Evidence of meeting #7 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lawrence MacAulay
Thank you, Mr. Blais.
As short as you can and keep it on the time schedule.
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
It's not the first time I've been admonished by a chair of a committee to be short.
Yes, Mr. Blais, they are sovereign states. And you're right, you have to try to achieve some kind of agreement.
The reason we're now in this situation where you have this proposed amendment package before you is that there was an aura of desperation, the desperation being that we need an agreement at any cost.
I can't say this happened for a fact, okay, but I can imagine a situation where Mr. Hearn—I'm not talking about the Conservative Party per se, I'm talking about Mr. Hearn, who made this commitment during the election campaign, going back to his constituency in Newfoundland and Labrador, wanting to deliver on a commitment, as any politician would. That's the name of the game. I can imagine Mr. Hearn saying to officials, “Gentlemen, I need to be able to say that we have improved the existing situation.”
Based on the statements that Mr. Hearn made subsequent to Lisbon, which have no foundation in the amended convention, I can only conclude that he was determined to achieve an agreement at any cost.
You've all been in negotiations. If you have to have an agreement, then your negotiating position is weakened. If you cannot walk away from that negotiating table and say we'll come back in months, a year, whatever, then basically you're going to end up having to capitulate, and this is what happened in this situation. They had to agree to certain things that they didn't want, probably, in order to say we have an agreement.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lawrence MacAulay
Thank you very much, Mr. Parsons.
Okay, Mr. Applebaum, as short.
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Just to add a comment to Mr. Blais' point, it's certainly true that it's very difficult to negotiate something under which sovereign states will agree to be bound. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. You do have to set it out in the first place as you're negotiating your position, not to be negotiated away. You have to send negotiators out and say, you must bring back an appeal process that produces a compelling, binding decision in the end. It's not impossible.
We just went through those UNFA negotiations—just—at the United Nations with all the countries in the United Nations there who agreed in UNFA to binding processes. The world is open now to binding, judicial processes that will result in binding conclusions. It's just that when Canadian negotiators went out this time, they didn't get one.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that between the two of you and Dr. Art May and Mr. Earl Wiseman, the four of you have over a hundred years of collective, international, national, executive experience within DFO and elsewhere. Am I correct?
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
And I have 28. I don't know if it will add up quite to a hundred, but probably reasonably close.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
So when people like you speak, there is a resonance, as compared to when politicians speak. We tend to speak on a political slant.
Mr. Applebaum, you had indicated that under certain conditions Canada would have to acquiesce to allow a country to come in to manage or to patrol or do whatever was in our exclusive zone.
Mr. Bevan was quite clear. When I asked him repeatedly, he said—I'm paraphrasing now—he could never see when that could happen in Canada, that we would actually acquiesce. You just indicated that there may be certain conditions where that may happen. Can you outline a few conditions where Canada may be forced to acquiesce in this particular concern?
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I can, but the first point I want to make is that the European Union that proposed this provision that allows NAFO to manage and enforce inside 200 miles didn't propose it and get it and insist on it for fun. They did it because they intend to use it. That's why it's there and why they said they would not sign a convention, a new agreement, without it being there.
So that's the starting point. I'll give you an example, because things start slowly. They don't start with the deluge coming in and everybody pouring across the 200-mile limit. An example: Canada goes to a meeting. There's a particular stock, call it Greenland halibut. The scientists suggest a TAC of 35,000 tonnes. The EU people say they need 5,000 tonnes more. The EU people say, “We want 5,000 tonnes more and we'll agree to 35,000 tonnes provided we have that rule apply inside Canadian waters as well.” All you can do is just ask. You don't have to ask for the whole shebang. You're only saying, “You, Canada, make the request to NAFO to manage the total stock inside 200 miles, and we'll go for 35,000, but if not, 40,000 is it.”
It seems like such a small thing, right? So they'll manage the whole thing inside 200 miles. What does that really mean? We were going to manage it inside anyway. We were going to live within the limit. It doesn't seem like anything worth fighting about. So why don't we just make the request, get the TAC down, and go home with a big press release, “Canada gets new lower TAC for Greenland halibut”?
That's the way it starts. The next year, maybe they add a stock. In the third year, maybe they add another little thing. They say, “We don't like the way the Canadians are enforcing. How about we have international enforcement just for this one stock, just in the area inside the 200 miles? Just agree to that little thing. What are we going to do? After all, you're enforcing yourselves. Everything will be okay. What's the likelihood? We just want to be able to board your vessels and see if they're following the rules. We don't trust you.” You say, “You don't trust us? We don't trust you, either.” So Canada says, “You're right. We're totally trustworthy. Sure. Let your enforcement vessels come in, board Canadian vessels inside 200 miles, and check them out.”
That's the way it starts and that's the way it goes.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I couldn't see that the United States would agree to this, but Mr. Bevan had indicated that because the United States is part of NAFO the same rules would apply to the United States. I will assume he's correct in that estimation. In your experience dealing with Americans, can you see the American administration or Congress or Senate agreeing to allowing foreign-flag states to in any way, shape, or form manage or even enter the United States' 200-mile zone?
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Never, but of course the United States has no straddling stocks. We are the ones. Canada is the coastal state in the northwest Atlantic that has straddling stocks and that depends on control outside 200 miles to be able to stop overfishing out there. There is no similar situation for the United States, not to mention that given that the United States is the United States, they can get away with a lot of things that we can't and they can do a lot of things that we can't.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
This is the last question, and I know the answer. We'll just put it on the record.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I've forgotten the number--twelve, thirteen, something like that. I'm sorry. I don't know the number offhand. I can tell you afterwards when I look it up.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. I appreciate the time you've taken to help us on this issue.
For my benefit--I'm sorry if I missed it earlier--can you remind me what positions you held while you were with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and in what years you held those?
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I was the director general of the international directorate that was engaged in all the bilateral and multilateral negotiations that were being done, and that was from about the mid-1980s until I retired in 1996. So we're running about 12 years, I think, that I was the director general, and I was in the international directorate before, at lower levels, for the previous 10 years or so.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
And you said you had a key role in the old NAFO that didn't work.
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That's right. I was one of the team that negotiated the old NAFO convention.
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or its predecessors, for 34 years. I started my career as a biological scientist under the Fisheries Research Board in St. John's, Newfoundland. Then in the late 1970s, around the time of the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction, I came to Ottawa and I was director of fisheries research for a while. I was director general responsible for fish inspection and various things for a while. I could give you all the specifics, but—