Dr. Phil Earle responds to Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield

Below please find a response to Federal Fisheries Minister - Keith Ashfield from Dr. Phil Earle

 

Dear Minister Ashfield, March 1/2012

Part 1  

I would like to respond to your letter in a step wise manner, and I would like for you to answer my comments for the people of this province.

First what does “..we are time and again being out-performed by smaller countries with less access to the resource” refer to? Are you talking about NAFO countries that fish on our shelf, such as Spain? If it is, the answer is Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the world which is subsidized nearly a billion dollars a year by the EU to fish around the world.

Further if you and the DFO are inferring that we should therefore increase our efforts to catch more fish it would be a totally wrong conclusion. Our ground fish stocks have never recovered and are at an all-time low of less than 10% of historic healthy levels. We need to stop the fishing destruction that is occurring at present so the stocks can be allowed to recover. That includes the fishing inside our 200 mile EEZ and that of NAFO fleets fishing on the nose and tail of the grand banks.

Quote, “everyone is demanding change in how we manage the resource.” This is a non-specific remark that can be taken in a range all the way from more of the disastrous federal government’s mismanagement that has, and is destroying the resource to reducing government involvement in management while letting more influence in management from improved, prudent, scientific input like is done in other successful countries like Norway and Iceland.

 
“Canadian fishermen remain among the lowest earners in Canada.’ This is because the bulk of our resource and its profits are in the hands of a few powerful, wealthy people who own processing operations, and own quotas which your government gave to them. They operate factory freezer trawlers which have taken thousands of jobs away from inshore fishers while they send unprocessed fish away from our shore planets, giving jobs to foreign nation. Many harvesters’ licences are owned or contorted by corporations so that fishers working at sea have been squeezed out of their incomes by the need of companies to increase their profits.

 
There are people, such as doctors and dentists and the like, living on the main land who have never stepped on the deck of a boat who own fish quota’s, they receive millions of dollars a year from royalties on fish being caught. There is only so much profit that can be taken out of each season of fishing, if large percentages of this limited profit is taken by such ‘outsiders’ there is less and less for our fishers and plant workers.

 
Consider that in 1992, the year of the moratorium, our NL fishery was worth some $350 million and today it is near $900 million but yet our situation is worst then in 92 as we are losing more jobs and plants, fishers and coastal communities. So it’s easy to understand why our fishers are among the lowest earners in Canada, it is just economics 101. You can understand that can’t you?

“Canada’s fishery is becoming a smaller and smaller player on the world stage. We are no longer seeing the abundance of fish that our country enjoyed in the past, so we can no longer rely on the quantity of this renewable resource to create economic prosperity; better management practices are required. Our government has been making strides in helping the fishery.’

Our fishery is smaller because the bio mass of our fish is at an all-time low, the stocks have been destroyed are not allowed to recover because of mismanagement of the federal government. Your government wants to create economic prosperity for the elite few who now control the fishery.

Part 2  

Continuing the same practices that you have created in the past for giant corporations that has destroyed, and is, and will totally destroy the rest of the resource in the future if you continue in the manner you are implying in this letter.

 
The only way you can create further economic prosperity for anyone from our depleted, dying resource is for less and less peoples and corporations to take more and more of the less and less fish. You know what that means don’t you. In 10 years there will be no fishers, no plant workers, no comminutes in coastal NL and lastly no fishing corporations..because there will be no more fish.

Your government has been making strides in one direction, not in the direction of helping the fishery, but in the direct of destroying it, destroying our treasured heritage and our coastal communities, our maritime culture and our family structure. That is a Fact!

In 62 years of confederation you have taken away our spirit fish, by giving it indifferently to foreign countries, denied its access from our coastal people, and allowed cooperate greed to privatize and garbage can our legacy. You and you alone, the federal government of Canada, have destroyed the spirit of my people, whose ancestors were once the greatest fishermen in the world, the greatest sea people that ever lived.

”We must find ways to make the fishery more valuable, profitable and respectful of the resource for future generations.” If by value you mean the economic success of a few large processing companies there will be no respect of the resource, the fish stocks that god gave us, and in a few short years it will be no more. Your concern for “future generations” in that case is not just hollow, political, empty words they are the insensitive, thoughtless comments from a government who conducts themselves with absolute power, that have corrupted it absolutely.

