Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Scott Parsons]

I think the facts speak for themselves. They support the conclusion. Mr. Hearn had spoken publicly on numerous occasions about what his objective was in pursuing these negotiations. That's not speculation; that's fact.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

What is fact is that if you talk to Mr. Hearn you will find out that he believes this direction that NAFO was going in since 2006 and all of the good results that have been demonstrated are certainly better results than in prior years. When you yourself were in the department, the results were not good. The results since 2006 have been much better. He believes that these were genuinely good reforms to NAFO, not for some political motivation that you have somehow speculated on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I don't know if there was really a question there, but I do know our time is up on that, so we'll move to Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the three of you for your very interesting presentations today.

Am I right in hearing you, Mr. Applebaum, in talking about how NAFO actually worked, say that Canada--I hesitate to say “paid for votes”--in order to get certain decisions through, took action that actually resulted in the quotas being raised? If that is the case, would it not have contributed to the fact that most of these stocks ended up in a moratorium because they ended up being overfished even if they were following the rules?

[Scott Parsons]

Thank you, honourable member.

I don't know if we would say they paid directly, but certainly in any international negotiation there is discussion around the table in terms of sharing arrangements, what the level of the total allowable catch will be set at, and so forth, and during the most difficult years of NAFO certainly there were compromises at certain times.

I'd like to respond to the point made by the honourable member across, if I may take one minute of your time, Mr. Harris.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Parsons.

[Scott Parsons]

He said that Mr. Hearn merely said that these were improvements to the situation. Mr. Hearn went far beyond that. Mr. Hearn said that with these results Canada was now the custodian of the resources beyond 200 miles, and Mr. Hearn was responsible for the statement in the 2008 election platform that said they'd assumed custodial management beyond 200 miles. So I don't think attempts to downplay or create a smokescreen will succeed.

Mr. Harris, I'm sorry.

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

Mr. Applebaum, you've been familiar with the NAFO convention. I'm sure you and maybe many in the room are familiar with theEstai case and Canada's attempt to enforce NAFO rules directly. Has anything changed in this particular convention that would allow Canada to directly enforce NAFO requirements, whether that be total allowable catches, overfishing, reporting problems, or anything like that?

[Bob Applebaum]

There is not a single thing, Mr. Harris.

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

Then the same result would end up as ended up with the Estai in 1995, that we really don't have the jurisdiction to do anything other than conduct surveillance and perhaps report it, and someone else has to enforce it, not Canada.

[Bob Applebaum]

That's right.

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

Mr. Hedderson, I've read the letter from Mr. Williams. I think we all have. It's a very clear and strong statement by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as to its opposition to this convention. And yet when this matter is raised in the House of Commons, the minister reads letters from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you tell us whether something has changed or whether this matter has now been fully considered, or what has happened?

[Tom Hedderson]

First of all, when looking at the conventions, before the delegation went to NAFO for that particular year, we made representation that sovereignty could not be compromised in any way, shape, or form. We unequivocally did that and we stated it in a letter to the minister of the day, and also with regard to quotas and so on and so forth, as we usually do. There's also a letter on file from the past year. It just happened that we did that as well. So sovereignty is a big thing, and obviously custodial management is the second.

We did see a situation when we looked at one of the conventions and there was the aspect of a minister--just a minister--having the authority to allow any incursion into the 200-mile limit. I wrote back to the minister and said that at the very least it should go to cabinet. That's where I was. I didn't go far enough, but I certainly am owning up to that.

Again, when we reviewed it, and in light of new information, we had these gentlemen come to our province and present. We analyzed and reanalyzed, and guess what? We're where we are and strong in our position. We've articulated that position to the Prime Minister and we're again asking that these conventions not be ratified, that an objection be put in place, and that we move forward as a nation that is looking to have the authority to manage our stocks as well as the straddling stocks. That's our position. We feel very, very strongly that without that, we're going down the same road that started back in the 1960s and got us to where we are right now.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hedderson.

I want to thank all of you for appearing here today. It's always good to get both sides of the story. Certainly, you have brought forward your concerns, and we appreciate your being here today, Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chairman, before we go, I have a notice of motion to present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, we'll put forward the motion. You can put it forward and we can discuss that in 48 hours. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Thank you, guests, and thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned.