Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-14 of 14
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Fisheries committee  I adopt Professor Saunders' brilliant comments, as I so often do in my life. But I do take the same view. I've looked mostly at the institutional structural issues, and I see there's a positive rather than negative. But there is more to the agreement than that. So without having delved into all of that, I'm a little reluctant to provide advice to the Government of Canada.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Yes. That would be my position on the institutional issues.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Yes. I put it out as an option because we sometimes hear that discussed: Why don't we just walk away from NAFO? I don't think there'd be any appetite by any of the major NAFO members to walk away from it, because it would leave a free-for-all there. I put it out there because that's sometimes seen as one of the other options.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Fundamentally, yes. I think the way you've gone through that is much more organized than I would have, so if you ever need a job as a professor somewhere, come and talk to the dean.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Yes. I think you've hit the nail on the head, in that we do need NAFO. We need something like it, anyway. Regarding the countries, conservation, we can't do it alone. We in Canada have always been caught with what's desirable, what we demand, as opposed to what's negotiable and achievable.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Article 6, paragraph 10--“with permission into Canadian waters”. It would be better if it wasn't there. We all understand that. Nevertheless, there's an explanation that's not as troubling, I think, as the one Mr. Applebaum provides. So I take this point to be important. I just happen to disagree not so much with the fundamentals—he's not fundamentally wrong—I just disagree with the balance that comes out at the end of the day.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  It's very difficult. I would take the view that most of the countries that were negotiating in NAFO are negotiating in good faith and have an interest in conservation. After all, if there's no fish to fish, then there's no fish to fish. So all of the countries--whether they be the Europeans, whether they be the Icelandic, the Norwegians--that are participating in NAFO have a fairly high degree of good faith.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  They fundamentally have a point. Mr. Applebaum is a very good lawyer, and I must say, he had good sense to hire me 30 years ago into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a while, so I speak fondly of Bob. Their points are good ones. Having had this discussion with Mr. Applebaum, it's a question of how we balance it.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  If I can add a little bit of a different type of context to that, in the NAFO situation there's no question that Canada has the most interest in the fish beyond 200 nautical miles. We can understand that in terms of the way the stocks exist, and the Europeans have less interest.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  You're right. That's fundamental. The objection procedure can be used. The dispute settlement will take years. The point to be made is that there is no fisheries agreement anywhere in the world that has a shorter form. So yes, you could always try to negotiate for something better, and that may be a good goal, but there's no indication by anybody that that's even remotely possible.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  It's six of one, a half dozen of the other. I'm not sure there's a great deal of difference. One of the things you said toward the end of your comments was that the 1995 implementing agreement, which is attached to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides that a coastal state can prosecute.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  There's a lot in your question, and it's a little difficult to sort through all the different parts.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman

Fisheries committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Telling professors they only have ten minutes to talk is a challenge. I have a few introductory notes, and I'll be happy to respond to questions. I know my colleague, Dean Saunders, has a few comments as well. I want to point out to the committee that although I'm from the University of Victoria, as was established earlier, I grew up in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

October 27th, 2009Committee meeting

Dr. Ted McDorman