Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Consultation or Confrontation



Consultation or Confrontation, those are the words being spun by Conservative Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, in his current media blitz leading to the latest round of NAFO discussions. Great alliteration huh, can’t you just picture those Ottawa spin doctors sitting around, sipping latte’s and trying to come up with that catchy phrase? A phrase intended to placate the public about their mishandling of the fisheries and to stick in our collective mind like such other keepers as “Make my day” or “Where’s the beef?”, which, by the way, are my thoughts exactly. Where the hell is the beef in that statement and when will Mr. Hearn or anyone else in Ottawa go ahead and, “make my day”?

Of course the fisheries minister’s plan is consultation rather than confrontation, but I’m sure I didn’t need to tell you that. Just the fact that Ottawa feels the need to feed Canadians a catch phrase about how they plan to either slow down or speed up the destruction of North Atlantic fish stocks says it all doesn’t it? I say speed up or slow down the destruction because if you’re like me, a long hard look at the results to date leaves me wondering exactly which it is they’re trying to accomplish.

When Loyola Hearn sat in the opposition benches he knew what needed to be done and, though you would never say it, he knows it now. Custodial management of the fisheries and Canadian control of the Grand Banks was, and is, the only solution. Now that he’s gotten the big job, like his predecessors, Mr. Hearn seems to feel that talk is the best course of action. Sorry Loyola, but the time for talk is over. That foreign fishing ship has sailed.

For decades Atlantic Canadians have watched a once vital and vibrant resource dwindle and die. For just as long we’ve heard politician after politician promise to resolve the issue of over fishing through NAFO and for as many years those discussions have done nothing to improve the situation. In fact they may even have done more harm than good. Today there are hundreds of foreign ships raping the Grand Banks while, as local comedic talent Buddy Wasisname said about the state of the fishery, “since the moratorium we been feeding Kraft Dinner to the gulls”.

I know the truth, the fishers know the truth and Loyola Hearn certainly knows the truth, even if he won’t admit it these days. Simply put, NAFO is a useless organization made up of greedy countries all looking for a piece of the pie when it comes to the fishery off our shores. Talking about protecting fish stocks today is not going to get Canada any further than it got us over the years and that’s a fact. During the election campaign, the Conservative party and Mr. Hearn specifically, promised to invoke custodial management if elected. So what happened? Come on Loyola, stop the BS and do your job!

Eventually, and perhaps sooner than the Conservatives would like, another election will be rolling around the corner. Mr. Hearn had better not expect to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador telling everyone about his great accomplishments in the fisheries portfolio. He shouldn’t expect to come back with renewed talks of taking control of our waters and invoking custodial management. No Mr. Hearn, you’ve already played that card and you don’t get to play it twice. In fact, don’t come back to the province at all unless you are willing, before the road to the next election campaign even begins, to send some navy ships out to the Grand Banks, invoke custodial management and start firing at anything out there that floats.

The people of Atlantic Canada are watching you very closely Mr. Hearn and you can bet that commentaries like this one will continue to become more and more common as the next election approaches. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Get some gun boats and send them forth before it’s too late. It’s time to start blowing some boats out of the water and it’s time to start representing your people to Ottawa rather than representing Ottawa to your people.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Hearn please do not come back with any answer other than that you are taking control with Custodial Management of the fish stock in the waters of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and all other waters there in the area that belong to this country.

I see Mr. Hearn is doing the same job for Ottawa as all of the other Federal Fisheries Ministers before did. Ottawa demands of each of its Federal Minister to do what they are told to do by the Buercrats of the Federal Fisheries Department and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. That is each fishery minister must toe the party line on how that fish resource is to be dealt out for international trade for Central Canada so as not to upset the apple cart for trade deals that are already in place and for the foreign affairs clout that Ottawa receives from having that wonderful resource in its goody bag.

You are in the right position now Mr. Hearn to put all of that to an end. We here in Newfoundland and Labrador demand that you do so. Thank You very much

no longer proud said...

Loyola's got the big bucks coming to him now that he's Min. of Fisheries and is willing to cater to every federal whim regarding our resource. Ottawa views NL'ians as nothing more than squatters in a gold mine, and once the gold is gone, they won't think twice about flooding the shaft with us in it.

Until NL'ians are actually willing to bleed for their homeland, nothing will ever change. We have to stop asking government "What are you going to do us?" and instead tell them "THIS (insert necessary measures here) is what you're GOING to do for us, OR ELSE!", even if 'or else' means putting some buckshot in the backsides of a few ministers and bereaucrats. "On your feet or on your knees", the choice is yours NL..

Anonymous said...

I second that, Patriot!

Here's an interesting article that appeared in this weekend Packet (link below) written byb Averill Baker. It shines some light on this whole NAFO joke:

Believe it or not
by Averill Baker
The Packet (http://www.thepacket.ca)

Before our Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa makes any decision on fisheries management in Canada, he consults with the President of NAFO.

Every letter, awaiting signature by the federal Minister of Fisheries, concerning the management of our Canadian fishery is read and approved by the Chairman of the General Council of NAFO before the Minister signs it. And, if the Chairman of the General Council of NAFO does not approve of the contents of the Minister’s letter, it is not sent – it is shredded.

