Fisheries Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Earl Wiseman]

When you talk about silence, I haven't heard anything. But what they've said to Premier Williams, what they've said to the federal government, I don't know. Their interests obviously are different. When we talk about Canada being the coastal state of the fish stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, it's of primary interest to Newfoundland and of secondary interest to Nova Scotia.

It's the opportunity for NAFO to eventually manage inside 200 miles and control within 200 miles--where they're up to the Gulf of St. Lawrence--that I think becomes a concern for other provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wiseman. Thank you, everyone, for coming today.

I find it quite revealing that a person of your experience and a person of the other.... Well, I guess we'll call them the 4WM--it sounds like a fishing zone--the four wise men. With almost 100 years of experience between you, when the government is negotiating something as complicated as these fishing agreements, they could at least buy you a cup of coffee and say, “Look, what do you think we might be able to do?” You could offer your advice, give it for free, and you walk away. You said on the record that the door was shut. I find that most amazing.

Secondly, I've been speaking to some fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador who asked why Canada would do this. There has to be a bigger picture item out there. Are we giving up something on purpose for something else, i.e. an economic trade-off with another deal, the Canada-EU trade-off? This is what they're telling me. I don't have any basis of fact for this, but it's what I'm hearing.

What I'd like you to do, sir, if it's at all possible.... It's the voting aspect of it. I understand that two-thirds represents a difference of one, maybe two, votes, from 50% plus one.

I was wondering if you could explain why in your brochure you said that Minister Shea restated her primary goal to be conservation, but this is weakened in the proposed amendment. I'm just wondering, sir, if you could take just a little bit of time--take the rest of my time if you wish--to explain what you actually mean by that two-thirds, by the weakening conservation measures, and by Canada not being able to get previous shares of allocation of stock.

Thank you for coming.

[Earl Wiseman]

Thank you.

One of your questions is why is Canada doing this, and what is Canada getting out of this. I don't know. I can say, though, that I do know that there is a view now that standing up for Canada's rights, being forceful, has been perceived as not being effective. The way to be effective now is to put down the sword, put down the shield, and work things out with the European Union, which is being regarded as a partner we can trust and we can work with.

There may be some truth to that, but on the other hand, history has demonstrated that this hasn't always been fact. The EU, back in 1996, as this report pointed out, made it very clear that they have a strategy to implement UNFA in a way that reflects their views. I don't see a real change in the EU strategy at all. I just think that being trustworthy.... You know, it's trust but verify. I think we have to put in protections in the agreement to make sure that we're not giving away what is going to hurt us in the future.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Is it fair to say we were snookered?

[Earl Wiseman]

I don't want to say that because there may have been people who made a decision that we don't want to have fights any more; we want to have peace. We want to move together positively, and if we show trust, we expect them to show trust. Whether that's delivered on the other side or not, I don't know, but history hasn't shown that.

The EU represents 27 countries, many different interests, and they will do what they need to do. They have done it in the past, and they will continue to do that. That's my experience with them.

You asked about the voting, too, and the two-thirds and how it's maybe only one or two votes right now. Yes, today that's true, but remember what happened to the Soviet Union. It used to have one seat at the NAFO table, and then it became six seats, because it became Russia, the three Baltic states, Bulgaria, and Romania. So suddenly there was a political change. We had six members to deal with in NAFO. Now a number of those have joined the European Union. Who knows what's going to happen in the future? The European Union has never been satisfied that it has one vote. Who knows what will happen in the future? Who knows whether there will be other countries that may choose to want to join NAFO?

We have 12 members now. There's no guarantee it will be 12 members in 30 years.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

You indicated, though, in your documentation to us—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Stoffer, your time has expired.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I'm done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes, you're all done.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

So much fun. I'll get back to you, sir.

I didn't hear a bell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you. We know that Mr. Stoffer is only just warming up.

Thank you, Mr. Wiseman, for coming before us. You have declared yourself passionately on this issue, and you and your colleagues have been vocal in your array of criticisms that you have raised on the treaty. In fact, you've raised so many criticisms that it's almost difficult to follow them. I'm going to focus on the one that I think is the primary one, but before I leave the point about the numerous ones you've raised, it makes me curious that you could find fault with so many different things that have been so stoutly defended, not only by DFO but also by experts.

