Bob Applebaum brought 2 things to our Province:

New Update at bottom of Post

First he delivered very disturbing information on NAFO proposed reforms and negotiations and Second he delivered a typical mainland attitude.

Attendance - Poor

The attendance was poor - the usual interested parties - noted scientist - ex provincial government officials - 2 politicians one sitting and one wannabe - Scott Simms - and Siobhan Coady - a few fishermen a couple of people who have been around the fishery for many years and a couple of journalists. Notably there were some young people - I am not sure if they were students interested in the talk or given an assignment to cover it - or if they were youth simply interested in the resource. I know one was there for the latter. From the open-line circuit - there was Morris Budgell - Agnes - Carl Powell myself and of course organizer of the event Gus Etchegary. If one was an independent observer - one could conclude the fishery in the province was perfect - no problem. There were more people there who were not directly involved in the fishery and people retired from government ranks than were directly employed by the resource. All in all maybe 70 or so people.

There is no question that Applebaum had a captive audience and he delivered some very concerning news to say the least. Let me relate his story to you - the reader.
Applebaum was asked to appear in front of a Senate Committee headed by Senator Bill Rompkey - to address potential amendments to the NAFO convention. As Applebaum explains - he has been retired for 10 years - so at the time of the request he was not up on the latest goings on. (That tells me a little right there) If somebody is directly affected by the fishery collapse - or associated with a community being destroyed by the moratorium - that person would not be able to walk away without keeping up on the latest. (However Bob lives in Ontario and has not relied on the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for a living.) In either case Applebaum set about getting himself a briefing from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Bob is a lawyer and as he was briefed by department officials he found himself skimming the documents he was provided. While listening and skimming he found the change from a simple majority vote to that of two-thirds. He was shocked and immediately interrupted the briefing to ask department officials about that. They all plead ignorant to the change and some of them scurried out of the room to find out what was going on. According to Applebaum all the experts for Canada missed it - lawyers - delegates - department officials - the whole lot of them. He explained that Canada started out with the right objective - to strengthen NAFO - by changing the simple member objection system to one of arbitration. This apparently is relative to nations agreeing to TAC (total allowable catches and quotas) - only to return to their country and have that country file and objection and set their own numbers. The idea was to change the system into one which has an arbitration board to respond to any nation's objection. He further explained that the panel would not have the right to issue a final decree - but nevertheless it would look better.

Next Applebaum discovered language in an amendment that essentially could give NAFO control inside our 200 mile limit. He was absolutely appalled that this one element which he said was solid (that is we have control to 200 miles) would be opened at all. Upon further research he discovered that this change had come about under very odd circumstances. Number one it was not an objective officially considered at the immediate past NAFO meetings - and in fact it was a passing comment by a Russian official as everybody was walking out the door. Secondly he discovered that the individual who was charged with putting language to that which WAS agreed to was a person within the EU delegation - something which Applebaum said was conflicting.

Throughout his presentation the former Director of DFO's International Directorate expressed surprise and disbelief at what the Canadian officials missed - and that the delegation including reps from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were supporting amendments which apparently nobody understood.

There is no question that Applebaum has delivered information which if let go would be disastrous to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and he caught red-handed the DFO and Canada either being entirely ignorant or ???

Throughout his presentation - Applebaum kept expressing surprise that this could happen and his shock that no official in the Canadian delegation picked up on it - including Department officials and lawyers advising.

He then let the officials go away and figure out what was going on and they would meet at a later date. When they got together again the people of the Department who claimed no knowledge of the sweeping and damaging changes began to justify those changes. This shocked him further as he noted their explanations were daft and in fact were dangerously flawed. He wondered again - out loud - what could have happened to these people.

He appeared at the Senate Hearings and then wrote a letter to Minister Hearn. He is not sure where the whole works stands at the moment.

The floor was opened for comments and questions and some interesting ones came forth. When I got my turn at the floor - I asked if it was possible that these unbelievable changes and the defence of them were resulting from interference from International Trade and Foreign Affairs. Here's where the mainlander and bureaucrat came out in spades. He first advised me I would not like the answer and then proceeded to state that this feeling was a Newfoundland and Labrador myth. In fact he would rather say that all officials from the Canadian delegation were ignorant - dozens of educated advisers just plain incompetent - rather than admit that the department under his guidance or any of his predecessors and successors buckled to the direction of another department.

Then it became interesting as Gus Etchegary took to the mike to explain to his guest that he was wrong and that in fact he (Gus)was present at meetings where quotas in our fishing zone was bartered to correct and international trade matter.

Applebaum also delivered his opinion that custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap was not real - he said that Loyola found that out when he became Minister - then he used a Department line that custodial management had many meanings. Again Gus took to the mike to take him to task over that.

There is no doubt that Applebaum delivered invaluable information - unfortunately when it came to explaining why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian NAFO delegation would allow this to happen - he grasped at ignorance rather than nefarious doings by others.

He demonstrated his bureaucratic prowess again when he stated that all NAFO members had only one vote each at the table - to which Jim Winter piped up and said one of the parties had 2 votes. When Applebaum asked which Winter informed him that it was France - one as France and one under st Pierre and Miquelon. To this Applebaum said that was not right because SPM could not be counted on by the French to take their side. Really? Imagine that!

All in all - I say thank-you to Applebaum for picking up on these potentially devastating changes and no thanks for delivering a typical Central Canadian attitude.