In fact today the President of NAFO gives his approval on every speech prepared for the federal Minister of Fisheries dealing with the management of our fishery in Canada and if the President of NAFO doesn’t like the speech, it is shredded.

The President of NAFO, and the Chairman of the General Council of NAFO, represents an international organization that has over 200 huge foreign owned draggers – foreign factory-freezer trawlers - that NAFO has licensed this year and next year to fish on the Newfoundland continental shelf.

At any moment in time during the year, from 50 to 100 of the over 200 licensed huge foreign dragger-factory-ships are dragging the Newfoundland shelf. The proof of these large numbers is in a tender call made by NAFO in July of this year, which closes the end of August, for the monitoring of these ships for the next five years while they fish on the Newfoundland shelf.

The Newfoundland continental shelf extends out to about 350 nautical miles in one place called the Flemish Cap. There are two sections of the Newfoundland shelf that extend out beyond 200 miles, and those two sections are called “the Nose” and “the Tail” of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

Our fish swim on the continental shelf and do not regard lines drawn on a map.

For example, our cod swim on our continental shelf crossing what is called the 200-mile exclusive economic Canadian zone line. According to all scientific reports there are about eight major fish stocks that cross that 200-mile line all of the time.

Canada decided many years ago to allow a multitude of foreign nations represented by NAFO to manage all of those fish stocks on the Newfoundland shelf that swim over the line. The list includes Cod, redfish, American plaice, yellowtail, witch, white hake, capelin, turbot, skates, squid and shrimp.

The stated purpose of NAFO is “the optimum utilization” of the fishery on the Newfoundland shelf for fishermen from Denmark, Iceland, Greenland, Europe, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and the USA.

NAFO headquarters is in Nova Scotia and they are supported in Canada by all the provincial governments, the federal government, the fishing industry and the fishing unions. Each year Canadian representatives from all of those groups travel the world to attend meetings to determine how much Newfoundland fish to give away to which foreign nation.

So, with that kind of support, it is not surprising that the President of NAFO and the Chairman of the General Council of NAFO should have such sway over the Minister of Fisheries office in Ottawa.

Wherever the Minister goes these days he seems to have his buddy, the President of NAFO, with him.

Its no wonder the Minister claims incorrectly that foreign nations have a legal right to drag our continental shelf. With the advent of the Law of the Sea and Canada’s ratification of that law just two years ago, the law as it relates to dragging the Newfoundland continental shelf has changed dramatically.

Each one of the 200 huge foreign factory freezer trawlers licensed to fish the Newfoundland shelf drag the bottom of the ocean. That is the only way they can catch the fish. Under international law today the soil and subsoil of the continental shelf of every coastal state out to 350 miles cannot be disturbed without permission of the coastal state.

Of course the Minister takes his advice from the President of NAFO and the Chairman of the General Council of NAFO.

Believe it or not, both positions are held by one person who also just happens to be the top dog for Fisheries Management in Canada – in fact he has authority to make decisions on behalf of the Minister – he is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries Management at DFO in Ottawa.

Averill Baker is a lawyer, based in St. John’s. Her column returns in two weeks.

http://www.thepacket.ca/index.cfm?iid=1753&sid=13250

Crazy American said...

Steve here,


Been awhile since I've posted, and although I still track things and see much that is worthwhile, it's clear that there is a feeling of powerlessness by many regarding the fishing industry problems. Has anyone suggested the following as a means of regaining control of the fisheries. There's a lot of assumptions which I don't have the ability to check out but it would at least be entertaining to see what would happen. Further, I'm not really sure what the local economic impact would be of the following proposal and the impact could be significant. However, I'm comfortable that it would likely cause the news, the courts, NAFO and the federal fisheries to spin in their chairs at least for a little while and perhaps it may make it unprofitable for foreign fleets who I would think require larger volume in order to be profitable.


If I understand the provincial relationship with the federal government, the province has primary control in several areas including non renewable resources and historic sites.

Whether it is currently an historical site, the grand banks within the 200 mile limit are most certainly generally recognized as an historic area. It provided the resource engine that drove settlement of a lot of the northeast provinces and states for more than 2 centuries

My suggestion is relatively simple:

1. Declare the grand banks within the 200 mile limit a historical site. This seems within the legal purview of the province.

2. Declare that bottom dredging is an act which will cause damage to said historical site.

3. Seize any tool engaged in the damage to the historical site, that is boats and haulers

Here's a link to what appears to be the relevant stature. Note that the statute indicates certain other excluded statutes but the list does not include any marine limitations or exclusions that I can see.

http://www.hoa.gov.nl.ca/hoa/sr/

Heck even if it doesn't work, it would at least put both the environmentalists and Newfoundland on the same side of the fence until next spring.

WJM said...

That is each fishery minister must toe the party line on how that fish resource is to be dealt out for international trade for Central Canada so as not to upset the apple cart for trade deals that are already in place and for the foreign affairs clout that Ottawa receives from having that wonderful resource in its goody bag.

Which trade deals are in place with which countries already?

WJM said...

Declare the grand banks within the 200 mile limit a historical site. This seems within the legal purview of the province.

No, isn't. Provinces don't go out that far.

Gordon said...

"Which trade deals are in place with which countries already?"

John Crosbie mentioned the importance of the fishery in Canadian external trade in a CBC television interview in 1992. It appears the EU looms largest in this area. In the Canadian government document, "Forging Stronger Transatlantic Links",(http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/FORE-E/REP-E/rep04nov99part3-e.htm), why would there be a section called, "Canada-EU Fisheries Relations"? It mentions that Spain, "accounts for a full one-half of EU fisheries activity" and that, "...the Spanish government wants assurances from Canada that no action will ever be taken against Spanish fishing vessels." The Canadian reports then states, "...both parties are in the process of taking steps to build up a more positive and constructive overall fishing industry relationship. Since 1997, high-level bilateral fisheries consultations have been held on an annual basis." Again, why is this information in a trade document? Obviously, EU fishing boats catching fish off the east coast of Canada is part of Canada-EU trade.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if DFO put even half as much energy into stopping overfishing as it does in persecuting Newfoundlanders.

Twice DFO has taken an NL man to court for illegally selling blue back seal pelts about ten years ago. Twice now they've lost their case and he was found NOT guilty. Still they are planning another appeal and are trying to convince the man to plead guilty by promising him he won't have to go to jail. Why should he plead guilty, he was already found innocent twice?

Apparently this is a priority for DFO yet they only spend 30 million a year on policing for overfishing. Believe me 30 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to ships, enforcement officers, fuel and whatever.

Mark said...

The feds are a joke and are committing crimes against NL by destroying our culture, resources and people. It's time for an uprising and its time to set NL free!!!!

mt.pearligan said...

Mark, or anyone else have any suggestions in terms of how to organise an uprising? In all seriousness, I live on the mainland and am moving back next year so I'm not necessarily current with all goings-on back home. I tried to make some enquiries into NL First - seems they collapsed somewhere along the line. From what I can tell there isn't so much as a society, committee, advocacy group and certainly not a political party dedicated to defending and promoting NL's interests. Labrador has the Labrador Party and they've actually fielded candidates in all Labrador ridings in the last election AND they continue to exist. I'm concerned about the degradation of Newfoundland culture, its communities and its resources but I'm exasperated at the lack of co-ordinated action to change the situation. Perhaps I'm not there on the ground to keep up - is there any movement or organizing going on for NL's benefit?

Anonymous said...

I don't know of anything personally but I know we definatley need some organizatin and a good strong person to lead the charge. The question is how and who?

mt.pearligan said...

I think a forum such as this blog or perpaps another would be an ideal place to begin hammering out some sort of agenda and policy. I think membership to the space would also be a prerequisite for people to join in and build a basic platform. Membership would have to be a definite. At least at that point we could claim to be an identifiable group and and project ourselves as such in order to build momentum and organise into a party.

Patriot said...

to Mt.pearligan:

I've been down the road before trying to organize folks and believe me it isn't easy. Having said that, I like your enthusiasm and I'm willing to help.

I prefer to leave this forum open to the general public as a sounding board but what I will do is setup another site with a link from this one (for members only) hopefully that way we can keep this site open to all while using it's current popularity to make people aware of the members site.

Patriot said...

Done. (See link on right side of main page)

Anonymous said...

Canadian Fisheries Minister Insults World War II Veterans
With Insensitive Plea to Europeans to Support Seal Slaughter

"This is an insult to the majority of Canadians who are opposed to the cruel and ecologically destructive slaughter of seals." said Captain Paul Watson. "My father was a veteran of the Blackwatch. He fought in Korea. I am named after my Uncle Paul Watson who died escorting convoys in the North Atlantic during WWII. My father's father fought in World War I. My mother's father fought in the Boer war and all of them were opposed to the killing of seals."

Farley Mowat, the international chair of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society fought in Italy all the way up to the Netherlands and into Germany. He is a passionate opponent of the seal slaughter.

"Mr. Hearn is not a veteran of World War II and has no right to be putting words into the mouths of the dead. That is grossly disrespectful. The man should be ashamed of himself for dishonouring Canada and Canadians with such ignorant insensitivity.

"He is using the sacrifice of courageous Canadians who died defending freedom as a means to justify the mass slaughter of harp seals." Said Captain Watson. "Has this man no decency?"

The seal population is less than 10% of what it was when Europeans first landed on the shores of Eastern Canada. The Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans wiped out the Northern Cod through incompetence and they have mismanaged every commercial fishery in Canada.

"The fish need to be protected from the Fishery bureaucrats, not from the seals." said Captain Paul Watson

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is confident that Europeans will not be swayed by the cheap shots taken at the expense of Canadian veterans by this opportunistic right wing Newfoundland politician.

Mr. Hearn's reference to 20 year old films is a gross lie. The footage being distributed as evidence of the cruelty of the slaughter was taken as recently as this year.



Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977-
Co-Founder - The Greenpeace Foundation (1972)
Co-Founder - Greenpeace International (1979)
Director of the Sierra Club USA (2003-2006)
Director - The Farley Mowat Institute
Director - www.harpseals.org


"Sail forth - steer for the deep waters only,
Reckless O soul, exploring, I with thee and thou with me,
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all."
- Walt Whitman

mt.pearligan said...

