Fisheries Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to begin by welcoming our first guest this afternoon, Minister Hedderson.

Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. I know you've appeared before the committee in the past, but I'll start with a few housekeeping items.

Committee members are constrained by timeframes. So that we're able to get as many questions answered as possible in the time allotted, we generally allow 10 minutes for presentations from our guests. The committee members understand the time constraints they're under, so they certainly do their best to adhere to them and stay as close to them as possible.

Minister Hedderson, please proceed whenever you're ready.

[Tom Hedderson, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]

Good afternoon to all.

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you ever so much for giving me an opportunity to come to talk about the fishery, especially as it applies to our nation and to my province, Newfoundland and Labrador—a fishery, I might add, that is of vital importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The prosperity of our province has always been highly dependent on the resources of the sea. As a result, developments in international law relating to the concept of territorial seas and the rights of coastal states have always been followed with keen interest in my province.

The fish stocks on our Grand Banks have been significant contributors to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and economy. Unfortunately, the Canadian 200-mile exclusive economic zone, the EEZ, does not encompass the entire bank. The nose and tail of the Grand Banks are in international waters, and several fish stocks very important to Newfoundland and Labrador straddle that 200-mile limit.

Historically, the most noteworthy of these stocks is the northern cod. Prior to the establishment of the zone, this stock felt the impact of foreign overfishing. If we go back to the late sixties, foreign vessels in I think 1968 landed approximately 800,000 tonnes of northern cod. This stock has never really fully recovered from this unsustainable fishing.

With the extension of the jurisdiction in 1977 came the establishment of NAFO, a multilateral organization responsible for managing fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic. The objective of NAFO is to contribute to consultation, cooperation, the optimum utilization and rational management, and the conservation of the fisheries resources of the convention area.

We contend as a jurisdiction that NAFO has failed to live up to those objectives. Many others agree. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the report of the Advisory Panel on Straddling Fish Stocks reached the same conclusion after examining the performance of NAFO.

The problems of the eighties and nineties are well documented. The objection procedure was used regularly to grossly overfish stocks, and NAFO could do nothing—I say nothing—to stop it. Flags of convenience were used to fish outside the rules, and NAFO again could do nothing about it. Many countries were misreporting, and again NAFO could do nothing about it.

The result was the collapse of just about every straddling stock off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Reform efforts have failed to remove the objection procedure or achieve an internal binding dispute settlement. Having one vote out of twelve clearly does not afford the protection this country needs for adjacent and straddling stocks.

Some improvements were made after the infamous turbot war, but the improved fishing behaviour came at a very high price in terms of resource access. And illustrating the poor fishing behaviour, in 2003 the estimated foreign catch of species under moratoria was upwards of 15,000 tonnes, over half of which was American plaice, a stock for which Canada holds 98% of the quota, which historically was fished and processed primarily by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Government of Canada did respond to the problem, by increasing its patrols and surveillance in the NAFO regulatory area. This action, combined with the lack of fish and increasing cost, has reduced activity by foreign vessels on the nose and tail of the banks. However, what happens if—or should I say when—the fish return? We believe that without an effective management regime, there's a very high probability, almost a certainty, I would think, that many of the problems will return and that we'll go down that same road.

The motivation behind our province's stand with regard to custodial management is not only to rebuild the fish stocks but to protect them as well. It is about ensuring that the fish stocks that straddle the 200-mile EEZ are given a chance to recover and be sustained for the benefit of all those who fish in the northwest Atlantic. To reach this goal, custodial management involves enhanced fisheries management by the adjacent coastal state. It's an approach that could be used by other coastal states but which would be initiated on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. By applying this custodial management out to the edge of the continental shelf, Canada would manage the stocks that currently straddle the 200-mile limit. This would ensure consistent application of resource conservation measures.

As a coastal state, Canada would assume responsibility for ensuring that conservation and scientifically based management was applied. Canada would be responsible for surveillance and enforcement. This is the start of a solution that could work in a multilateral context. NAFO, as the regional fisheries organization, could continue to be responsible for access and allocation decisions, scientific recommendations, and the management of discrete stocks outside Canada's 200-mile EEZ zone.

Let me be clear: it's not an extension of jurisdiction and it's not a grab for resources or territory. It would respect historical shares, it would promote conservation, and it would enhance our role as a nation, as a coastal state. It would strengthen compliance with management measures and provide greater deterrence for fisheries violations outside the 200-mile limit. Straddling stocks, such as cod, American plaice, flounders, redfish, and Greenland halibut would all be given a better chance to rebuild.

However, if this cannot be implemented within NAFO, then in the interests of allowing the stocks to rebuild, we will continue to urge the Government of Canada to pursue this option through other means, such as creating an alternate regional management organization, as suggested by the advisory panel chaired by Dr. Art May.

The current federal government did promise the people of my province, Newfoundland and Labrador, that it would indeed pursue custodial management if elected. Both Prime Minister Harper and the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn, committed in writing and verbally that they would indeed pursue custodial management. The failure in this instance is that they never even tried. Instead, the Government of Canada, along with other NAFO members, undertook a NAFO reform process.

As part of this process, the NAFO convention has been amended. We indeed have great concerns in regard to some of these amendments. The amended NAFO convention will serve as a vehicle for other nations to impose their management over stocks inside Canada's sovereign 200-mile limit. History has shown the tragic ecological results of mismanagement of stocks by foreigners outside our 200-mile limit. We must ensure that this never happens again within our own borders.

We wrote to then minister Hearn in September 2007 and stated that “The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not support reforms to a convention that may allow NAFO to set measures inside the Canadian zone.”

Our position today remains the same as it was then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Minister Hedderson, would you be able slow down the pace a little bit? We're going to be all right for time.

[Tom Hedderson]

That ten-minute restriction just drives you, you know. It just drives you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I apologize. We'll be all right for time. It's just for the interpreters.

[Tom Hedderson]

Okay. My apologies.

Our province and many experts, including DFO executives with extensive NAFO experience, are extremely concerned with the clause in the amended NAFO convention that in certain circumstances allows NAFO to apply measures in the waters under our national jurisdiction. The new wording could very easily and clearly lead to the increased influence of NAFO inside the Canadian 200-mile limit.

I wrote to Minister Shea in July 2009, concerned that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans alone could make this decision. I asked that any request of any management of NAFO within the zone certainly at least be a decision of cabinet. Since then, the high-calibre representation that we've had from former DFO executives has demonstrated that the risk is simply too great to proceed with the amended NAFO agreement. Indeed, there are no other persons in Canada who have such an intimate knowledge of NAFO conventions as these officials. Their sage advice cannot be ignored.

The province has certainly again reiterated that we can take no risk and that the amended convention should not be ratified by Canada. Particularly in these times when arctic sovereignty issues abound, Canada must demonstrate with clarity and certainty that we will not accept such measures in any jurisdiction in this great country.

Some have argued that we need not worry because the opposed amendment would only put that option into the NAFO convention and Canadian politicians would never allow it to happen in practice. Unfortunately, no one can predict how any future minister or government will act. Therefore, it's critical that this option not exist in any manner, shape, or form that opens the possibility of foreign management or enforcement in Canadian waters.

One of the primary objectives stated by the federal government when heading into NAFO reform was to prevent the continued abuse of the objection procedure. The EU has historically used this clause to grossly overfish stocks off our coast during the 1980s and early 1990s, with the blessing of NAFO. The agreed-upon NAFO objection review procedure in the new convention continues to be inadequate. While it puts a process in place, nothing in this process is binding on the contracting party or prevents unilateral action that could seriously jeopardize conservation. Nations can continue to use the objection procedure. While this can be challenged by others at NAFO, unilaterally decided quotas will continue to be fished, further eroding the precious and often valuable resources off our shores. Indeed, such quotas are being set today in relation to shrimp stocks off our coast.

Just a few days ago, in Bergen, NAFO agreed to set the TAC for a number of stocks, again above the scientific advice. This is indeed time that we did something different. We know that the NAFO approach has and will continue to require that member states, particularly Canada as a key coastal state, compromise either their historic attachment to the resource or conservation of these important stocks.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that Canada should not be willing to stay on such a destructive path. Custodial management is a multilateral and collective opportunity to restore, protect, and share resources in the future. It speaks to Newfoundland and Labrador's awareness that the current system is not working. It just might serve as a model for other parts of the world as well.

I ask for your support for Canadian custodial management of straddling stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

[Tom Hedderson]

And I'm sorry about the speed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's just the translation; the interpreters have difficulty. I myself have been accused of going a little fast at times as well.

We'll proceed right into questioning.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully, this committee can wrap up its work sooner rather than later.

Minister, thank you for appearing before us. I can assure you that not only I, but the Liberal Party of Canada was extremely interested in wrapping up the sessions of this particular committee with a vote to nullify the revised NAFO convention. However, apparently we still need some more evidence--at least some members do before they decide on where this convention should go and what Canada's position should be. I would repeat again that we've made up our minds on this particular convention. I think, in listening to your testimony here, so have you.

Could you tell committee members, was Newfoundland and Labrador satisfied with the outcome of the recent NAFO meetings in Bergen, Norway? Particularly, does the decision on 3M cod and Greenland halibut follow the precautionary approach that NAFO proposes to follow?

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, as I alluded to in my opening statement, we were not satisfied with the decisions that were made by the Canadian delegation at the negotiating table, or the NAFO table—whatever you want to refer to—in the current year at Bergen.

There are a couple of them. One is the Greenland halibut or the turbot. There's a 15-year plan and we're five years into it. Because it's a recovering stock, the plan was to reduce each year, as the years went on. Canada went in, and the position they put on the table immediately was a rollover, which then got away from the plan, against scientific advice. Of course, that worried us, to have a nation go in and again ignore scientific advice.

But the 3M cod is worrisome for us because it's the first year off moratorium. We have northern cod, which is under moratorium as well, and some scientists are telling us that it is coming back. I think the Europeans are getting a whiff of that as well. I think this was a first test of Canada.