Your corruption of power and ego is so complete that not only will it destroy the opportunities of our “future generations” of children; it would destroy that of your own children. Take a bow to the world Mr. Ashfield; take one for Canada to the world!

And as for the World Bank suggesting what we should do with our fishery for more money, they have a great record of being concerned for the global economy and the plight of the world starving peoples, who are in the 100's of millions. Their 100's of billions in profits and 100's of millions of dollars for salaries to their CEO’s really show how concerned they are for incomes of subsistence fisheries and laborers all over the world. They are concerned because it’s off the backs of labor industries that they cream off their billions, all on the backs of the struggling poor. Take another bow to the world Mr. Minister, for figuring out that you can squeeze out a few more million for the rich by abusing the lives of the fisher people.

All this ”.. means more jobs and more economic growth in our coastal and rural regions.”
The audaciousness of this remark is beyond my ability to express. How dare you write a letter and say such a thing about our fishery and to my people, and put it in our paper the telegram. You talk about more jobs and more economic growth in our coastal communities when you and the federal government are directly responsible in 20 years for destroying our families, fishers and fisheries jobs by the 10's of thousands. 

Part 3  

What you, and the federal government, are advocating in this letter will destroy our coastal way of life. Our NL soldiers fought in the great wars for Canada and the free world. Fought to protect their children’s, and their children’s children democratic rights as written in Canada’s ‘Chartered Bill of Rights’. If there is an ounce of decency anywhere in the halls of parliament or in the hearts of any person or member who works there I ask for it to be used to do the duty they have sworn to do. Administer to the costal people of NL, and their fishery, the principles so outlined in our bill of rights. Save us from the impending future genocide of our coastal way of life.

You asked for my engagement in this letter, of how we can better manage our Fishery for the future and how our coastal people can improve and save their lives. I have given you my honest answer to the best of my ability, so help me god.

Will you answer these questions for my people? The fisher people, the sea people of NL?

Philip Earle
B.Sc., M.Sc., M.D

Dr. Phil Earle weighs in on OCI and Exporting Policy

Dear Minister King, Jan 31/2012

At a time when both you and the Premier have made comments recently, pertaining to what power or right our government has on influencing NL companies which export our resources, I would like to communicate my concern on our practice of exporting raw and partially processed fish to foreign markets.

No doubt in some situations it would be appropriate for private companies to export raw, or otherwise partially processed products, out of our province. In this situation the company makes a profit, provides some jobs here and generally adds to the GDP of the province. However it is a totally different situation for the province, our government, our GDP and our people if the bulk, or large amounts, of these resources are shipped in this manner.

An example of this point is unfolding right now in our mining industry with the opening of the new mine in Labrador, where one company bidding for the contract, wants to ship out raw ore creating 200 jobs, and another who wants to produce concentrate pellets here creating 1700 jobs. The value added jobs and economic input into the communities of Labrador by our processing of the ore , may not provide the company with a big % of profit, but it will have multiple, far reaching positive affects into the future of the province, even after the mine is gone.

The fisheries equivalent to this situation is the shipping out of our unprocessed and partially processed fish to China and EU countries, such as that which our province is now facing with the OCI. Naturally a company that ships out some raw fish, gets a high % of profit, creates some jobs and adds some value to the province. But shipping out the bulk of our resource in this manner destroys many more jobs then it creates, creates little, or zero, value added affect for our coastal communities and province.

On the other hand a company that processes ashore and then sells to higher end market’s in places like the USA and UK would create 100's of processing and value added jobs, and add over all wealth to our communities and our province. This over all increased value, provided to our people, would further input and strengthen our infrastructure, support and lift our coastal towns and spirit.

Dr. Phil Earle

OCI and Advice to Minister King

Below is a letter to Fisheries Minister Darin King from the Fisheries Community Alliance

January25th/2012

Hon.Darin King,

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

St. John's, NL

Dear Minister,

                       Over the last few weeks the request of OCI to export unprocessed fish and the expected response of our Government have occupied the minds of fishery participants in the Province. We understand your decision will be made public in the near future and we therefore wish to consolidate the views of the Fisheries Community Alliance on the subject and inform the Minister accordingly.

