Fisheries Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

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

About what Gerry just said, I feel that we ask the questions and you give the answers. I do not think that there is any more to it.

I do not think that your answers are particularly satisfactory. But I will say two things. First, your recent stay in Florida did you a world of good. You are in top form. Second, you do not have the H1N1 virus. You clearly have no problem with flu. But I do feel that you are a little defensive and the best way to deal with that is to attack. That is what you are doing. I know you well enough to know that it is a good strategy. I accept that you are very good at defending yourself. But I would like to ask one question, given that you were the person responsible for the negotiations in 2007.

I was actually wondering if it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in charge or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? That is what I thought.

One of the amendments requires that, if other changes are to be made, or if the interpretation of a rule is applied, a two thirds majority is needed, not a simple majority, as was the case before. I would like to understand your view and to find out why you accepted the two thirds majority rather than the status quo, the simple majority. As I see it, if the time comes when the amendments are passed, we are going to have to work with this two thirds majority. If that is the case, let me tell you that it is going to be extremely difficult to change things from now on.

If you decided that the two thirds formula was better than a simple majority, I imagine that you had thought about it. I would like to hear your comments.

[Loyola Hearn]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If I rambled a bit before, it was simply because I was provoked, as you know. I'm not the attack-dog type. However, when I'm asked a question that isn't clear and I can't get a definition, what can I do?

Mr. Blais, let me make this clear to you. You asked a question and I nodded my head. During the NAFO negotiations, the Minister of Fisheries--certainly in my case, and I presume it's true right along--is the one in charge. I mentioned others saying “You're a pawn for Foreign Affairs”, but they had very little to do with it. In fact, I didn't talk to any of them about any of the things we did. The bureaucrats talked about negotiations or meeting with other countries--you know, the protocol stuff--but not the substantive stuff; that came from us. The direction came from us, even though we had our team and the minister doesn't go to NAFO. Even though we had our team at the meetings, I quarterbacked when I was there.

You're asking about this change to the two-thirds voting. The people who are raising this are not the ones directly involved today. The people who are directly involved today are the people who are affected.

On why we did what we did in relation to surveillance...there are two divisions to the changes to NAFO. There's the convention reform we're talking about now and the conservation and enforcement measures that were taken. Even though the convention hasn't passed, this has been in effect for quite some time in the countries that have buy-in, which has been very positive for Canada and Newfoundland.

But on the two-thirds, we consulted heavily. The NAFO delegation is not just a bunch of bureaucrats. You go to NAFO prepared with what changes you want to make. If you're smart, you do your homework beforehand with some of the other countries, with the EU, Norway, or whatever. If they go there prepared, if you don't surprise them and try to force something, and if they understand that you're protecting the stocks, not just for Newfoundland and Labrador, not just for Canada.... I mean, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the French fished out there before there was a Canada. They have rights, and everybody recognizes those rights. So when we go to NAFO prepared, we make changes that benefit our people.

Before we decided to go for the two-thirds, we talked to the provinces that were directly affected. I don't know what Newfoundland and Labrador are saying now or what Mr. Hedderson said--somebody read a statement--except for the show we've seen in the last couple of months, and I can get into all of that, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador solidly, in writing—there's a letter on file and I can get it for you if you want—supported the changes to the convention. But their deputy minister--a very sharp individual who happens to come from my home area generally, so he has to be—is a very good fellow. He was directly involved in every decision that was made--not out in a room somewhere, like Mr. Etchegary said. So were Earle McCurdy and Ray Andrews, our two nominated delegates. And we weren't picky about this; we picked qualified people. But everybody in industry asked for this change.

The biggest concern Canada had on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador in this case, because they're the ones who benefit most, was having a run at the quota. During two conventions--that one and the previous one--some of the members of the group, led by the United States on a couple of occasions, wanted to change the quota system. For instance, we have 97% of the yellowtail in this area we're talking about. I think all of it goes to Newfoundland and Labrador, because FPI and companies like that fish it. I think we have 53% of the shrimp and 37% of the turbot--significant shares. If there is a run at the quota key and we end up with 60% instead of 90%, or whatever, that will be dangerous.

On the other hand, in relation to something we might want to do with conservation, number one, I don't think it will be a problem because everybody now is conservation-minded. We're being forced into it. That's why we could get cooperation from the EU and some of the other countries.

The World Wildlife Federation has been very supportive of what we have done, and many of the environmental groups like what is happening in going to an ecosystem-based approach. If you harvest too much cod, it's going to have an effect on something else. Whatever you harvest outside, it's going to have an effect inside. All this stuff is very good stuff, and this is where NAFO is headed.

