Fisheries Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

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

I think, Mr. Minister, we also know that the United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea yet. Of course, that's fundamental to this NAFO convention in some respects, I guess, so we do know something about the U.S.

Once again, could you explain to me or provide some perspective—you took some prodding—on the flip-flop? How do you feel about the flip-flop when someone says there's going to be custodial management and it's devastating to Newfoundland and Labrador, to Canada, that there is not custodial management, and when someone says the previous administration was negligent for not instituting custodial management, but then within days--if not weeks--of forming office suddenly describes how there was always custodial management, apparently, saying that it always existed? As for the very people who were criticizing the previous government for not instituting custodial management, well, lo and behold, there was indeed custodial management back in 2005.

Do you have any comments, Mr. Minster?

[Tom Hedderson]

In response, I can again express the disappointment we had in regard to the commitment not being fulfilled. We kind of lost a bit of faith. This convention is kind of creeping in and pushing custodial management aside, because these conventions are nowhere near custodial management.

Like I said, they're marginally different from the original, right? It's more fluff and stuff than anything, but there's some dangerous fluff and stuff, especially with regard to the sovereignty issue and of course a process that is now binding with regard to arbitrating disputes.

But to get back to it, you're right, we felt let down. We still feel let down. We're still adamant about custodial management. We can banter back and forth about what was said in this letter and what was said in that letter, but I think we had to be clear. And I think the position of the government is clear: they're supportive of these conventions and they believe these conventions give us the management we need. We say it's totally inadequate, we have no faith in NAFO under the present system, and again we're calling upon our government to really dig down into this.

We're pleading with you to dig down, put aside all this rhetoric, and really get to the meat of it. Perhaps the best way to do that is to put it for debate in the Parliament of the country and let everyone have a good, solid debate. Then we can get into not who said this or who said that, but what this is going to do for our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

Monsieur Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, you will agree that two minutes is not very long. I am going to ask two questions; after I finish, you can answer them both, if that is okay with you.

In your presentation, you mentioned the objection procedure that had allowed people to fish within the 200-mile zone and you indicated, if I am not mistaken, that other countries have used an objection procedure that allowed them to continue to fish.

Do you think that the new convention will put an end to that way of operating?

Then, in an explanatory note tabled in the House of Commons in June 2009, the Government of Canada declared that by ratifying the 2009 amendments, Canada would resume its leading role in NAFO reform and in strengthening the governance of the international fishery. Do you agree with that?

[Tom Hedderson]

With regard to the objection procedure, there is some work done on process, but it still leads to the same thing. There can be objections, and these objections can be carried out over a period of time, but during the objection procedure, countries can still put on a unilateral quota and fish that quota, and even after a decision is made it's not binding.

So again, it's toothless as far as we're concerned. It's a little bit better in that there's a process, but no better in that the end result is that it's not binding and then it has to go to another body somewhere down the road. In the time all of that takes, a country can do great damage to any particular stock.

As for the strengthening, you say that these conventions are strengthened. Again, we don't see that this strengthens them in any way. As a matter of fact, especially with regard to the possibility of our sovereignty being breached, it weakens us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hedderson, welcome again to Ottawa.

Custodial management, of course, was high on the radar for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know what progress was made between 1993 and 2006 when the Liberals were in power, but there was some hope that the Conservatives would follow up on their promise. This obviously wasn't achieved.

I was concerned by the questioning from the other side about Newfoundland's position and how we can negotiate if the province is changing its position. My own view is that the ratification process is there for a reason. If you couldn't have sober consideration of what had been put on the table, then there would be no need at all for a ratification process for international treaties.

My understanding is that what's going on right now in this room and in Parliament is a consideration of this treaty as to whether it ought to be ratified. I gather you're telling us that your full consideration of this matter, from a sovereignty point of view in particular.... I don't know if that was focused on. I know Mr. McCurdy didn't focus on it, according to what he said at public meetings in St. John's. It wasn't focused on, but now you're focused on it.

Would you care to comment on that? Am I getting this right or am I missing something here?

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, sovereignty is the big one. Like I said, we are a coastal state. We have three coasts, and what we do on one will have ramifications on the others. Right now, sovereignty in the Arctic, for example, is a big deal. I know the Prime Minister has made a statement on it, saying that it's important, but you can't go up in the Arctic and make a splash and then have language in conventions that opens up a door--ever so slightly, perhaps, ever so slightly, but it is open.

Again, maybe this government knows the difference of it or whatever, but for governments to come, I say.... Do you know what I mean? If there's any risk at all and you're talking about perception internationally, they're looking, and they're catching on every word. We need strength at our tables, at NAFO tables and at our trade tables. As a nation we're strong in resources, but we have to be strong in backbone too. We have to make sure that the world knows our resources are valuable, and for those that fall within our grasp, we should be managing them. In our province especially, we depend so much on it.

We've been down a tough, tough road, long before my time. Some of you here know that toughness that comes with overfishing and a resource that's just going out with no regard whatsoever. So again, as a plea, we ask you to make sure that if this is a ratification process, you give everyone a chance to sit at a table like this, or in Parliament, or whatever, and please listen. Don't jumble it up with things that are going to cloud the issue. There is an issue here. For us, it was custodial management. Now, it is conventions that we feel will weaken our position.

It's up to the government, I guess, to make sure that you clearly state where you're going and what you're doing. I say the best place for that is on the floor of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

With due respect, Minister, part of the reason this issue is clouded is because of comments you've made. We're having a difficult time. In fact, even today in your comments.... I don't have the actual words in front of me, so I apologize as I don't have this verbatim.

In your interpretation of the sovereignty clause, as you refer to it, you say that it allows foreign nations to “impose”--this is in your words, this is a quote--their interests within Canadian jurisdiction. Well, surely that's not accurate; there's nothing in the amended convention that allows another country to impose its interests within Canadian jurisdiction.

[Tom Hedderson]

If they're invited in, they can impose.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Well, that's not imposing anything. That's being invited.

[Tom Hedderson]

So you're saying it's all right for the NAFO countries to come in and manage our resource? That's all I wanted to hear.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

That's being invited and also voting in favour--

[Tom Hedderson]

That's all I wanted to hear. I'm wasting my time.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

--so that's not imposing their will. In fact, you're the one who, in this letter not that long ago, as has been pointed out a number of times, agreed with this approach, but you said it should be strengthened by having cabinet involved in any catch request.

So my question, then, is that if that were part of the amended convention as we interpreted it, would you then be in favour, as you implied in your July 6 letter, of the amended convention?

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, I restate my position and the government's position in case anyone hasn't heard. We took government in 2003. In our blue book we have always indicated that nothing less than custodial management would be the order of the day.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Well, I'm talking about this clause. You said--

[Tom Hedderson]

And we've kept on that and we are still there. We will still be there tomorrow and we'll still be there the next day.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

You said you proposed that cabinet approval should be required prior to any request.

[Tom Hedderson]

Absolutely.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

And this would ensure adequate review and debate of the issue.

[Tom Hedderson]

Yes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

So I'm asking whether, if this were part of the process--

[Tom Hedderson]

So that's agreement? In your words, that's agreement?