What was that last post - "Captain" Paul Watson quoting himself in the third person and dressing the whole thing up as a news release? Is there a story or link attached to this nonsense?

Anonymous said...

1) the primary cause of decline in Atlantic Fish Stocks is imcompetent management by the (predominantly Atlantic run) DFO and the insatiable greed of AC fishermen which combined led to unsustainable quotas.

2) Quit bitching about the Grand Banks. Our EEZ is 200 miles, juts like everybody else. Boats infringe, we have the legal right to detain them and sink them if they resist. Outside that 200 mile zone it's not our jurisdiction, so get quit pretending you all are entitled to treat it like your own ATM.

3) for the love of God, be men, stop crying and take some responsibility. You are in this mess not because of us in Ottawa and not because of foreign trawlers, but simply because you are an ignorant, savage people of unquenchable greed who lack the simple intelligence to cast your future thoughts past dinner time and its a shame we ever allowed you to join with us.

So do us a favor and Grow up or Get Out Of Our Country.,

gordon said...

"the primary cause of decline in Atlantic Fish Stocks is imcompetent management by the (predominantly Atlantic run) DFO and the insatiable greed of AC fishermen which combined led to unsustainable quotas."

Facts? Figures?


"...we have the legal right to detain them and sink them if they resist."

And it's a pity Canada doesn't practise its right more often.


"...so get quit pretending you all are entitled to treat it like your own ATM."

We don't.


"...you are an ignorant, savage people of unquenchable greed who lack the simple intelligence to cast your future thoughts past dinner time..."

Your mirror must have fallen in front of your monitor when you were writing this flamboyant bit of diarrhea.


"its a shame we ever allowed you to join with us."

It's a shame we ever joined.


" Grow up "

We have.


"Get Out Of Our Country"

Don't mind if we do.

Anonymous said...

Not Paul Watson, someone working hard in the states to end your barbaric, pathetic seal "hunt."

WJM said...

John Crosbie mentioned the importance of the fishery in Canadian external trade in a CBC television interview in 1992.

That still does not tell me what was traded when and with whom in exchange for fish.

It is an article of faith in Newfoundland that this happened, but no one seems to be able to come up with any hard evidence.

It appears the EU looms largest in this area.

What fish did the EU get in exchange for what?

The only deal I can think of right off hand was the one where John Crosbie himself gave the French cod off Labrador in the 1980s in order to shut them up about their territorial claims off Saint-Pierre and Miquelon until the matter was settled by arbitration.

A fish deal, yes. Trade deal? Not really.

It mentions that Spain, "accounts for a full one-half of EU fisheries activity" and that, "...the Spanish government wants assurances from Canada that no action will ever be taken against Spanish fishing vessels." The Canadian reports then states, "...both parties are in the process of taking steps to build up a more positive and constructive overall fishing industry relationship. Since 1997, high-level bilateral fisheries consultations have been held on an annual basis." Again, why is this information in a trade document?

How does this information show that Canada traded fish for Hyundai plants in Ontario or access to the European grapple-gromit market or whatever else is supposed to have occured?

Obviously, EU fishing boats catching fish off the east coast of Canada is part of Canada-EU trade.

But it is NOT obvious, by any stretch, that such fishing activity was done in exchange for considerations not related to the fishery, as the Newfoundland Nationalist Religion would have it.

mt.pearligan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mt.pearligan said...

Not Paul Watson, someone working hard in the states to end your barbaric, pathetic seal "hunt."

Are you kidding? Writing from the STATES - listen to me you HYPOCRITE, you can end barbaric practises by ending the death penalty in your insane country and stop making war on people around the world. Or you might shut down every last US slaughterhouse before you come knocking on our door.

Gordon said...

"What fish did the EU get in exchange for what?

The only deal I can think of right off hand was the one where John Crosbie himself gave the French cod off Labrador in the 1980s in order to shut them up about their territorial claims off Saint-Pierre and Miquelon until the matter was settled by arbitration.

A fish deal, yes. Trade deal? Not really."

As John Cleese would say in those old Monty Python shows, "And now for something completely different." The above example is irrelevant. However, it was a valiant attempt on your part to think of an example "off hand" that would fit your conclusion.




"How does this information show that Canada traded fish for Hyundai plants in Ontario or access to the European grapple-gromit market or whatever else is supposed to have occured?"

I didn't argue that fishing in Canadian waters was done in exchange for car plants. The document clearly states that EU fishing is part of Canadian trade. If you haven't got a problem with that then fine, be as you were. However, there are many people who do have a problem with that.


"But it is NOT obvious, by any stretch, that such fishing activity was done in exchange for considerations not related to the fishery, as the Newfoundland Nationalist Religion would have it."

The only way your conclusion makes sense would be if the above Crosbie deal was the only example of EU fishing fleets fishing in Canadian waters. Anyone who has read the foreign trade document I referred to would see that EU fishing are part of Canada-EU trade. Once again, if you haven't got a problem with that, then fine. However, there are others who are not happy about it, regardless of whether they are part of the "Newfoundland Nationalist Religion".

Anonymous said...

