Fisheries Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Earl Wiseman]

We have the full sovereignty to do it. What changes is that NAFO now has a lever. NAFO now has the thin edge of the wedge. The European Union knows this. They will use it.

I ask you to recall what I said about what Chairman Arias Cañete said. They believe that for a straddling stock the distant water high seas state should have an equal right in the management of the totality of that stock, inside and out. That is their belief. That is their objective. They want to have a say in what we do inside our 200-mile zone.

Now, they didn't get the clause exactly as they liked it, because we were able to put in all of these request clauses to it, but it's still there. How can they get it? It's very easy within a NAFO context.

Many of these experts who've talked to you may not have been within a NAFO negotiating room, but when you have the heads of delegations sitting around in a room trying to come up with a consensus package.... Just look at the last meeting in Bergen. Just imagine it. The Scientific Council said the Greenland halibut quota should be lower and the 3M cod quota should be lower.

The Canadian industry wants the quota on Greenland halibut higher because they're making a lot of money off it, so to heck with conservation, and Canada will go along with a higher quota. The EU in this case says no to that and says we should take the scientific advice and have a lower quota, but the EU wants a higher quota on 3M cod.

What does Canada do? The outcome of the meeting is that there's a higher quota on 3M cod, which is what the EU wanted, and there's a rollover of the Greenland halibut quota, which is what Canada wanted. That's a trade-off, because that's the way things are done.

One day it may come down to them simply saying this. If Canada wants a lower quota on a straddling stock and the European Union can't accept a lower quota on the stock because the catch rates are so poor outside 200 miles, they'll say that if Canada lets them fish their quota inside 200 miles, then maybe they'll accept a lower quota. So for conservation reasons, Canada, wanting a lower quota, will say, “Okay, you can now come in and fish within our waters.” I mean, that's the way this can happen.

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

Let me repeat back to you what I think I'm hearing. Each MP in this room is committed to at least one thing, and that is to ensure, to the best of our ability, that our fish stocks survive for future generations. I would guess that not one of us is too happy about having to work with MPs or leaders of other countries where we may have to give up something Canadian.

But at some point, if our priority is to preserve fish stocks for Canadians, for our race, then we may have to do that. And all we've done is restate the pre-existing obvious, which is that, if necessary, if we have to bring someone else in to work with us because we're going to work with them for that overarching goal of preserving our fish stocks, that's something we could have done anyway. We restate it in this treaty. I think ultimately that's where we are and that's why the provision is in there.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wiseman, thank you very much for taking the time out of your--

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

Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Wiseman like to respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Sure. I'm sorry.

Did you want to respond to that, Mr. Wiseman? I thought it was more a statement than a question.

[Earl Wiseman]

We share your view. We want to stand up for conservation and long-term sustainability. We believe it is possible that one can achieve that kind of agreement in NAFO with other contracting parties.

We think this particular clause is a clause that has provided the thin edge of the wedge and that in 30 years' time--who knows?--it may be used in a way that is totally beyond what we can now anticipate. There is simply no reason for it. Because we are sovereign now, because NAFO has no rights inside, we can, as a sovereign state, make whatever decisions we want. If we want to invite a nation into our waters to do science, share technology, fish, or anything, we can do it.

There's no need for that clause in NAFO. That just simply provides a right and provides a basis in future arbitrations, perhaps, or in dispute settlements, for a party to say, “Well, it's in there that there are possibilities, so clearly Canada believes that we have a role in doing something within their 200-mile zone.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Wiseman, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to appear before our committee today. We really do appreciate your input.

We'll take a short break while we allow our next guests to set up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call the meeting back to order.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for agreeing to appear before our committee this afternoon.

There are certain time constraints that we ask our guests to adhere to. Our members have limited time for questions and answers. We generally allow about 10 minutes for opening comments. I generally don't cut our guests off, but at a certain point, when I indicate, I would ask that you bring your comments to a conclusion.

Mr. Etchegary, I believe you're going to make some opening comments. Proceed whenever you're ready.

[Gus Etchegary, Representative, Community Fisheries Alliance, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this matter that is of enormous importance to Canadians on the east coast of Canada--the NAFO amendments. I'd also like to touch on the subject of the management of the fisheries generally on the continental shelf, where fish migrate and know no boundaries.

