Basically, a little more than a third of NAFO's activities are funded by the Canadian government pursuant to various formulas. I was rereading some notes, namely those of Earle McCurdy, who represents workers and the industry in Newfoundland. When he appeared before the committee in March, he pointed to a number of flashing yellow, if not red, lights when he said that the new format was not necessarily a good one and that he could not muster up much excitement about the outcome. Now, Mr. Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, is making a lot of noise about what is happening right now and is against ratifying the agreement that was negotiated.
Granted, when it comes to negotiating, of course you can always do better, but did we not negotiate a third-rate agreement? Did we not agree to a little less to ensure that NAFO continues to exist? To what degree did we feel the need to compromise more than the others during negotiations, for example, with respect to sovereignty? As far as I know, this was all put forward by the European Union, not us. The two-thirds formula will not necessarily improve things for us. If it was already hard to reach a consensus through the majority formula, just think what it will be like with the two-thirds system: even worse.
I have a hard time saying that we should have confidence in the agreement and move forward. Why should I accept what is on the table, and disregard NAFO's track record and the fact that there are still several unanswered questions about sovereignty and the two-thirds formula? Why should I accept the new formula or agreement if I firmly believe that we are not the better for it.