Always changing the subject. Fur, not food. But that is too hard for you Newfies to grasp. Remember the scene in "Dances With Wolves" with the buffulo carcasses left all over the prairie by the "white man?"

As for Hearn, he is representing you to Ottawa. His remarks to Belgium were a gift. If I were Harper, I would stop letting him talk to the press. How many EU members are lining up for their tour of the seal "hunt" since Hearn's invitation?

See you at the finish line.

BNB said...

There is something about the water in Ottawa I'm convinced of that. The most well intentioned N&Lian spend time in Ottawa and completely lose their senses. Loyola is just the latest to drink out of the fountain of confusion.

The only reasoning I can think of is that Ottawa is run by small minded bureacrats. You can have as many transients as you want renting a spot in the nation's capital. All of the Ottawallys, MPs, or Bill Rowes that you can send there. They're all willing to share their experience's of Ottawa. In the end though the same pencil pushers, lobbyists, accountants, Policy makers that were there since Trudeau are really the only ones that matter.

In the end Loyola follows the advice of the same people in DFO that have had their arse prints in the chairs for twenty years. Loyola doesn't matter one pince of weasel s$#t.

MrChills said...

This article in Sunday's Indepedent pretty much sums it up --> http://www.theindependent.ca/article.asp?AID=1208&ATID=5

BNB said...

Good Read mrchills thanks. That says it all...

mt.pearligan said...

Time for a revolution boys and girls- what's been tried hasn't worked and it's time for things to change drastically. I'm completely revolted by what I've just read there and I can't imagine how anyone out there would be able to defend a system (in this case country: Canada) that's been allowing this to happen for decades.

Myles, any progress on our members-only site?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Chills: After following your advice and reading Ryan Cleary's article which I have posted below, I have no other option but to believe Ottawa/Canada aids and abets the foreign rape of Newfoundland and Labrador's fishing waters. Sure THEY ARE doing ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. How can I believe otherwise?

RYAN CLEARY'S ARTICLE AS IT APPEARED IN THE INDEPENDENT IS BELOW.

A fishing story
Print this Article


By Ryan Cleary (St. John's)
The Independent
Sunday, September 03, 2006

Attention Newfoundlanders out for a fight — this column’s for you.

You may have read a news piece this week about a Portuguese trawler cited for illegal fishing. The Independent had the story nailed down but it broke in another media before we could get it to print. Normally the story would have been dropped altogether at that point, but the article’s author missed a critical point.

Wait for it …

The Joana Princesa was caught with its pants down on Aug. 25 in the act of raping the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

Rape is a harsh, harsh word that’s only used these days in American courts, but it’s a lot stronger than Canada’s word for the crime, sexual assault, and a much more fitting description for what foreigners do every day — decade in, decade out — to our precious fishing grounds.

Two Canadian inspectors aboard a zodiac snuck up on the trawler just as it was pulling in its net. The inspectors asked to be allowed on board, but the foreign crew ignored them. (No. 1 slap in the face for the fighting Newfoundlanders keeping count.)

One of the two determined inspectors then maneuvered the zodiac alongside the Princesa (not exactly a name befitting a rapist), while the second officer dared a high seas boarding. The Portuguese wouldn’t lower a boarding ladder. (No. 2 slap in the face — the Canadian inspector could have been killed.)

Both inspectors eventually got on board to find the Portuguese had been fishing with a liner inside their net. The foreign crew tried to get rid of the evidence, but they weren’t quick enough for our high seas lawmen.

A liner was once described to me as an onion bag — water and stunted plankton are about all that can get through. Whatever fish the foreign crew was chasing that day didn’t stand a chance.

The Canadian inspectors then waited on board the foreign trawler for a day and a half until an European Union patrol vessel could steam to their coordinates and verify the citation. In fact, the EU officers found the illegal liner was even smaller than the Canadians had reported — fish the size of pens and pencils were about all that could swim through its mesh (oh, for the days of palm-sized catches).

In the end, the citation stuck. The Canadian inspectors were picked up by their mother ship and the EU patrol boat went on its way.

Before I get to what happened to the Portuguese rapist/trawler, I should mention a little about the vessel’s history. The Princesa (there’s that sweet name again) was cited in December 2004 for illegally catching more than five tonnes of American plaice, a species under moratoria.

In that particular incident, Canadian inspectors boarded the Joana Princesa and discovered the unprocessed plaice on the ship’s deck. The inspectors found even more fish when the net was pulled in (like you would).

In 2003, the same vessel was issued three citations, including one for exceeding the five per cent bycatch limit for American plaice. It was also charged in 2001 for using small-mesh gear.

In other words, the Portuguese trawler is a serial rapist.

So what became of the Princesa once the citation was issued and the authorities went on their way?

Wait for it …

Contacted in Brussels, Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn patted the Canadian government on the back for doing such a good job, which they are, of keeping check on the foreign fleets. “We have a constant presence and have done a very good job in monitoring,” Hearn was quoted as saying.

He’s a firm believer NAFO can be reformed. Forget the fact that Newfoundland politicians have been trying to do that for a generation, starting with Smallwood in ’71.

Hearn’s a believer. He’s trying to put teeth into an organization that’s been toothless since the day it was born. He will fail like the ministers before him.