I came into this industry in 1947. I worked with a very large company that employed about 6,000 people. It had plants in Quebec and Nova Scotia, but most of them by far were in Newfoundland. I served as a commissioner with the Canadian delegation for eight or nine years in the seventies. I retired from the job and then was asked to come back in the transition year from ICNAF to NAFO in 1978.

Today I am representing the Fisheries Community Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a volunteer group that includes former federal and provincial bureaucrats, concerned fisheries scientists, former processors, fishermen, and some members of the public. I can assure you that all of those volunteers in our organization are experienced in various matters related to fisheries. I can assure you even more that they are not just armchair critics, as described by some of the witnesses before the Senate and House committees recently.

I came into the industry in 1947 during the transition from the salt fish industry to the frozen fish industry. It created an enormous number of opportunities for different seafood products from a variety of species. It generated thousands of jobs from the Gaspé coast, through the Maritimes, to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The groundfishery, around which the whole NAFO thing has developed, was abundant, with many diversified species. One stock off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1962 contained 3.5 million tonnes of cod. Many other species were available at the time for processing and marketing and were very abundant. The industry progressed and remained viable for almost 35 years, until it began to decline in 1970-71--not in 1992 or 1987.

Two major events occurred around 1949-50. Newfoundland and Labrador joined Confederation, and as a result Canada was elevated from fourteenth place to sixth place in the world as a fish-exporting nation. The second event that took place was the arrival of an armada of factory-freezer vessels from Europe, beginning in 1950.

By 1960 there were 1,200 of them, with 65,000 crew members and factory hands fishing the continental shelf from Labrador to southern Nova Scotia. They continued to fish over all those years--right up until today, in lesser numbers--in an unrestricted and uncontrolled fashion. The fleets diminished in size as they overfished, and eventually their huge effort overwhelmed the resource entirely. From the best information available to scientists, the amount of cod has gone from 3.5 million tonnes, as I mentioned, to 135,000 tonnes today.

ICNAF was formed in 1949, and it was replaced by NAFO in 1978, when Canada extended jurisdiction to 200 miles. That was a grave error on the part of the federal government. They were warned repeatedly leading up to that event. In a half-hearted effort, they tried to protect the fishery. They didn't. As a matter of fact, they opened it up to even further abuse.

NAFO replaced ICNAF with the extension of jurisdiction. That organization--that useless, toothless organization--is in the process of delivering the final death blow to what's left of the fishery in the northwest Atlantic. If anyone tells you anything different, they're out to lunch.

In the meantime, as somebody mentioned, it's mostly affected Newfoundland and Labrador as a province. That's true. Nova Scotia in the earlier days had a very large groundfishery, but they didn't in latter years.

The impact of what has happened to us in the last 35 or 40 years has resulted in the loss of 15% of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the equivalent of 80,000 people who have left the province of Newfoundland and Labrador who were involved in fisheries, from the coastal communities and so on. With them went 30,000 jobs, all--all--a direct result of foreign overfishing and, on the other hand, mismanagement of the resource by DFO.

It is our considered conclusion that for some time Canada has not had the dedication and commitment it once had--when, for example, it assumed responsibility for the conservation and the sustainability of the common property resource that Newfoundland delivered to Ottawa. Today Canada, through DFO, has lost its way. It has lost its way in fisheries management and control.

Foreign fishing nations such as the EU, Russia, and Scandinavia are well aware of that fact. These NAFO nations have been taking advantage of the growing lack of interest by the federal Government of Canada and are aggressively moving through NAFO--unfortunately, with the support of certain Canadian interests--to gain more control of overlapping stocks and eventually stocks inside 200 miles.

These are groups, by the way, who have little or no concern for conservation of the resource, nor the pressing need for rebuilding the resource that has employed many thousands of Canadians for all those years.

It is unbelievable to me that we would see the day when the Government of Canada would permit itself to be aligned with other members of NAFO in agreeing to amendments in the convention that would open the door to an uncontrolled foreign involvement in fisheries management inside 200 miles--even more, to allow NAFO to bypass Canada and accede to a request from the WWF to put an off limits sign to other trawlers on the ocean floor of our continental shelf, to which Canada has sole jurisdiction.

Where were our negotiating bureaucrats? Where were they to allow this embarrassing situation to occur? And more, what impact will this have on the sovereignty of this nation?