1)  Following detailed discussions with marketing experts in Europe, North America and Asia we have identified the current state of resources in various fish exporting countries and the demands of the main importers and exporters of fish products by species in those countries. There is no doubt there is a market for round fish for direct consumption in Asia, especially for small, undersized round fish. But that market has existed for the centuries. There is also a market for large fish that is processed into finished products for the US or EU market and the value of which is increased through injection of 15/20 percent water into fillets. We can provide you with the formula used in

Asia.

2) The quality of exports of Asian seafood products is now being seriously questioned by US authorities and a US Senate Committee is about to be formed to deal with problem.

3) There was and still is a very strong market for processed primary and secondary fishery products in Europe, the US, Canada, Asia and some South American Countries. There are well over a one and half billion people in those countries who are sophisticated seafood consumers paying prices far exceeding  those in China or Vietnam. There should not be a problem in that market to sell a miniscule quantity of yellowtail fillets if a N&L fish exporter had an effective marketing and sales

organization.

4) The Deloitte verification of OCI losses must be further investigated. Not as far as its accuracy is concerned but the question is, does it include the costs of its FFT harvesting, landing frozen fillets in Bay Roberts and later trucking to Marystown plant. Then having thawed the fish, processed it in the largest and most expensive plant in N&L in terms of fixed costs, the operators surely had to know it would be difficult to compete with harvesting by an efficient wet-fish trawler and processing in a smaller and far less expensive plant. This would have avoided exporting badly needed N&L processing jobs.

5) Exporting unprocessed  fish by OCI will result in a mass demand by all harvesters to export their catch and the resultant loss of thousands of plant processing jobs. That loss will be permanent and we will lose the processing expertize that has taken 70 years to develop and train those workers.

6) The growing export of unprocessed fish which includes an increased percentage of small, undersized fish will destroy any hope whatever of rebuilding our once huge groundfishery.  It is an undeniable fact that without restoration of the groundfishery fishing communities in N&L will not survive. Federal and Provincial authorities by granting the licenses to export large and small, undersized fish are contributing to the demise of the N&L fishery. The Province must take a leadership role in stopping this activity and seriously promoting the resource rebuilding process by confronting the Canadian Government on major issues being discussed in the Free Trade negotiations with the EU, NAFO fisheries mismanagement and DFO reduction in N&L fisheries management

responsibilities and particularly in the area of fishery science capability and the retention of necessary top level scientists and technologists.

We sincerely hope our Government will take into consideration the major impact the continuation of exports of unprocessed fish will have on the fishing population of N&L. We, the members of the Fisheries Community Alliance are convinced it will eventually destroy what's left of our diminishing resource and the survival of many N&L fishing communities.

Yours very truly,
Gus Etchegary

Chair

Fisheries Community Alliance.

Gus Etchegary responds to Fisheries Broadcast Host John Furlong

The following is a response from Gus Etchegary 

to the Host of the Fisheries Broadcast - John Furlong 

John, Reading your diatribe on the present state of the fishery finally confirms what we suspected from the early days you came on the scene as host of Fisheries Broadcast. The Ottawa fishery bureaucracy of DFO convinced the hierarchy of CBC to put someone in charge of the broadcast who could discover and make the most inane and stupid comments on the N&L fishery since we joined Confederation. Having heard you occasionally on the Broadcast and being assured by White Hills Communications Branch, those experts in remote Ottawa were certain you would come through in "flying colors".

 Pretending, and somehow believing, you are somewhat of an expert in the fishery of this Province you somehow or other got really confused between the cause of closure of Marystown and Port Union fish plants and the loss of a supermarket in Churchill Square and the narrow-gauged railway that used to operate across NFLD many years ago. On the basis of the statements made on the CBC website today it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about and considering the importance of our fisheries to the survival of N&L, CBC officials had better wake up and replace you with some competent individual as soon as possible. Maybe you did everyone a favor today by exposing your serious deficiencies in performing the job as host of Fisheries Broadcast.

