Let's announce the regulations, let everyone know what they are, and forget about dragging our feet because we're concerned about what one sector or another might say down the road. That's why they leave it as late as possible: to avoid all political challenges.

The Chair: When you're talking politics, I assume you're thinking of recreation versus the trawlers versus the others. Is that the politics of it or what, John?

Mr. John Duncan: It could be that, but last summer the main politics were the demands by some of the Fraser River bands that they be allowed first access to some of what are considered the sports fish, like the coho and any springs that were to be caught, as opposed to allowing up-coast and mid-coast sports angling opportunities.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman...?

The Chair: Mr. Sekora.

I have three on the list first, Lawrence.

Mr. Lou Sekora: One last comment I'll say is the fact that on June 17 last year.... We now have a new Minister of Fisheries. I'm not saying that Mr. Anderson did not do his job as a minister; I'm sure he did. I'm sure that Mr. Dhaliwal will look into it very.... What we're in fact doing is saying, Mr. Minister, we have no faith in you so we're going to put a gun to your head. I don't think that's right.

Mr. John Duncan: It's hardly a gun to his head.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: For my first question, I'd like to ask John who translated the motion. Was it his party or the clerk? In the French version, no date is specified. Are you talking about the year 2000? I would have liked to see something more specific. For instance, when mention is made of fishing regulations, is this a reference to the dates on which management plans will be announced? This has a different connotation for us, but in terms of substance, I think I agree with you and I will ask the chair and the clerk for assistance. Unless I'm mistaken, the standing committee has already tabled a report recommending that fishing plans be unveiled at least one month prior to the opening of the fishery. In my view, the motion on the table this morning only strengthens our resolve. I believe we actually received an answer from the government on this matter. For Lou's benefit, I remind you that the standing committee passed a unanimous motion. Everyone supported that particular motion and this one merely renews our request.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, I believe you're correct. I forget which report we had it in, but it was more specific than this one.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just have a question on Mr. Duncan's motion. As I understand it, the motion is specifically for the recreational fisheries, for the sports fishery, but what you're saying is “year 2000 fishing regulations”. I don't know if year 2000 fishing regulations is for everything from seiners, longliners, herring, salmon.... If it's recreational sport fishery, I would think we should state that. If there's a motion on the books already that precludes this, we could call a reference to it.

• 1210

Mr. John Duncan: It's specific to sport fishery, and we're already losing business by virtue of the fact that the regulations have not been announced yet. There's no biological information that will be learned between now and June—that they don't already know.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Oh, no, they need to do their bookings.

An hon. member: Motion...?

Mr. John Duncan: Years ago they used to announce them at this time of year or earlier.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we are going to be voting on the English version or on the French version. I find it very unfortunate that we have two different texts here. To start with, they don't say the same thing. I'm new at this, but what I hear from Mr. Duncan and what I read on this—whether it be in English or in French—are different things.

The Chair: What does the French say?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, are we talking of sport fishing or are we talking of

[Translation]

fishing plans

[English]

as Mr. Bernier was mentioning? What are we thinking about here? What are we getting at?

Mr. John Duncan: The reason I said “fishing regulations” is that fishing regulations are sport fishing regulations. I didn't think it needed to be said, but it is sport fishing regulations.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: How are we going to translate this, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Should we rework the motion for the next meeting so it's clear? Are you agreeable to that?

Mr. John Duncan: Sure. Otherwise it will go down in flames.

The Chair: I'll look into the previous recommendation we made as a committee in the report. We'll deal with this at the next meeting.

I would like to propose that we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]