The truth is that our representatives in NAFO have been out-negotiated. They have been outmanoeuvred. This has been the case for far too long.

By the way, I might say to you that this objection procedure, which is by far the worst part of this whole NAFO arrangement up to this point in time, is something we could have rid ourselves of in 1978. At the time, I and two or three others were pressing hard: when the foreign nations were pressed outside 200 miles, they were practically on their knees looking for small quotas here and there to compensate them for the losses they would sustain.

It was then we had the opportunity to take advantage of that. We had the leverage. We had it right in front of us. We begged the government of this country, we begged the representatives at DFO who were at the negotiating table, to take advantage of it and they didn't.

In those amendments there isn't a single reference to conservation. Here we are with a moratorium--1992--that after 18 years shows little hope for the future and no evidence whatsoever of worthwhile recovery. Yes, you'll hear of a spot here and there. But I can assure you that if a commercial fishery's effort was applied to some of these areas that are just recovering.... By the way, the cod on Flemish Cap is a classic example. It's unbelievable.

The Bergen meeting is also a classic example of what we're about to get into unless we stop at this point and not ratify the agreement, object seriously, and bring it to a halt. In Bergen, our Canadian delegation went as far as to undermine our own NAFO scientists. They joined hands with NAFO countries and took the Science Council's assessment of the stocks, which involved cod and turbot on Flemish Cap, as well as the bycatch levels inside, and threw it all out the window. Not only did our Canadian negotiators throw out our Canadian scientists' contribution to the NAFO council, they went along and established quotas that were way above what these people had recommended.

If Canada is not prepared to undertake what is needed to rebuild the fishery--and I might tell you right here that it will never be done under NAFO or while NAFO is holding its present position. If Canada is not prepared to clean house and put in place those people who will put this country on a road to recovery as far as its fishery resources are concerned, if Canada is not prepared to do it for the people who have been displaced and who have lost their jobs, then for God's sake, recognize the fact that a properly managed, sustainable resource provides one of the largest food supplies in the world. In this world today, where poverty is rampant and hundreds of millions of people are hungry, this country, one of the leading countries in the civilized world, should at least recognize whether or not they're prepared to restore and rebuild the fishery for its own people.

There are a few other things I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, obviously. There's one area that I'd like to cover very much and that is with regard to fishery science and why it's so important to this whole thing, including in reference to this NAFO thing.

But in any event, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Etchegary.

I'm sure there will be an opportunity through the questioning for you to touch on some of those other points as well.

Mr. Byrne, you and Mr. MacAulay are going to share your time? I'm not sure who is going to go first.

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

That would be correct, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Oh, sorry, Mr. Winter. I apologize. We're anxious to get to the questions, I guess.

Mr. Winter, you had some opening comments as well.

[Jim Winter, Representative, Community Fisheries Alliance, As an Individual]

Yes. Thank you very much for the invitation, ladies and gentlemen, mesdames et messieurs.

I'm very pleased to be able to address you on this issue because the NAFO amendments before the House are a very serious issue, not just for Newfoundland and Labrador but for all Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

Just for context, I'm an ex-host of the CBC radio program called Fisheries Broadcast.

And I did the same thing for several years with the French network of the CBC, although with a Newfoundland accent. It was therefore in French, with a bit of a twist...

I worked for DFO both in Newfoundland and in Ottawa, and I've also worked in the private sector of the fisheries. All together, this goes back to the 1970s.

Canadian fishing grounds extend from the Arctic in the north to the Grand Banks, Hamilton Bank, and the Flemish Cap in the east to Georges Bank in the south. It is my opinion, and that of my colleagues in the Fisheries Community Alliance and others who have extensive knowledge of and experience with the past activities and long-term goals of NAFO, that these amendments spell the end of Canadian sovereignty in these waters and that they are a guarantee that Canada will never see a regrowth of the fish stocks that are at the core of both the economic well-being and the culture of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

Our objections to these amendments are based on decades of experience in dealing with NAFO as senior governmental management bureaucrats in federal and provincial fisheries, as NAFO commissioners, and as people in the industry. They are not based on a vested interest or on academic and/or theoretical knowledge of NAFO, but on the painful experiences of 40-plus years of dealing directly with NAFO, of seeing NAFO ignoring scientific advice, of seeing member states overfishing both legally and illegally, of seeing NAFO operating in a manner that is completely contrary to the best interests of Canada and Canadian citizens.

