Fisheries Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

Mr. Chairman, as a senior public servant in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for 25 years, the frustrations that I experienced with NAFO were echoed through 10 successive ministers and about three or four premiers. My voice on NAFO was clearly heard, including by Mr. Chapman, who sat around the table with me for about 20 years, by Mr. McGuinness, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Andrews. These gentlemen know the frustrations I shared over NAFO, and in fact they shared my frustrations for so many years as well.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Vardy.

4:15 p.m.

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Yes, I want to echo those comments. I likewise was in the same position of being an adviser to the Government of Newfoundland for a long period of time, during which the Government of Newfoundland took a strong position on this whole question.

It goes back in particular to the administration of Premier Clyde Wells, when he adopted custodial management as the approach that should be taken to NAFO, which essentially amounted to taking NAFO and reforming it totally to the point where it would bear very little relationship to what it is right now. You are looking at an organization now that would need to be much stronger than what we currently have. For this to happen, it has to become a high-level public policy priority of the Government of Canada. This doesn't mean simply going to a NAFO meeting and saying we want to change NAFO; it means we have to go to the contracting states and say that this is something Canada insists upon, that we are prepared to talk about it as a public policy priority, and that it has to be given priority at the highest political level. And it requires a campaign to educate the people of Canada that it's something that absolutely needs to be done.

This is a very major task, but it's fundamentally important for the future, not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but also of the east coast fishery. So I can't help but echo everything Mr. Dean has said.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

So, from what I understand—and tell me if you agree—it is a leadership issue. Ultimately, we could show up at the bargaining table and not impose anything, negotiate with ourselves and agree to just about anything. Alternatively, we could impose ideas, show some leadership. Basically, what you have seen is that both Canada's current and previous governments have not shown that leadership.

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Yes, I think there is a failure of leadership. There's no question in my mind about that. The issue of reforming NAFO has been a failure, because Canada hasn't really taken the leading role it needs to take at the table, nor has it seen the need to go outside the box. The cookie-cutter approach that we have to the organization is not appropriate, so we need to go back to the drawing board and develop a totally new convention.

Several years ago, I might add, Dr. Art May did a report that suggested some major changes to NAFO. His report, which was done for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was a very comprehensive one, and I would commend it to you for your reading. It did not recommend custodial management; it recommended an alternative approach. I think a major review somewhat similar to what Dr. May did is in order again to chart a new approach to dealing with extended jurisdiction.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Dean, do you have anything to add?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

The main concern I have is that NAFO functioned in the first four or five years of its history primarily because Canada, as a coastal state, was in a position to buy compliance through surplus and non-surplus allocations of fish. Once the potential to trade off or make these allocations in exchange for compliance dried up, the problem with NAFO became increasingly more difficult, especially in the post-1985 period.

NAFO is a creature that has been around for about 30 years. My fear about these amendments is that they will meet the test, yet we'll have to suffer through another prolonged period with the same frustrations we've had to experience in recent years with NAFO.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. Harris.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you both for coming.

I know you both personally and through your expert experience as senior public servants in Newfoundland. Between the two of you there are probably 50-plus years of senior advising capacity. I'm glad you came to share your expertise and the wisdom of your experience with us.

I have two questions. I'll ask them both first and then let you comment on them.

There's a ratification process under way. A question was raised about the Newfoundland government's position during the discussions. It seems the province may have supported the changes that were being made, or at least thought they were okay. We're now in the ratification process, but what is it for? Some suggest it'll be three years before this can be ratified. Can countries change their minds and refuse to ratify? Is the purpose of ratification to have a sober look at what has been negotiated by the negotiators and have countries change their minds and say it's a mistake and we're going in the wrong direction? That's one question.

If this is ratified--and Mr. Dean alluded to that--can it be fixed? Can the dangerous changes that are there--as you referred to them, Mr. Vardy--be undone by next year? Will we have another round of negotiations to get rid of them, or will we be stuck with them for a very long time and be exposed to the dangers from a conservation point of view, and potentially from the point of view of sovereignty issues?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Unless Canada lodges an objection to this convention, if 75% of the members support it, over a period of time it will become a binding convention. So it's important for Canada to speak out now and make its views known. I'm not exactly clear on the timeframe within which this has to be done, but Canada should consider this issue very carefully and take its time to ensure that we make the right decision.