The fact is our the renewable fishery is all important to the survival of rural N&L at the present time and will be just as important to the survival of St. John's when the non- renewable oil and minerals are exhausted. It's so important, during this crucial period, for our present N&L Government to provide the real leadership needed to forcefully persuade the federal Government to rebuild the resource. Your confused outburst today on our CBC website illustrates conclusively that you are not the person to convey to the public or anyone else the urgency of rebuilding and sustainably managing our vital fisheries. John, a moratorium on our groundfisheries was declared in 1992. For your information there is no sign whatever of its recovery to date. In your position you should have been using every opportunity on the Broadcast to make Canadians aware of the contrast between the well-managed fisheries of Norway, Iceland and other countries and those in N&L in particular where fisheries mismanagement by Ottawa has caused its collapse. Wake up John, its 2012.

Anyone with real knowledge of our fisheries is aware of the continuing overfishing on a diminishing groundfish resource, the declining crab and shrimp stocks and the fact that DFO have abandoned their fisheries management responsibility. Our science capability has been gutted and further financial cuts are due along with serious reductions in the number of fishery scientists and other technology personnel, research survey vessels and the important annual surveys that are so essential. Foreign NAFO members and EU Free Trade negotiators have exchanged documentation to facilitate expanding foreign activity inside 200 miles. These Free Trade negotiations regarding fisheries, now taking place, are a major issue and should be publicized. Seismic blasting , pollution of valuable fishing grounds and the loss of important fishing areas on the Grand Banks are also issues that must be dealt with along with contents of the MOU.

Surely, John those matters should be of more concern to the  host of Fisheries Broadcast, than the loss of the railway fifty years ago and the closure of the Churchill Park supermarket. CBC, you have received a strong signal for a change in delivering  Fisheries Broadcast. Unless Mr. Harper's directive to CBC takes precedence.

Cod and who pays?

Below is a response to my fisheries blog yesterday. I believe it is very important to dialogue back and forth agreeing or disagreeing - in an effort to find solutions to significant problems. Please read the response by a reader and my response to it. 

Response

Welcome back Sue. While I love your passion for our province I feel your bent about any of our provincial leaders ability to control or do anything about the fishery is misplaced as we only control processing licences.
Since the fishery is a national/international common property resource and the majority of Canada's population lives either in ON/QU or Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver for all intensive purposes we have no say in how the fishery is managed or controlled. In fact I submit to you that all of the national parties use it as a bargaining chip to better the majority of the population through DFAIT.

Until we start electing Independent federal MP's nothing will change because it is essentially an

National/International Tragedy of our Commons at the hands of our

Tyranny of the majority political system

where by any and all of the national party MP's we elect to represent us on the federal stage will continue to toe their national party lines of doing what is in the best interest of the majority of the population to get their national party elected or re-elected.

We need a veto on fisheries issues in the national party cabinets,and NAFO. Even if we have to do it in conjunction with the maritime provinces.

Wanna make a bet that the 2013 UNLOS deadline will come and pass with the flemish cap being given away and or ownership and control since we already have custodial management being the adjacent state just we all of hte national parties choose not to act on it.


Response to the Response

You will notice that I continue to state the federal government is responsible for the mismanagement and therefore responsible for compensation.
Provincial leaders have the responsibility to go after the feds if they believe we have been wronged.
The federal government is not going to pursue itself.
If you were wronged personally or in business due to mismanagement of a responsibility of the other party you are the only one that could take an action.
While the provincial leaders do not have jurisdiction over many areas (confederation) all provincial leaders fight for fairness and equity for their province.
This case is unique - the feds manage our fish stocks unlike manage the weather in the case of western farming losses year over year. And even though the farms are not the responsibility of the feds (unlike our fishery) they are still compensated year over year.
Regardless of who goes to Ottawa - the federal system will never work for our province.


It is time that this province sought and received compensation for the following:
Loss of economic value of the ground-stocks for ten years.(first ten years tags encarp)
Loss of population = loss of transfer payments (not equalization)
Revenue to the province for increased costs due to increased need for seniors care (once provided for by the moved away family members)
Compensation directly to rural communities for outrageous losses of property value and tax base
Compensation in the form of increased federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans...

