Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentations. I am quite new to this file, but in light of what you have said, I would like to put two questions.

My first question is about the convention that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Foreign Affairs are presently negotiating. You are saying that this convention is not at all in line with the wishes of the previous federal minister of Fisheries and Oceans who had agreed to pursue a Canadian management of fisheries that would be a custodial management.

What went wrong in the negotiations that could, among other things, open the door to a foreign jurisdiction in Canadian waters?

I will put my second question, even though my colleague has already put it to the departmental officials. It deals with the much talked about two-thirds majority rule. The then minister did not protect the voting procedure, that is by way of a simple majority. Will the two-thirds majority improve the decision-making in Canada, or will it be an impediment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Deschamps, please direct your question. Is it for anyone in particular?

Mr. Parsons.

[Scott Parsons]

We just agreed that I would take the first question and Mr. Applebaum would take the second.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have to let Mr. Hedderson in there somewhere too. But go ahead.

[Scott Parsons]

Madame Deschamps, you asked what went wrong with the negotiations. You talked about the government's promoting custodial management. The bottom line is that they did commit to implementing custodial management; in fact, they committed to more than that. They committed to extending fisheries jurisdiction not only to the edge of the Grand Banks, which covers the straddling stocks, but also to the edge of the Flemish Cap, which includes discrete stocks beyond the Canadian 200-mile zone.

That's what they said before coming to power. Then the task was turned over to a group of negotiators, some of whom were in the room earlier today. In fact, the one person who was in the negotiations was sitting to the right of Mr. Balfour but said nothing when the question was asked.

What went wrong, in our view, is that because there was a commitment to pursue custodial management, those who participated in the negotiations from the Canadian side were under great pressure to deliver something called “improvements” that could be then spun as results fulfilling the promise made in 2006.

They also made mistakes in the negotiations. One fundamental error was that they allowed the European Union to be the drafter of amendments, to hold the drafting pen. In fact, each time there was discussion, a European Union drafter would be the one that brought the proposals back to the table.

The other thing was that the negotiators could not walk away from the table. Anyone in this room who has been involved in negotiations knows that if you do not have the option of walking out of the room, thereby saying no to what's being proposed, then the only way out is to acquiesce, to give ground, and to make concessions without concessions being made on the other side. In such cases, you're going to end up with a mess, and that's what we have in front of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead Mr. Applebaum. There are 30 seconds left.

[Bob Applebaum]

On that particular question of two-thirds voting instead of majorities, I was a member of all the NAFO delegations and all the NAFO meetings from the beginning of NAFO in 1978 until I retired in 1995. In every one of those meetings, we had to scramble to get a simple majority vote for any decision that involved cutting down total allowable catch limits. On any conservation measure that restricted fisheries—smaller or larger mesh sizes, whatever the issues were—every single time we had to work amazingly hard to get a majority vote.

This new system will now change that. Now they will have to work even harder to get a two-thirds vote, because the people who don't want to lose fish catches are the ones who are going to be saying, “Well, we just won't go along with this unless you give us some, and then we'll join you and make it two-thirds.” It will have to increase the catches over the years.

Second is this two-thirds business of protecting Canadian percentage shares. Well, yes, but the Canadian percentage shares are there and you'd need a two-thirds vote to overturn them. Shares are only shares of a catch that you can make. Over the long term, the total allowable catches go down; the fish disappear. You have 40%, as you always had, but of what? Your 40% turns into 100 tonnes, 50 tonnes, 10 tonnes, but you have your 40%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Applebaum.

In view of the time, we want to get as many questions in as possible.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

I'll begin with Minister Hedderson.

I'll say at the outset that where I agree with you, and I think everyone around this table and perhaps even those at the table with you agree with you, is that prior to 2006 NAFO did not function well. I think that point has been made here.

Where I'm confused is this. It's my understanding that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was well involved in the negotiations of this amended convention. It was certainly involved in the current talks, as well, in Norway. It was supportive of the direction that these amendments were taking. Now you're appearing before us—and we've seen a recent letter from your premier and so on—taking quite a different view of the results of these negotiations. Can you clarify for this committee the chronology of all that? Is it not true that Newfoundland and Labrador has had two positions on this amended convention?

[Tom Hedderson]

Absolutely, and we're there at the table to try to protect our interests. We haven't been very successful. As you know, my people at the table give advice to the delegation, and the delegation goes forward and makes all the decisions around the larger table. We have always stood behind custodial management, and as I pointed out to you, what happened when they went to the table was that they never went after custodial management; they went after NAFO reform. That's where we are today.

On the reforms, we try to make the best of them in looking at them. The vote is academic, I suppose—some will argue two-thirds and some 50%, But on sovereignty and a look at where we were, we cannot accept any intrusion on the 200-mile zone.

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

Rather than giving advice and perhaps lodging your objections, you actually supported the direction.

[Tom Hedderson]

No. I will say unequivocally that my two representatives did not support where this convention has gone.

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

That may be your position.

[Tom Hedderson]

They go and represent the province, a decision is made, and then it comes back to us.

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

We have seen a letter to our minister from you.

[Tom Hedderson]

Exactly. We were holding our noses and trying to make the best of a bad situation, but do you know something? We can't hold our noses on this. We came out very strong, and our position is clear. I guess we're asking Canada to also take its hand off its nose, look at what's there, and go in the right direction.

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

You had an opportunity during negotiations. You supported the position and—

[Tom Hedderson]

No, again, those are your words. Again, I say to you—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Excuse me, Mr. Hedderson. It's Mr. Kamp's time. Let him have the—

[Tom Hedderson]

I have to take exception to what he's saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay.

[Tom Hedderson]

Mr. Kamp.

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

You started your testimony by saying yes, you've had two positions, and I think that's the case.

Let me move on to Mr. Parsons.

We've had this discussion before. You weren't involved in the negotiations directly yourself. I understand that you are a keen observer and well experienced and so on, but you weren't involved in the negotiations, neither you nor Mr. Applebaum, although one would think perhaps from your testimony that you were.

We've talked about this before, as I mentioned, but where I really take exception is your assuming that you know the mindset of our former minister, Loyola Hearn, that somehow he was driving these negotiations because of a particular motivation, and that somehow you know the motivation of the negotiators themselves. You've speculated on what that might be, but let's be very clear that it is just speculation.

[Scott Parsons]

Was that a question?

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

Would you confirm that this is a conclusion you've drawn, but you have no direct evidence to support that conclusion?