At the table, again, the scientists indicated that they wanted to be very precautionary. It was a stock coming back from a moratorium. They suggested that it would be—I don't have the figures in front of me—somewhere around 4,000 tonnes. They had some dissenting people around the table, some nations. The United States and Norway voted to stick with science and the Scientific Council, which gave the advice. The European countries went for the bigger quota. Suprisingly, as we have an interest of probably 1% of that stock, Canada, against scientific advice, said and voted with the Europeans to increase the quota. It might not seem like a lot, 5,000 tonnes or whatever, but it's just the fact that our country had a chance around the table to make a statement that when our northern cod comes up we're going to be precautionary, but it ignored that.

So those were two incidents, and there are some others that I won't belabour. But again, it was disappointing.

It was not our position, by the way, as a province, because we certainly indicated to the minister prior to going over there what our positions were. It was to reduce the halibut, to basically stick with scientific advice.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Minister. That's an interesting perspective. It seems you feel very strongly that there's some dysfunction still that remains in NAFO to this day, even pre-revised NAFO convention ratification. There's dysfunction within NAFO.

[Tom Hedderson]

I don't mean to cut you off, Mr. Byrne, but we have a history of this. We've been under a moratorium on cod now since 1992. It has been devastating to our coastal communities. Another transition is coming, if the cod come back. We depend heavily on this, and we want to make sure that we do it right this time. We need the support of our country.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Minister, you reminded us that it was the Prime Minister and the former federal fisheries minister, the Honourable Loyola Hearn, who, prior to becoming Prime Minister and fisheries minister respectively, while in opposition, promised and committed custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks as well as the Flemish Cap.

Were you surprised, Mr. Minister, to learn, subsequent to those two honourable individuals becoming Prime Minister and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans respectively, that we actually already had custodial management? Apparently there was a declaration made in 2007 or 2008 that Canada had achieved custodial management. Were you surprised with that statement, with that policy position?

[Tom Hedderson]

I wasn't the only one surprised. There was a great hope in the province with the commitments that were made from a potential prime minister, and a potential minister, as we knew Mr. Hearn would probably be. In opposition, they were very adamant in indicating to us that it was the only solution to the mismanagement of the resources off our coast. They gave a verbal and a written commitment that they would pursue custodial management.

Nothing had changed in NAFO, and when it came out that we were to accept this as custodial management, it simply didn't make the radar. It wasn't even close.

I hope I've explained in my opening comments what I believe “custodial” is. It is the coastal state taking responsibility for the management of stocks within our 200-mile limit and those that straddle. There's nothing in the conventions that give us that.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

So in your opinion, and in the position of Newfoundland and Labrador, the policy position that Canada now asserts, custodial management is a fabrication.

[Tom Hedderson]

People can confuse both of them, but there are conventions and there is custodial management. There's no way that they're in any way related, because the conventions are perhaps, some might argue, marginally better than what was already there--marginally, but not enough to even come close to getting the coastal management that's required as these stocks rebound.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, could I share my time with my colleague?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Not to repeat ourselves, Minister, but there has been some confusion around the term “custodial management” and what it means. I know you alluded to it in your statement and you just alluded to it again. Could you clearly tell us what your definition, the definition as you see it, would be of “custodial management”? There are different opinions out there on what custodial management is.

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, it goes back to the coastal state whose stocks are off, in our case, a 200-mile limit. These stocks do straddle back and forth over the bank. Unfortunately, when we carved out the 200-mile limit, we did not close the door, and that's the nose and tail of the bank and the Flemish Cap. So what we're saying is that we need to be able to manage our stocks and have control of that management so that we can make sure that the conservation practices are in there, that there is sustainability. And in no way, shape, or form are we saying that we're not going to share that stock with those who have fished it historically.

With our northern cod stock, I think we basically have 95% of the quota. So in actual fact it's pretty much our stock, right? With regard to yellowtail and American plaice, again, it's in the high nineties. Why in heaven's name do we have to depend on NAFO to come in and manage stocks that we just about have total control over? And why do we have to sit around a table, then, with 12 others and have one vote and hope they don't eat into our quotas or prevent us from doing the conservation?

So custodial management is protection of our stocks and our having the control to manage it, to maintain it, to make sure it's there forever and a day.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So custodial management is that we'll manage the stock; as we would manage inside the 200-mile limit, Canada would manage outside the 200-mile limit.

[Tom Hedderson]

Our straddling stock. As I pointed out, with the discrete stocks outside that don't straddle, NAFO is quite welcome to continue on in their management and that sort of thing.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So this convention does not give Canada custodial management, just to be crystal clear.

[Tom Hedderson]

Absolutely not.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Absolutely not. Okay.

One quick question. You mentioned there in your statement about compromising, and through NAFO it seems that sometimes we have to compromise on our historical attachment to the stock. Do you want to just elaborate a little bit more on your views on how you think we end up compromising our stocks and our resources?