The biggest question of all should be - where is Tom Rideout our Great Premier and leaders of the Opposition Parties? These people we pay to look after our interests have apparently done nothing to educate themselves on this most significant matter. They can read - no differently than Applebaum and they have many more staff to conduct research than this retired Ontarian has. Again we go blindly into our future despite the absolute disaster which is our fishery. What's on the BBQ tonight guys?

As for Loyola Hearn - we know where he is - at the bottom of Stephen Harper's heap of discarded PC's - absent Newfoundland guts to fight for us.

Thanks to Gus for organizing the event.

Since I posted this David Bevin Assistant Deputy Minister Fisheries and Aquaculture management - DFO - appeared on Open Line with Randy Simms to respond to Applebaum's presentation. A few things are made clearer by Bevin - One: the Canadian delegation DID NOT pick up on the 2 significant amendments or were up to something else UNTIL Applebaum brought them to task. In other words backpedaling. Next he failed to tell Randy and Randy did not have enough information to ask - what happened to the EU fellow originally responsible for drafting the NAFO documents and finally that we would know nothing from our own paid politicians or from Ottawa unless Applebaum made the situation public. In other words everything normal - at the DFO. There is also a significant difference in legal opinion as it relates to the simple majority versus two-thirds voting mechanism.

For information of readers ... this is a copy of the letter sent by Bob Applebaum to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - Loyola Hearn. Applebaum pointed out that the letter has been widely circulated.

The Honourable Loyola Hearn

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Cc Minister of Foreign Affairs

Minister of Justice



Dear Sir,

I am writing in regard to the current negotiations on the reform of NAFO.

I am a former Director General of the International Directorate in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was involved in the Law of the Sea negotiations that resulted in the establishment of the 200-mile zone, and in the negotiations that resulted in the NAFO Convention. A major part of my work in the Department, until I retired in 1996, was in the implementation, year to year, of that Convention.

I spoke at the hearings conducted by Senator Rompkey a few months ago. At those hearings and in a subsequent consultation with DFO officials I raised two major concerns about the texts being developed at that time in the negotiations on NAFO reform:

A) that one of the fundamental, structural provisions in the existing NAFO Convention, the provision that expressly restricted the Fisheries Commission’s management jurisdiction to the area outside 200 miles, protecting Canadian sovereign rights and exclusive control over the 200-mile zone, was being eroded; and

B) that the proposal to change the voting system in the NAFO Convention, to require conservation and allocation decisions to be adopted by a 2/3 majority instead of the existing simple majority, would make it harder for Canada to achieve the adoption of restrictive TAC’s and to protect Canada’s allocation shares.

As regards the first point, it is worth remembering that one of the primary Canadian objectives at the Law of the Sea Conference was to terminate international management inside what is now the Canadian 200-mile zone. The NAFO Convention was negotiated soon after world-wide adoption of 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones, and there was concern on the part of Canadian governments and stakeholders that, in the effort then underway to control fishing outside 200 miles, nothing be done that could be construed as giving away, to any degree, Canada’s exclusive right to manage inside the 200-mile limit. The NAFO Convention was constructed accordingly to ensure that the Fisheries Commission could not, under any circumstances, even with Canadian government approval, adopt management decisions which applied inside 200 miles. Putting it another way, in the absence of an amendment to the NAFO Convention, it was not possible for a Canadian delegation at a NAFO meeting, even with Canadian government approval, to support, or for the Fisheries Commission to make, a decision of this kind, by consensus or otherwise. TAC’s and quotas adopted by the Fisheries Commission could apply legally only outside 200 miles, and Canada, unilaterally and voluntarily, applied them inside 200 miles so that catches by Canadian fishermen would not be the cause of TAC overruns.

Any idea that an international fisheries commission would have management authority inside the Canadian 200-mile limit would have been inconceivable at that time, both to Canada and to the other States involved in the negotiations.

The foregoing will, I hope, provide the background for my concerns about current developments in the negotiation of NAFO reform. The most recent texts I have seen make it clear that DFO officials have agreed to allow NAFO Fisheries Commission management decisions to apply, legally, inside 200 miles. The terminology now being suggested, "by consensus" is intended to indicate that decisions in this respect cannot be adopted if the Canadian delegation, at the particular NAFO meeting, speaks out against them. However it is a weak term, used in international negotiations to open the door for overriding "hold-outs" when they are a small minority. No matter what terms are used, the current proposed texts expressly provide for international management of fisheries inside Canadian waters.

As regards the proposed 2/3 voting rule, it is difficult to conceive how it is not obvious that this will make it harder to achieve adoption of restrictive TAC’s (more participants will have to be paid off in some way, usually with allocations) and harder for Canada to get decisions that protect its own traditional shares (the most likely source of "pay-off" allocations).

I am aware, Minister, that you have dedicated yourself to NAFO reform, for the purpose of improving international control of foreign fishing outside 200 miles. However I do not believe that you intended to achieve NAFO reform at the cost of Canada’s sovereign rights, and, more particularly, exclusive management rights, inside the Canadian 200-mile limit. I do not believe you want to achieve a NAFO reform that strengthens the ability of the major foreign fishing States to achieve the establishment of TAC’s higher than those required for conservation, to reduce Canadian shares of those TAC’s, and, if the negotiations continue the way they have been going, to determine TAC’s and Canadian and foreign quotas in Canadian waters.



Yours sincerely,



B. Applebaum