...gives best reason yet to sue the feds over the groundfish stocks collapse.

After "Fisheries Conservation Ambassador Loyola Sullivan and I recently travelled to Spain and Portugal" the Minister spews - as if that's not enough to make any Newfoundlander and Labrador gag or run out and buy some hockey tickets - he goes on in this News Statement to say the following:

I have watched with curious amusement as some people who were responsible for the creation and implementation of the old, failed NAFO system speak out. Unfortunately, they are 30 years too late. Perhaps if they had been so diligent in raising concerns when they were being paid by the Canadian public to do so, our stocks might not be in the shape they are today.

Now this is just the ramblings of a man - who became a boy (Federal Minister) - as he and his leader broke promise after promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - and Canadians. However if one can put aside that the Loyola's both with "fisheries" backgrounds from the shore and both with parliamentary power - opposition and government - are probably just as much to blame as the bureaucrats they take swipes at - then we can see the practical components of the Minister's statement.

What Loyola Hearn is claiming - is that federal public servants did not tell federal politicians and the public that federal policies and international treaties were decimating Newfoundland and Labrador's most important renewable industry.

The truth is - Loyola H is taking a hit for missing significant components of proposed NAFO changes and taking a hit for components that may yet still destroy our fisheries autonomy. Loyola S is taking a hit for bailing on the province and taking a job from Ottawa despite the feds screwing us on equalization - and of course the hockey tickets. This does not change however - the fact that Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has mused on the feds destruction of our fish stocks.

So let's see the boys in action - take that accusation Minister and present it to your colleagues in Ottawa to see if they will pony up the 500 million a year compensation - until the stocks recover - if they ever do.

Then as if to drive the last nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Hearn forgets - once again - that this province is where his heart should be - by stating:

During and after the NAFO meeting, Canada's New Government will be working to ensure our hard fought reforms are fully implemented, and that Canada is now taking its role as a global leader in fisheries management.

Giving away that last lonely fish...

That's the title of a column today in the Chronicle Herald - Nova Scotia.

The story is a continuation of the concerns expressed by Bob Applebaum and Gus Etchegary over potential changes to NAFO.

This piece is worth reading if we care at all about our fishery. Something which our provincial politicians are not "con"vincing me they are.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the column by Jim Meek:

Ottawa, in short, has severely weakened its ability to manage and conserve trans-boundary stocks in the area of the Grand Banks. It is cold comfort that there are so few fish left to protect in what were once the best fishing grounds on the planet.

And it’s colder comfort that this is the federal government that came to power promising to extend Canada’s "custodial management" of fish stocks beyond the 200-mile zone.

______________________________________________________________________
As for Loyola Hearn - what should we expect?

SCHOOL'S OUT day 4

David Crosbie has thrown his hat into the ring for nomination in the St. John's East District. I think Randy did the man a disservice by discussing his political DNA - as somehow being relevant. Maybe that was the info-tainment Randy talks about. It's like turning on Entertainment Tonight and examining how Tom Cruise picks his nose now that he's married to Katie Holmes.

In either case - the fellow who describes himself as a businessman - revealed his first weakness when he stated that this is the first time he had talked to Randy on the show. Here we go again - unless they want a political job - they do not have enough interest in the public goings on to have ever voiced an opinion on open-line before.


In either case let's get to the meat of what the fellow thinks.

1. We have to concentrate on our core strengths and values.

2. Outmigration is not only Newfoundland - we need well paying permanent jobs in this province - and that does not happen overnight.

3. These are interesting times.

4. Nobody has our culture.

5. We should have the best environment.

Concentrate on our core values and strengths - okay what are they?

Outmigration will not stop overnight. When will it stop and how will you contribute to well paying permanent jobs?

These are interesting times. Huh?

Nobody has our culture - what culture is he referring to? The fishing communities? The Aboriginal culture? We are certainly close to losing rural Newfoundland and Labrador - so is it the culture of giveaways or mass outmigration?