Countries such as Norway have begun taking a heavier hand against Spanish and Portuguese vessels, known there as “trawler pirates.” Dozens of fishing vessels have been arrested, but even that doesn’t seem to be working.

In July, the captain and owner of a Spanish trawler arrested for illegal fishing in Norwegian waters announced they had no intention of paying fines levied against them by local police — who don’t seem to be able to do much about it.

What’s clear is that countries adjacent to fish resources must have the power to enforce quotas and arrest ships. Diplomacy is a joke — Loyola is a fool if he believes otherwise.

So what happened to the Joana Princesa once the authorities went on their way? What was the repeat rapist allowed to do as soon as it was released on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland after being caught red-handed?

The answer is a perfect example of why custodial management is our only prayers and the Conservative government must be forced to live up to its commitments, come hell or high water.

The Princesa resumed fishing.



ryan.cleary@theindependent.ca

Anonymous said...

http://www.rantandroar.ca/

The address above is an excellent site on the fishery.

MrChills said...

Another article regarding our "friends" from NAFO --> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2006/09/06/wwf-nafo.html

Anonymous said...

Canadian Fisheries Minister Declares War on Seal Defenders





If you are concerned about protecting baby harp seals, opposed to the savage brutality of the annual Canadian seal slaughter and concerned about the irreparable damage that the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done to the oceanic eco-systems off the Eastern coast of Canada then the Canadian Minister of Fisheries has declared that you are an enemy of Canada.



Canadian Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn said today that he is promising a war with animal rights and conservation organizations over the slaughter. Hearn said that he is prepared to “wage a war” to protect the Atlantic seal hunt.



These words go down well with Newfoundlanders, the people who elected Hearn but to the rest of Canada, they are the words of an extremist who is prepared to violate the rights of the citizens of Canada to defend the savage annual slaughter of seal pups.



“Hearn is declaring war on all Canadian citizens who are opposed to the killing. He is declaring war against the European Parliament and against international organizations opposed to the killing of seals.” Said Captain Paul Watson. “This seems like bizarre language for a Conservative Canadian cabinet minister.”



Hearn is incensed that the European Parliament has adopted a proposal calling for a ban on seal pelts into Europe. The proposal was signed by 386 European lawmakers.



Hearn insists that European politicians have been misinformed by animal rights activists, yet some of these members of the European Parliament have seen the slaughter with their own eyes.



“The Minister is demonstrating a gross disrespect for European leaders by accusing them of acting without the facts and without verification of the facts.” Said Captain Watson. “The facts are clear, only the Canadian government is in denial of the facts.”



The fact is that the annual seal hunt is inhumane. It is a threat not only to the survival of the harp seal species but also to the survival of the eco-system that the seals are an important part of. It is a fact that harp seals are a benefit to cod and not the cause of their diminishment. The cause of the collapse of the cod fishery was gross incompetence and mismanagement of the fishery by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fact is that the majority of Canadian oppose the slaughter of seals and the fact is that the rest of the world abhors the slaughter of seals in Canada, Norway, Russia and Namibia.


According to the Canadian media Hearn said, "What happens when they stop the seal hunt? What's next? Is it the slaughter of lambs?" said Hearn, who represents a St. John's, Newfoundland riding.

"They're already after chicken. Lobster is becoming a target. So where does it stop? As far as we're concerned, it stops right here, and if they want a war over this, they bloody well got one."



Captain Paul Watson who wrote the book Seal Wars! about the Canadian slaughter of seals said, “We’ve been at war with the government of Canada on this issue since the 60’s. It’s nice that Loyola Hearn has finally noticed.”



Captain Watson is confident that conservationists will win this war eventually. “We have demonstrated that we are persistent, that we are not going away and that we will never surrender to this perversity. We will shut down this bloody obscenity and we will win. The Canadian slaughter of seals has no place in the 21st Century. It’s time for Canada to join the modern world and to put the bloody clubs away forever.”



The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society greets the declaration from Loyola Hearn very enthusiastically.



First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.



Finally the Ministry of Fisheries has recognized the seriousness of the international protest and now recognizes that the protests are having an economic impact, especially on the sales of Canadian seafood products. He's not ignoring us anymore. Now he wants to fight.



Hearn also implied that concerns about the inhumane slaughter are communist. "In many of the European countries, as you know, the governments are much more left wing than our own, and it's not very hard to find sympathizers to such causes," Hearn said.



In fact it is not hard to find sympathizers against the slaughter from most of the civilized world. Opposition to the seal hunt comes from all over the world from across the political spectrum.



Last week Hearn stated that European support for a ban on seal pelts was disrespectful to the Canadian soldiers who died liberating Europe.



Sea Shepherd International Chair Farley Mowat responded to this by saying, “Speaking as a veteran who participated in the liberation of Holland, Belgium and Europe I can state categorically that the best way for Europeans to show their appreciation for the role of Canadians in the liberation of Europe is to ban the sale of seal pelts in Europe.”



“Hearn is not very media savvy and tends to shoot from the lip” said Captain Watson. “This guy is the best mouthpiece for the sealers we have had since John Efford.”



The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has actively opposed the slaughter of seals since 1979. Prior to that Captain Paul Watson led two Greenpeace campaigns against the seal hunt in 1976 and 1977.



