Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just to give a brief outline of this discussion, as you know, when we were last here, the first thing out of my mouth was this: is there any possible way, because of all the other issues, that we can get the government to assure us that it can delay ratification?
My understanding was that, as of October 19, the 21-day deadline given to us by the government would have been over and the government would have had its own right on October 20 to ratify this agreement. We had asked, was there any possible way we could get that extended to discuss not only this but the other issues as well?
At the time, Mr. Kamp, the parliamentary secretary, was not sure if indeed that could happen, so Mr. Byrne moved a motion—and rightfully so—which we supported, because of the urgency of the situation. We then find out today that the government has acknowledged the fact that there can be more time prior to their discussing the ratification of this treaty, which then gives us the opportunity to bring in two more sets of witnesses.
One set would be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one question I would like to ask them about is their current view of the situation.
Also, we consistently hear about scientific and eco-based management. It would be nice to bring in the scientists who do these NAFO TACs and allocations in order to see if indeed, in their view, these new amendments are either good or bad.
Personally, I can tell Mr. Byrne and the Liberal Party that I do not support the amendments to this particular treaty, and I would vote against them and support any motion that would have the government not ratify. But in fairness to everybody and in fairness to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it's only fair that we allow a couple more groups of witnesses to come in. We'd then make our report. We'd then table a motion of concurrence or non-concurrence in the House, we'd have a vote, and we'd proceed from there.
But bear in mind that we know full well—because we've done this before, and I've lost arguments before—that even when concurrence ruled in favour of it, previous governments and the current one have said, “Well, it's a motion anyway; it's nice to hear from the House, but we don't have to abide by it.”
I can assure Mr. Byrne and the House that I and the NDP will not be supporting the NAFO amendments as presented to us by the minister and officials. However, to repeat, I think it's only proper that we get an opportunity to speak to Newfoundland and Labrador and to scientists. We're only talking about maybe a couple of days. We don't even need the 21 days to do this. That way we're not, as Mr. Kamp said, rushed into this, even though our views are probably already well known, that this side--I can't speak to the Bloc--would exercise reservation over the treaty, and I believe the Conservatives would probably support the treaty as it's done.
It's only fair that we have a couple more days of what the Senate calls “sober second thought” in this regard, but I believe it would be fair to balance out any kind of discussion in this review.