We should have the best environment - yes so we should - that is why Crosbie needs to answer the following:
What do you think of the government under Danny's leadership allowing the use pristine ponds for tailings?

Also Mr. Crosbie you referenced the province - by name - at least 5 times - and each and every time you said Newfoundland. The name of the province is Newfoundland and Labrador. I think Labrador still has some railway operations. Let's hope the DNA does not apply.

Now onto George Joyce the Liberal candidate in St. John's West. Best I can tell - and listen up Sheila - if the Tories give him a high school his job would be finished. Now that's impressive.

As for "be honest witchu" Minister Kevin O'Brien and his visits to all the festivals while travelling in the us bus alongside the hamper-pamper-camper - do your job and find out how we are being screwed by the feds on the latest NAFO disaster - or find out why Highliner is waiting to gobble up some of the FPI assets in part to attract a takeover bid. What happened to our great marketing arm of FPI? Was that good business Minister? Enjoy the hot dogs and hamburgers and then take a trip with our Tourism Minister in a kayak up the river of rural devastation.

If Applebaum is our Ambassador - it's really time for you and I to pack our bags!

Premier Williams


Is this right?

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to raise money to send a retired DFO official from Ontario around Canada to tell the country what the current DFO and federal officials are proposing to do with NAFO and how this may hurt our industry.

Applebaum discovered some alarming NAFO information - but make no mistake he was until 10 years ago - a DFO official. This man also refuses to acknowledge interference by International Trade or Foreign Affairs. He calls the bartering of our fish for other deals on auto plants or wheat sales a myth. He also does not believe custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap is possible.

Without being willing to say why these things keep happening - we cannot fix the problem.

Perhaps the Ministers responsible for fisheries in 3 or 4 provinces should travel the land. Perhaps these people we already employ should be forced to know what's going on around them. Perhaps Rideout should tell us what happened in the meeting between Applebaum and the province. Perhaps Rideout can tell us why our people in the Canadian NAFO delegation did not pick up on these problems until Applebaum wrote a letter.

And now we know what the problems are - please tell me there are some local experts who have written endless reports on the fishery - the senior staff of Fisheries and Aquaculture - bureaucrats at the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs - Provincial - who are able to make our case. My god Danny - where are all the fish experts now? You want joint management!

There's something bloody awful about having to send Applebaum around the country on this issue. Where is your outrage at the feds pulling this type of stunt and your outrage that our people did not pick up on the problems themselves?

Steve 6 - Danny 0
Fallow Field legislation
Equalization
Custodial Management
Labrador Highway
NAFO amendments
New Defense Presence in Labrador

How many times can you get Norm Doyle - Loyola Hearn - and Fabian Manning unelected?
Instead you are pulling out a Joey stump - from the "pamper camper" while everything burns around you. You are drunk with power - time to sober up.

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

Now let's see if they are Serious about FISH IMPORTANT FORUM

Politicians - FFAW Reps - Fishers - Media and the General Public will have the opportunity to hear an address by Bob Applebaum - former Director General of the International Directorate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Among other responsibilities Applebaum was extremely involved in the Law of the Sea negotiations resulting in the 200 mile zone and involved in establishing the NAFO Convention.

Bob has been retired sine 1996 but has kept a close eye on the continuing strife of what is our fishery and has appeared as an invited speaker to the Senate hearings on the fishery. More recently Applebaum sent a letter of great concern to Minister of Fisheries - Loyola Hearn. The correspondence outlined that NAFO negotiations currently underway may have the outcome of hurting Canada's position within NAFO and partial loss of control of our fish stocks. This talk should culminate in our increased awareness of the European agenda and how proposed changes to the voting mechanisms within NAFO could jeopardize advancements we have made and future protection and prosecution issues.

The public forum is July 23, at Hampton Hall, Monday evening 8 o'clock.

Sue's Blog thanks Gus Etchegary for his continued commitment to this most important issue to our people and our province by arranging this talk and providing the information.

I can't wait to see the 48 members or however many are left there with bells on - showing some level of commitment to why they are here to begin with. There are no BBQ's or come home fairs or regattas without our history - culture - and this renewable fishery.

Save our Youth - their communities - and our Future.