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.