Can this be fixed? The provisions in this agreement are so egregious that I think they would do a lot of damage for many years to come. If we were to pass this without attempting to fix it, we would be reducing NAFO to being absolutely useless as an organization. It's not much use now, but it would become a total exercise in futility. I think it would be a big mistake for us to go ahead and ratify this or allow it to be approved by the other member states.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

It's okay for countries to negotiate a treaty and then object to it and not ratify it. I presume the ratification process is an opportunity for the country to consider whether it should go forward with the treaty, and it has a perfectly legitimate right to say no. Am I correct in that?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Even though Canada was a party to this--and in many respects was a demandeur for some of the clauses in there--it can change its mind. It would be wise for Canada to carefully consider the option of changing its mind and vote against it.

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of how long this convention would last, I'm not aware of any sunset clause or any sunset language contained in these proposed new amendments. So presumably an amended NAFO would function until such time as the parties agreed, for whatever reason, that they would revisit the whole language of the organization.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Given where some of these amendments have come from, how likely would that be? Do you have any idea of that, or is that just pure speculation? In other words, are we going to be stuck with this for a long period of time, or is there any likelihood you could get agreement to get rid of these egregious clauses we've talked about?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

My view is that if this NAFO convention is ratified, we are going to be stuck with it for a long time, absolutely.

November 5th, 2009 / 4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you.

Mrs. O'Neill-Gordon.

Conservative

Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses. We're glad to have you with us today.

I've listened with interest to your statements, and I believe, after hearing you answer the question from Mr. Blais, that you did play a role in the NAFO reform process and you were probably part of an advisory panel. Is that correct?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

I wasn't a member of the advisory panel. I haven't been involved directly in fisheries for a few years.

Conservative

Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB

But were you, Mr. Dean?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Regarding the question of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I spoke in the context of being involved with NAFO directly, attending meetings of NAFO, and having input into the Newfoundland government's position over a 20- or 25-year period. I had no involvement with the present reform.

Conservative

Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB

Oh, okay. I'm glad I cleared that up, because I thought maybe as a civil servant you were giving input into NAFO.

So do you have any information on how the reform process unfolded, other than what you heard and what you saw when you went to meetings?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

Mr. Chairman, I first became aware of some of the new language in the summer, I believe, of 2007. That was in the context of comments that were made, I believe, initially by Mr. Applebaum. Subsequent to that, of course, the issue became more contentious as time progressed.

I have taken an interest in the activities of the World Wildlife Fund, which has observer status at NAFO. Over several informal meetings of the group, some of these concerns and issues came to the table.

I'm also involved with the Fisheries Community Alliance, although I'm not speaking on behalf of the alliance here today. Of course, it was in that context that we interfaced with the provincial government on the language of the new convention. My understanding is that it was also in that context, honourable members, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reflected further on the concerns that had become public and had been debated, and it was in that context that its position on some of the issues changed in recent months.

Conservative

Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB

Now that you're both retired, have you put more time into this file?

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual

I can answer that. I would like to go back two years ago to when we had a public lecture at the Marine Institute, at which time Bob Applebaum spoke. That was the first I heard, as did Les, about this convention and these new provisions. My first reaction was to immediately write to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time and advise him of my views on this matter.

Subsequently, I've been involved with the same group Les spoke of, which is the Fisheries Community Alliance. Through that group we have been advising the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and making representations to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to express our concerns about this, to the point where we requested that the government invite Mr. Applebaum and his people to a meeting. The result of that was that the premier wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, expressing strong views by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to this convention, asking that changes be made and that an objection to the convention be lodged.

Certainly I've been involved in this for the last few years. I feel this is a very important issue for the province, and it's one that I have dedicated a fair bit of my own personal time to.

Retired Public Servant, As an Individual