Let me focus on the question of sovereignty. We had before us just last week Phillip Saunders, who's the dean of Dalhousie Law School, and Ted McDorman, a professor of law at the University of Victoria, and we spent some time on sovereignty. I've just been given a definition of sovereignty from a dictionary: “supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community”.

Now, on the first of several points, Mr. Wiseman, there's no doubt that there's a requirement for Canada's consent for any foreign power to enter our waters under the amendments. Isn't that correct?

[Earl Wiseman]

Correct.

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

Trying to imagine a scenario where something bad could occur because of article VI, paragraph 10, which deals with possible entry into our waters upon Canada's consent, Dean Saunders told the committee that the Canadian government holds complete control, and that's, of course, what we've heard from the minister and from DFO officials.

So let me move to the second point. You used a great line borrowed from a former minister, Minister Crosbie: stand up for the fish. Isn't it true that countries are not silos in this worldwide battle to preserve our fisheries, that only if countries cooperate can we as a human species expect to preserve fish species for future generations? To quote Dean Saunders, he said there would be benefits to the provision that you question, as it could allow Canada to work with NAFO to develop marine-protected areas in areas of straddling jurisdiction.

So isn't it almost a truism that we as nations must work with other nations? We can't afford to act as a silo. You're shaking your head, so I assume that we agree on that, right?

[Earl Wiseman]

Cooperation, absolutely.

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

This is my third point, then. Wouldn't you agree that there's no such thing as a perfect treaty, that ultimately any treaty is an accumulation of several agreements?

I'd like to read to you an excerpt from Tom Hedderson, who is Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland. He appeared before us as well. This was his statement back in July:

The fact that Canada would have to support a NAFO measure and then request its application in the [EEZ] seems to provide the necessary safeguard against an unintended consequence of the amended convention. This along with securing the Canadian shares of NAFO-managed stocks makes an acceptable package.

He wasn't saying that the treaty is perfect from Canada's perspective, nor is the minister saying that it's got everything Canada unilaterally would have in a treaty. But in a world where we're working together with other bodies, we ultimately came to what is considered an acceptable package, at least as Minister Hedderson deemed the package at that time.

There were obviously some mutual negotiations going on.

So far, so good. You're agreeing with that?

[Earl Wiseman]

I'm not agreeing totally with your conclusions. I'm agreeing with the process that you've described.

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

All right.

Ultimately a sovereign power such as Canada—I'm going back to our definition, “a supreme independent power or authority in government is possessed or claimed by a state or community”.... That's Canada. We can even at this time, with or without NAFO, with or without the amendment, invite a foreign power into our waters to observe compliance with some standard of conservation. We can do that now. Isn't that right?

[Earl Wiseman]

Correct.

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

Again, I don't understand why your group sees this as a nefarious Trojan horse designed by the Europeans to weaken Canadian sovereignty. We have sovereignty. It requires our invitation to bring another country in. We need cooperation with these countries.

Mr. Wiseman, I think you said in your earlier statements that NAFO isn't perfect, but we don't want to scrap it, and we need something to keep this alive and on foot. Help me out here. I'm striving to understand your point of view. I'm not getting it. I guess Dean Saunders didn't get it. Professor McDorman didn't get it. Certainly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has heard and doesn't accept it either.

[Earl Wiseman]

I'll try to deal with your concern.

I think if both Dean Saunders and Mr. McDorman—Mr. Saunders never having really been involved in the negotiations—had their druthers, they wouldn't have this sovereignty clause in there. But it's there. They seem to feel it's something they'd rather not have, but it's there, and that was the outcome of the negotiation.

The key concern we have is that NAFO currently applies exclusively to the NAFO regulatory area outside 200 miles. It prohibits, de facto, any NAFO involvement within 200 miles. If Canada asked NAFO to do something within 200 miles, it couldn't do it because the NAFO Convention wouldn't allow it. The new amended NAFO Convention would now allow it. It gives a new right to NAFO that does not now exist.

The reality is—

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

Can I stop you? That isn't my understanding. As a sovereign country, we operate in a domain where we could invite a country in to do our bidding. I can come up with a hypothetical. We lack some technology that some European country has and we ask them in to help us make an assessment of a diminished fish stock. That seems completely consistent with our sovereignty, and we don't need NAFO or an amendment to NAFO to do that.

[Earl Wiseman]

Thank you. That's exactly my point. We've been doing that for years. We can do it--

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

So there isn't a big change.