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.