But if it came to a decision, I guess, where somewhere along the line we'd like to conserve whatever.... We might be on the side that would require the two-thirds vote and it might be a positive thing. But on the quota key, that is the most important thing the industry saw in the whole scenario. And if instead of six countries deciding they want a bigger share, it would now be seven, or seven would be eight or whatever, that would make a significant difference. That, to them, was the most important, and that's why it's in there, to protect anybody from taking more of our shares in relation to the stocks.

That covers it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Hearn. We go back a long way, politically, to our days when we were both in opposition in different parties in the Newfoundland legislature.

I want to commend you for your role, along with my colleague, Mr. Stoffer, for achieving a unanimous committee report from this committee some years ago on the very issue of custodial management. I testified in St. John's along with a number of others during that committee hearing.

I'm not going to get into any political banter here, but I just want to put before you what we were told by two people you know very well, David Vardy and Les Dean. I guess you'd call them experienced senior Newfoundland fisheries bureaucrats. They are senior public servants who are very experienced.

They talked about the notion of custodial management and the custodial state. I'm not going to go into details; it's all on the record of how we would ensure--recognizing the historical rights of others--that the management of the stock was done properly, and not done through this horse-trading and all of the other notions that prevail in NAFO. They also laid out very strongly what Canada could do, and still could do, if it didn't ratify this treaty.

Placed alongside of that we have Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Rowat and others involved in federal fisheries who are saying that this treaty in fact--and particularly the possibility of NAFO management inside--is not a step towards custodial management, but it's a step away.

Mr. Applebaum, for example, said that even if the provision was that Canada could manage in the NAFO area on the straddling stocks, that would at least be a step towards custodial management that we might be able to build on down the road. But they saw this as a backwards step and recommended against ratification.

They also said--and this is important, I think, for all of us who look at these things long term, and I think Mr. Vardy and Mr. Dean talked about this--that if we ratify this treaty now, we are stuck for a very, very long time with these provisions and the possibility of changing them is extremely limited. So we're back to another long, long time before we can seek to reform NAFO.

I take it from what you're saying that you have absolutely no qualms about this convention. I know that the conservation of stuff certainly sounds positive, and the ecosystem-based management was there, frankly. That's not part of this convention. That didn't come about as a result of this convention. That's been there for some time.

So the ratification process is really an opportunity for a sober second thought as a country. Can we not say that we can't ratify this treaty right now? There are provisions that are unacceptable to Canada as a whole. That's regardless of what Newfoundland said along the way. Newfoundland has taken a very strong position. Mr. Williams has written a letter to the Prime Minister. We've had the Minister of Fisheries here.

Regardless of what happened in the past, is it not a realistic and rational response at this time? We can say that we did not achieve what we wanted to achieve and we can't ratify this convention now. We need to seek different changes.

[Loyola Hearn]

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Harris for his question. As he said, we do go back a long way, and Jack has always handled himself very well.

Certainly, the concerns he raises are very valid ones. My answer is that we have come a long way.

Again, you refer to the experts. I'm not sure if you were here at the time when I mentioned this, but we can list experts comparable to those you had before you, experts who are much more experienced in today's NAFO and international negotiations, and more highly placed, in some cases, than some of those experts ever were, and who will tell you the exact opposite: that we should ratify the agreement.

The reason we should is that we have made so much progress, especially in the surveillance and enforcement end of it. As for our involvement in this from the very beginning, and Newfoundland's concern, the fellow today in Renews, my hometown, is not overly concerned about the word “convention” and all these fancy legal terms that we might kick around, but he is concerned with what's happening to our stocks and what we're doing to preserve them for us for generations to come. We have made major progress there. Also, the countries involved have been acting as if this convention has been agreed to.

In relation to the other rules, I see nothing there. I know you're a lawyer yourself, but in fact I've seen testimony from very experienced lawyers and very experienced people in the fishery. They're saying they see nothing negative, but a whole lot of positives. So my answer would be that when we get this far.... And it wasn't easy. If anybody thinks it was easy to get this far, I wish they would relive that couple of years we went through at the NAFO proceedings. You can talk to some of your friends. They can tell you what it was like on the ground. So no, it would be dangerous not to solidify what we have. But go ahead and work on it.

You talk about custodial management. Look, I come from Newfoundland. I come from a fishing community. I grew up in a fishing boat. I know what it means. I have always said that. Nobody can ever point a finger at me and say that I did anything that in any way hurt the fishery. But I can tell you that they can look at a lot of things that happened because we were there to help the fishery, and a lot of them were major things, as you know.

Let me just read a statement from Trevor Taylor, a former minister of fisheries, following an advisory panel on this that was set up by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The panel involved another eminent person, Dr. Art May. It says, “The panel concluded that a custodial management approach to straddling stocks is not possible without advances in international law, but that a new Regional Fisheries Management Organization would be more easily attainable and could achieve the same goals and objectives.”