Seal products have been banned in the United States since 1972.

The European declaration, if approved, would not apply to the aboriginal hunt of seals.




Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977-
Co-Founder - The Greenpeace Foundation (1972)
Co-Founder - Greenpeace International (1979)
Director of the Sierra Club USA (2003-2006)
Director - The Farley Mowat Institute
Director - www.harpseals.org

Anonymous said...

"The seal hunt is a brutal and cruel practice"

Only the Newfoundlanders who benefit from the slaughter are unable to understand this.

WJM said...

The document clearly states that EU fishing is part of Canadian trade.

Neither this document, nor any other I've seen, shows where fish off the east coast of Canada was traded to some other country for some other consideration.

That's what I want to see, because all the Newfoundland separatists keep bandying about the "fact" of these trade deals. The example that's usually given is fish-to-Korea-for-a-Hyundai-plant.

I'd like to see proof that this deal, or any other similar deal, was ever made.

An arrangement whereby some country fished in or near Canadian waters, without any identified quid pro quo, is NOT a trade deal.

The only way your conclusion makes sense would be if the above Crosbie deal was the only example of EU fishing fleets fishing in Canadian waters. Anyone who has read the foreign trade document I referred to would see that EU fishing are part of Canada-EU trade.

WHAT WAS TRADED?

WHAT WAS THE OTHER HALF OF THE BARGAIN?

WHAT DID WE GET FROM SPAIN OR THE EU?

BE SPECIFIC.

SOMEONE, PLEASE, BE SPECIFIC.

Anonymous The Second said...

WJM - Ottawa is too smart and corrupt for leaving the proof. Gee WJM don't you know that Ottawa practices the rule of Non-transparency. Transparency International already has made that fact public. So stop asking for the proof and just open your eyes, then you will see the number of countries fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador fishing waters. Canada would never allow such a thing to happen if it weren't trade and international clout out of it. The number of countries grew from four to more than twenty.

NL-ExPatriate said...

during the Estai affair some Spanish officials threatened dire consequences for a pending sale by Bombardier


Page 68
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/documents/advisory_e.htm

In listing options to solve this straddling stock management problem, Sullivan re-introduced the term "functional management". He selected this option after rejecting multi-lateral co-operation through NAFO, bilateral co-operation with the EEC and appeal to the dispute settlement provisions of UNCLOS III as possible sources of a solution. He judged the NAFO route to be ineffective because the objection procedure allowed the EEC to legitimately do what it was doing in 3L outside 200 miles. There was no bilateral agreement at that time with the EEC; the multi-year agreement on quota allocations and corresponding tariff reductions under the Canada/EEC Long Term Agreement had not been renewed in 1988. The demands of the EEC for quota allocations could not be met at a time of declining resources, and the tariff concessions promised under the previous arrangements had not been fulfilled (Gough 2005). The provisions of UNCLOS III in respect of binding dispute arrangements were not in effect at that time, as the required number of countries had not yet ratified it.

http://nl-outsidethebox.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_nl-outsidethebox_archive.html#115364098284301392

Gordon said...

WJM, I've already cited a Canadian government document that explicitly mentions (EU) fishing in Canadian waters as a part of Canada-EU trade. How much more specific do you want me to be?

Does Canada, indeed, any sophisticated capitalist country engage in simplistic barter arrangements, i.e., you get product X and I'll get product Y? To demonstrate this, walk down the street and visit a few shops. Did the EU get maple syrup in exchange for those lovely vacuum cleaners from Sweden? How about Shreddies in exchange for electric razors? Or perhaps the EU got subway trains in exchange for champagne. And what if the grape growers in Champagne had a bad year? Would Canada then say, "Sorry, but we need that champagne, so you cannot get those subway trains." Trade like that might work for North Korea, such as it is, but not Canada or the EU.

My point is that the fish stocks are not strong enough to be used for international trade and it is a great pity that fishing remains part of Canada-EU commerce. Having said that, I can't help but wonder if it is even relevant to ask what specific product Canada is getting in exchange for EU fishing boats fishing in Canadian waters. If there is one, then could it really be better than putting thousands of fishermen out of work, and then paying them to do nothing? That's some trade!!!

mt.pearligan said...

Well put Gordon.

WJM said...

Page 68
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/documents/advisory_e.htm


From the same source:

Allocations for Trade Deals There is a widespread misbelief that Canada has repeatedly given foreign fishing countries allocations of Canadian quotas (or condoned overfishing) in return for trade deals for industries in other parts of the country. This is one of the most often repeated, unsubstantiated and untrue convictions regarding the government’s approach to the presence of foreign fleets. Two of the most repeated examples have been allocations to South Korea for a Hyundai car plant in Quebec and to Russia for purchase of Western wheat. A more recent one was the claim of allocations being given to Spain (in the 1980s) for landing rights in that country for CP Air. The review of foreign allocation policy and bilateral fisheries agreements conducted for the Panel concluded that no such deals were ever considered, let alone concluded. (Gough, 2005).

