Fisheries Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Tom Hedderson]

Again you're assuming.... Go back to your original assumption that we supported it around the table. I'm telling you, we're not around a table; it's a delegation by the country around that table. We don't get a chance to go and sit around that table. As I pointed out, my officials were there in an advisory role. If you're talking about the two commissioners, it's a different story altogether. Our position, as I clearly stated, has always been that we will not accept anything less than custodial management.

We did an analysis of these conventions. As I pointed out, marginally you could maybe argue about the vote, to require two-thirds, perhaps, rather than 50% plus one, but when it comes to sovereignty and you are in a situation where NAFO countries could come in and literally manage inside the 200-mile limit, given the history of it all, it's not acceptable to our province.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

The sovereignty issue is clearly one that required lots of analysis and thought, but—

[Tom Hedderson]

I can go down through any number of letters and match that one a dozen times—

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay, but my problem is that—

[Tom Hedderson]

—if you want to get into that kind of game. But you have to look at what we're about here right now. It's about conventions that clearly will compromise this country's coastal position with regard to the 200-mile limit. It's not acceptable to our province. It's been clearly stated any number of times. Now you either accept it and move on, or...I don't care what you do.

Basically we want to make sure, and we're asking in your Parliament, that this at least get on the floor to be debated so that we can hear all sides. We're not supportive of it, and we're hoping that it will be voted down and that this government will again look at ways to take better control of the resources off our coast. Our only option would be custodial management, either within NAFO or outside of NAFO.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I understand what you're saying today and I understand what you've said before. I'm just having trouble bridging the difference.

Could I share my time with my colleague Mr. Allen?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have three minutes remaining, Mr. Allen.

[Tom Hedderson]

Okay, now you have to talk fast.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'll talk as fast as I can, even though I'm not from Newfoundland.

I have just a few questions. You commented on the 200-mile limit. Just for clarification, because I'm not going to put words in your mouth but just want to make sure this is clarified, my understanding of the NAFO convention is that a country has to invite someone within their 200-mile limit. So is your concern not that it would happen but that someone may use it in the future? You agree that a country would have to invite somebody in.

[Tom Hedderson]

Yes, sure, Canada can do that now.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. We can do it now, that's right. So basically—

[Tom Hedderson]

What I'm saying is that in writing this is not as strong as the first convention, so why is it in there? And you might be able to speak for your government, but a government down the road can take that wording and.... If there is any risk involved at all, again, we can't go there.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

You talked about your advisers, saying that you have your advisers, but they do not participate.

[Tom Hedderson]

No, they don't participate at the bigger table.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Right, but they're part of the process, not at the table but as part of the advisory role to the Canadian government lead negotiators who are there.

In that role, if there were reservations that the advisers were having as part of that process, it seems rather odd to me that.... What were their terms of reference for reporting back to the Province of Newfoundland if they were having issues with what was going on there? Surely, part of their role as advisers is to advise you, to say, “Minister, holy God, we don't like this. What the hell is going on?”

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, I can only deal with Bergen, because I wasn't minister back in those times. I'd be a fool to go back and say, well, they did this or that. But basically, as I pointed out to you, once a NAFO meeting is going to be held, obviously there is an agenda. We know what's on the agenda. Greenland halibut, hake, and all that kind of stuff was on it.

Before we go, I sit down with my officials and other officials to look at where we're going as a province. I then pen a letter to the minister indicating our positions, and then my people go off with that and that position. And throughout the meetings, of course, we get some feedback on how things went and so on, because they take place over probably a week.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

What is the process for that documentation? Are there opportunities for them, as part of this negotiating process, to feed back information to the Government of Newfoundland and say, “Minister, we think we're going astray on this. What's going to be our position?” Why wouldn't this come up earlier?

[Tom Hedderson]

They're told to hold on to their position and the position of the government, and obviously any time they go forward they would have to follow the position of the government. When decisions are made at the table, they don't know when the delegation goes forward what's going to happen. You know that when you're at a negotiating table, my heavens.... And I say that the Canadian delegation have instructions from their ministers as to how far they can go. Then, when it's all said and done and the decisions are made, the meeting is disbanded, the results come down, and we do an analysis.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

For our second round, we're going to have two minutes per party.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have one question. Minister, have you or has your department had any discussions with the United States and the eastern seaboard representatives on this particular convention? We haven't heard much from them. We know one other country has approved the convention, but we haven't heard anything come out of the United States showing their thoughts on this. Have you had any discussions?

[Tom Hedderson]

No, except, I guess, that when the officials were over they were all talking together and that sort of thing. There's been nothing official. I guess in talking with delegations it would be more the negotiating group that would know the position of the United States and so on.

We do know that they voted against the increase in the 3M. We know those sorts of decisions, but as for their position, I'd have to leave it up to External Affairs or whatever to have dealt with that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay. Because we haven't heard anything, and I think--

[Tom Hedderson]

We do know that Norway has ratified it. That's as much as I know.