There's that clause: “without advances in international law”. Now, you didn't say that you could get custodial management without changes. I think you recognize that and I agree with you. Would I like to see Newfoundland have more say? Would I like to see Canada have more say? The answer is yes, of course, but we live in the real world, too, and we're dealing with other countries that belong to NAFO, other countries that have rights and duties. They have historic rights to fish. They have shares out there, etc., and they make up this organization of ours.

In the meantime, in relation to the changes we went after in relation to proper surveillance, proper punishments for those who are caught, bringing them back to port, etc., we got that. That was the move. That's the major move. I believe the changes we went after here protect our fishing grounds, protect our stocks, and give us a chance to work with others.

But these were done in a couple of years, Jack. We've been negotiating this for only a couple of years, and to bring any international organization that far in such a short time.... As for all of these people who were complaining to you here, all of them were at the helm for years and years and years and didn't make any advancement with any of this stuff. So if we can make that kind of move now....

What does it take to strengthen Canada's involvement? Canada basically is responsible for the surveillance and the enforcement on the nose and tail, as I mentioned, because these are our boats and our inspectors who do the work and who follow up on it. So basically, the other countries will say, “You know, Canada is the guy who's making sure we live by the rules.”

I was told that by the owners of the companies--the people who own boats like the Brites and the Santa Mafalda. I asked to meet with them when I was in Portugal. I wanted to meet with the bad guys, as we used to call them--the guys who own the boats. They recognized this and said, “Look, we got away with whatever we could, but you guys did too.” What could we say? We weren't the holiest people around in those days either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

[Loyola Hearn]

We have made major changes, Jack, and to turn this down simply because somebody living in another world thinks we could do better, my answer to that is, let's take what we have and go on from there. Then the challenge is there for somebody else to strengthen it and make more changes. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Weston.

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

Mr. Hearn, it's a great honour to meet you in person for the first time. However, there are some in this room who would assail your reputation as being a man of few words, and I would like to help you restore that reputation.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

We're going to race through six questions in five minutes.

Isn't that right, Mr. Chair?

Number one, you said there's no definition in international...of custodial management. Is that correct?

[Loyola Hearn]

Yes. It's correct that I said it.

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

It's correct that you said it.

[Loyola Hearn]

And I said it because some very eminent lawyer said it, so I assume it's correct.

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

And the Liberal Party has not offered us a definition of custodial management.

[Loyola Hearn]

They have not. I asked for it. They asked us to take custodial management but would not tell us what custodial management was.

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

Even though Scott Andrews, my esteemed colleague, read a quote from the Prime Minister about custodial management, there was no definition there, right?

[Loyola Hearn]

No.

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

There was certainly no definition. I didn't hear it and our witness didn't hear it. But you did say that the regulations have stiffened enforcement over time under NAFO; therefore the preservation of our fish species has been enhanced through NAFO changes over time.

[Loyola Hearn]

Yes.

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

NAFO is not perfect, we'd all agree, but you said that we've moved to ecosystem, not species, management; we've moved to consensus, not voting. All of that has helped us in our overall goal of preserving the fish stocks.

I'm going to read a quote and then ask if you agree with it or not. Then I'll tell you from whom the quote came.

During the 2007 NAFO meeting in Lisbon, wording was proposed that was generally considered acceptable to the Canadian delegation.

The fact that Canada would have to support a NAFO measure and then request its application in the (200-mile limit) seems to provide the necessary safeguard against any unintended consequence of the amended convention.

This along with securing the Canadian shares of NAFO-managed stocks makes an acceptable package.

[Loyola Hearn]

I agree with that, and I suggest it was said by the Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

You've got it. Minister Tom Hedderson himself said it. That gives me confidence, and I'm glad it gives you confidence.

[Loyola Hearn]

Because if it's the right thing to do. The concern originally was that the other countries.... NAFO, generally, was maybe trying to put a little extra pressure on to have more control than we would want to have. But with our sovereign rights, NAFO can do absolutely nothing--or any country in NAFO, as you well know. The others know it too--they might not admit it--in relation to our sovereignty, the seabed, the sedentary species, the oil, gas, or whatever else. We are preparing to strengthen our case for the Law of the Sea in 2013--hopefully, again, with Mr. Harris, as somebody like him would be very helpful in all of this--so that we can exert more control over the land mass and maybe the high seas. We have just as much control as anybody else in the world. We have our 200-mile limit and can do what we want inside of that. There's nothing in this new convention that will ever affect that.

But there's one thing you didn't mention when you mentioned all the points that were raised. The people most affected by this are the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and every agency directly connected. I will say to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, forget the charade of the last couple of months. I followed it and it was just a charade. But I think they've reassessed things, because the premier was asked to come here and declined. I hope they had a sober second thought and looked at another example.

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

I just want to point out--before you continue--that we've gotten through six questions. I want to bring that to the attention of everyone on this committee.