Our objections are not based upon political considerations, as has been alleged. At various times all the parties sitting in the House of Commons have addressed the issue of Canadian fisheries management over these waters, either through custodial management or extended jurisdiction. We are simply non-aligned citizens participating through this committee in the parliamentary process. I accept that the intention of these amendments was to achieve custodial management or something similar. Sadly, these amendments represent a step away from that goal, not towards it.

I will not detail my objections to you, as you've heard from others far more qualified and far more experienced than I am. They have outlined the details of the very many failings of these amendments in terms of Canada's fisheries objectives and Canada's sovereignty in the waters off Canada's coastline. Undoubtedly you will hear from others with the same opinion and the same background.

We all know that one is not always successful in achieving one's goals in international negotiations of this nature. When sober second thought indicates that the outcome is negative, it is not an admission of failure to reject the outcome. It is an acknowledgement that for the greater good of Canadian citizens and the Canadian nation, this particular effort should be rejected. There is no shame in pausing to analyze what was achieved and in accepting that the goal was not realized. It is a sign of maturity, a sign of the best of the parliamentary traditions of Canada at work.

Parliament should unanimously say no and officially notify NAFO of the decision. Say no, and inform NAFO that radical reforms are necessary to protect Canadian fishery objectives and Canadian sovereignty; say no, and inform NAFO that without negotiations based upon the concept of custodial management or extended jurisdiction, Canada will have to seriously address the future viability of an organization that has, since its inception, failed to protect Canada's rights as a coastal state under the Law of the Sea convention.

European factory freezer trawlers raping the Canadian fishing banks in the 1960s and 1970s were the cause of the collapse of the Canadian fishery. In the almost 20 years since the moratorium on Canadian fishers, we have seen no change in the attitude of the Europeans towards fisheries conservation and little respect for Canadian jurisdiction. What we have seen is a continued European practice of both legal and illegal overfishing that has seriously impeded regrowth in Canadian fish stocks, a practice that uses the rules of NAFO to make a mockery of Canadian sovereignty.

We have all seen the economic devastation and social disruption caused by the fishing activities of the Europeans since the 1950s to the present day. We have seen coastal villages throughout Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec depopulated. We have seen families forced to split up in order to survive, with fathers or mothers in the oil camps of Alberta, the mining towns of Ontario, or the forests of British Colombia, while the children are at home with the other parent or grandparents.

Over half a century of ICNAF and NAFO have demonstrated clearly that the goals of NAFO are to solve European fishing problems on the backs of Canadian citizens. Enough is enough.

We Canadians, through our elected representatives in the House of Parliament, must reject these amendments, and we must reject them emphatically, strongly, and without reservation. The Canadian Parliament must send a serious, focused, clear message to NAFO by unanimously rejecting these amendments, a message that neither NAFO nor the EU can interpret as party politics, a message of unanimity from the House of Commons that is above party politics, a message that is consistent with the objectives of all the parties in the House, as stated at various times over the years.

I state my objection to these amendments based upon years of exposure to and experience with the actions of the mandarins in Brussels and their political masters in Strasbourg. This has left me with a total distrust of their goals in the northwest Atlantic, goals that are completely detrimental to the regrowth of the Canadian fishery and continued Canadian sovereignty.

If we are going to control these waters, if we are going to have an Atlantic-wide fishery--and that is not just Newfoundland, that is New Brunswick, that is Nova Scotia, that is eastern Quebec--if the villages and towns on that coast are to survive, we do not need the kinds of amendments that are going to open the doors for NAFO to come in...it's not inviting in an individual country to help out with a matter of science. NAFO is an organization. When you put rules in place in an organization, you are creating a Trojan horse, to use the expression somebody else used earlier.

I state my objections to these NAFO amendments not only as a Newfoundlander, as a Labradorian, but also as a Canadian citizen who has true confidence in the ability of the Canadian parliamentary tradition to make decisions based on the best interests of Canadian citizens and the rights of Canada as a nation, and not simply in the political interests of one party or another, nor, it goes without saying, in the interests of foreign governments or agencies.

I ask you, in the interest of all Canadian citizens, because the future viability of the fishery of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec impacts directly upon the economies of all the other provinces, to ask your fellow parliamentarians and your party leaders to bring to the House of Commons a unanimous rejection of these amendments and go forward as a united Parliament towards the goal of custodial management or extended jurisdiction, concepts that all of the parties, at various times, have expressed a desire to achieve. All parties in the House have expressed this desire. All parties have indicated that NAFO has been in the past, and continues to be, a disaster for Canada, which is why these amendments are before us in the first place.

But sadly, they didn't achieve the goal they set out to achieve. They are counterproductive. Now is the time to abandon them and to abandon party politics. Now is the time to speak as a united House, because the Europeans understand nothing other than strength of response.

Should these amendments pass, you can be certain that a future generation will ask, on whose watch did this happen? There will be accountability for the demise of Canadian sovereignty over the waters on the continental shelf of the east coast of Canada, for the collapse of the villages and towns of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, and for the consequences to families whose lives have for centuries contributed to the economic and cultural well-being of Canada.

Everyone in the fishery understands that this objective will not be easily achieved, nor will it be achieved overnight, but in the interests of our children and grandchildren, it must be achieved.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Winter.

Mr. MacAulay, I believe you're going to lead off.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

I want to welcome both witnesses here. It's a pleasure to hear somebody who knows the industry from being there and understanding and seeing what happened over the years.

Mr. Etchegary, you mentioned that you'd like to speak more on the science issue. I'd like to give you time for that. You or Mr. Winter might, if you have a moment, indicate what you think will happen if this should pass within our 200-mile zone.

[Gus Etchegary]

With respect to the science--and I think this is very important--the fact of the matter is, at the present time, Canadian science is at its lowest level in my history. I've been around here for 60 years, believe it or not, and I have not seen Canadian science at such a low level as it is today in terms of available ship time for research, in terms of the number of scientists dwindling week by week, and in terms of the availability of ships.

Last month, a vessel left to go on a very important research trip. Halfway out it broke down and had to be towed back to St. John's. It resumed four or five days later and the same thing was repeated. During that period of time, the coast guard charged the White Hills science budget.

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

For the towing.

[Gus Etchegary]

Yes.

The thing about it is this. You have these top-notch, professional, dedicated people. I can assure you that Canadian scientists, the ones I've known for all these years, are dedicated people, dedicated to their jobs. Their contributions to advanced fisheries management are as important as the heart is to the human body.

I'm going to tell you, their experience three weeks ago in Bergen was enough to turn somebody upside down, when you get a bunch of scientists who work as hard as these people do, with very limited facilities and infrastructure and all the rest that goes with it, hardly enough technical people to count the otoliths, and this is a fact, and these people come up and make that contribution to the NAFO Scientific Council and it goes to Bergen, and then a hired hand, a hired lobbyist--I almost hate to say it--is allowed to come in and present to the NAFO body a report from an independent consultant, miles away from Canada even, presents this to the NAFO group in Bergen, and as a direct result of that, they throw out the recommendation of the Scientific Council and put in place a quota for cod on the Flemish Cap that I can guarantee will be used just as the turbot quota is used outside 200 miles, to allow foreign vessels out of Vigo, Aveiro, and other European places to come across the ocean, fish for a day on the Flemish Cap and then proceed to the Grand Banks. When the Canadian boarding parties go on board, they will find that it's all lumped together and no one can distinguish what was caught on the Flemish Cap and what was caught on the Grand Banks.

This is common practice, ladies and gentlemen. I'm telling you. That's why this kind of incursion by NAFO....

And look, the remote possibility that they could ever get back into our zone again, as they did in the past, has to go. You have to reject this. You have to get rid of it, because if not, you're going to see the end of the fishery on the east coast of Canada.

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

Thank you, Gus, and thank you, Jim, for appearing before us.

One of the reasons you were asked to be here is to provide some testimony and reply to some of your colleagues.

You represent the fishing industry. Gus, I think you'd call yourself, in fairness, one of the big fish killers of your day. You were very successful at harvesting.

We heard testimony from representatives of the current Canadian offshore industry who really said they support this. They support these revised amendments, and they seemed to do so on the basis that it was about preservation of Canadian shares, Canadian quota. I know from my own chats, and from hearing you lecture in other forums, that you talk not only about Canadian shares but also about conservation. The two-thirds voting structure was applauded by some because it afforded increased Canadian protection of share structure.

Could you inform the committee of your own impressions, as one of the big fish killers of your day, of what it does to conservation, or potentially to conservation?

[Gus Etchegary]

Well, of course, I have had this thrown at me over the years, about being a big fish killer. But I can assure you that when you are Canadian, landing in a Canadian port, you're subject to the presence of anywhere from three to four federal fisheries officers on the deck as you arrive. And the fishing skipper and his crew are subjected to a hell of a grilling if there's anything.... If they go down, for example, with a measuring device for three meshes and they find an infraction, you'll pay for it. Someone will pay for it.

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

Let me just clarify my question. What I note is that in addition to your always having a firm respect for the Canadian industry, Canadian shares, you have also fought for conservation. You were an ICNAF commissioner. You were a NAFO commissioner. You were one of the brighter spots in that you actually said that if we don't act on this, we're going to be in trouble. The Canadian industry today came before this committee and said, listen, the main issue for us is just being able to kill that fish and to maintain Canadian shares. They really didn't come here speaking very much about what happens when we need to act for conservation in NAFO, when we actually need to reduce NAFO quotas.

The two-thirds majority appears that it may present a problem in that regard. Gus, is it easier to actually act on conservation with a simple majority, or is it easier to act on conservation with the two-thirds majority required before NAFO can make a decision? Between Gus and Jim, maybe you might be able to jump in there.

[Jim Winter]

The answer is that preserving a share of quotas through the two-thirds mechanism is a marvellous concept if you're in a fish company. My answer, from a conservation perspective, is that 70% of zero is zero. I would suggest that if the industry is genuinely interested in protecting its shares and in having conservation as a goal, there's nothing wrong with saying that a two-thirds majority on issues of share allocation would be good. But we should have 50% on everything else. Otherwise, you will have nothing. You will never achieve lowering of quotas with a two-thirds majority required. If the industry is interested in that share protection aspect, why not simply have the two-thirds for the quotas and 50% for everything else?

Gus.

[Gus Etchegary]

You know, the people from our industry, from the Canadian industry, who are supporting that two-thirds, these people are very short-sighted. There's absolutely no question about it. It's a short-sighted policy, and they have demonstrated it in the last two or three weeks. And hey've been demonstrating it, some of them, for some considerable time.

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

We don't have much time left, but Gus, you remember that the European Union was actually a fairly friendly participant in NAFO in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But it turned sour pretty fast in the mid-1980s. When Spain and Portugal acceded into the European Union, suddenly that spirit of cooperation and friendliness sort of disappeared. Spain and Portugal, when they acceded to the EU, were to be given fish rights in the EU. The EU blocked them; they gave them a ten-year block from fishing in European waters. Where did the Portuguese and the Spanish go from 1985 to 1995 when they were blocked from fishing in Europe?

[Gus Etchegary]

I can tell you that they did quite a job on the Grand Banks during that time. Between 1978 and 1986, for example, they had a total quota of 163,000 tonnes over that period of time. Their actual catch was 1,350,000 tonnes. The Spanish and Portuguese, of course, have really and truly been our biggest problem in the fisheries. There's been no doubt about that.

You have to understand that if you're an owner in Vigo and you have a $20 million to $25 million factory freezer vessel these days, and that vessel sets out....

By the way, I have to tell you that we have been seeking to confirm this information for the last three to four years through freedom of information and have been repeatedly rebuffed. The last correspondence we've had told us that if they divulged this information to us on the overfishing, and on the infractions and citations, and so on, that have been applied to the Spanish and Portuguese fleets, they would be damaging international relations between the countries.

But the fact of the matter is that when that vessel leaves Vigo to come to the Grand Banks, there are three objectives. One is that as the owner has this expensive $20 million to $25 million ship, the cost of it has to be amortized. There are 60 to 65 crew members onboard. The vessel has to make a profit. There is nothing that is going to stand in the way of these fishermen and that skipper.

And by the way, there's daily contact—even more, as a matter of fact—between owners and skippers to continue to do exactly what they've been doing for years.

I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that these two nations in particular, and others as well—the Russians are famous for it as well—have overfished with impunity. That's a fact of life. We have established contacts within the DFO system, on the scientific level, on the boarding level, and on the surveillance level, and I can tell you right here and now that the information we're passing on to you is absolutely the case.