Nonetheless, this idea is now so embedded in the collective consciousness of Newfoundland and Labrador that it has entered the category of "urban legend". The absence of evidence for its veracity will not deter those who believe; but it is such a serious "black eye" for the Government of Canada that we feel every opportunity should be taken to set the record straight whenever such allegations are made.

The closest that government policy ever came to using quota allocations to acquire commercial concessions was during the "markets access for allocations" period when bilateral fisheries agreements with a number of countries included commitments to purchase Canadian fish products in exchange for quota allocations. The commitments to purchase Canadian fish products under these arrangements were so unsuccessful overall that the policy lasted for only a very short period. In any event, they involved "fish purchases for fish allocations". Furthermore, Canada has never had a quota allocation agreement with South Korea nor have any allocations to Russia been tied to wheat purchases. The overall level of bilateral relations with Spain was so poor in the 1980s (even before its accession to the EEC) that a satisfactory fisheries relationship never developed. Indeed, during the Estai affair some Spanish officials threatened dire consequences for a pending sale by Bombardier but the deal proceeded anyway (Gough, 2005). Also, officials of the federal fisheries department, operating under the authority of the fisheries minister, negotiated all these various fisheries bilateral agreements; not foreign affairs or trade officials. All allocations of Atlantic Coast quotas to foreign nations ended in 1998 when no surpluses of any species could be identified in the Canadian zone (Gough, 2005).

WJM said...

WJM, I've already cited a Canadian government document that explicitly mentions (EU) fishing in Canadian waters as a part of Canada-EU trade.

No, in the context of Canada-EU trade.

How much more specific do you want me to be?

I want you to tell all of us: WHEN did Canada trade WHICH fisheries quotas or allocations to WHICH countries in exchange for WHICH non-fisheries trade concessions?

WHERE ARE ALL THESE FISH-FOR-TRADE DEALS?

WHY CAN'T ANYONE FIND THEM?

WJM said...

Did the EU get maple syrup in exchange for those lovely vacuum cleaners from Sweden?

I don't know. Yet Newfoundlanders keep playing with such examples, even though they are unable to find any proof of such a deal ever having been made ith fish quotas? Do you have such proof? If so, please post it.

How about Shreddies in exchange for electric razors?

I don't know. Yet Newfoundlanders keep playing with such examples, even though they are unable to find any proof of such a deal ever having been made ith fish quotas? Do you have such proof? If so, please post it.

Or perhaps the EU got subway trains in exchange for champagne.

I don't know. Yet Newfoundlanders keep playing with such examples, even though they are unable to find any proof of such a deal ever having been made ith fish quotas? Do you have such proof? If so, please post it.

My point is that the fish stocks are not strong enough to be used for international trade

WHEN HAVE THEY EVER BEEN SO USED?

Please, answer: WHEN were WHICH fish quotas trade with WHICH countries in exchange for WHICH trade considerations?

and it is a great pity that fishing remains part of Canada-EU commerce.

Why is it a pity? I think we should be able to sell MORE fish to the EU. Why turn our backs on the EU as a market? They have 300 million affluent people.

When, however, has Canada traded fish quotas for other trade considerations? Please be specific. Thank you.

Anonymous The Second said...

Why would Ottawa/Canada allow more than 20 foreign nations to fish Canada's offshore waters in an area where there once were only four nations. Given that Ottawa is pursuing the Softwood Lumber dispute with its # 1 trading partner, the U.S. with all of its guns firing. Canada has to be getting trade and foreign affairs clout of these ventures, or it would never be happening. Loyola Hearn, George Baker and other MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have told us so.

mt.pearligan said...

WJM -
Here's a question for you:

Why has Canada allowed the number of countries to increase to 20 from 4 at the time of Confederation?

You can do the speculation and research if you like and because you are so demanding on others for specific answers I expect you to be thorough in your response.

Anonymous said...

mt.pearligan

Thanks for your request to WJM. I trust and hope that the answer will be forth coming from WJM shortly.

gordon said...

My first posted message appears to have disappeared into cyberspace. Take two...


"No, in the context of Canada-EU trade."

So, it's part of trade. That's been my point all along. I am glad you agree with me on that score.



"WHERE ARE ALL THESE FISH-FOR-TRADE DEALS?

WHY CAN'T ANYONE FIND THEM?"


I've already answered that question. As I have written before, EU fishing is part of Canada-EU trade. It's mentioned in the document cited above. Now, WHAT is being traded for fishing quotas is irrelevant; I have never raised that point. It would, however, be appropriate to ask that question of a person who has made such a claim. It ain't me!


"I don't know. Yet Newfoundlanders keep playing with such examples, even though they are unable to find any proof of such a deal ever having been made ith fish quotas? Do you have such proof? If so, please post it." [3X]


I was being facetious when I wrote that. I was demonstrating that Product X for Product Y deals do not take place between countries with well developed economies. However, feel free to ask for a confirmation of barter arrangements between Canada and other countries from someone who has claimed specific products were being traded for fishing quotas. It ain't me!


"WHEN HAVE THEY EVER BEEN SO USED?

Please, answer: WHEN were WHICH fish quotas trade with WHICH countries in exchange for WHICH trade considerations?"

Fish is being used as trade. I refer you to the document cited above. As for WHAT specific products were traded for fishing quotas, I recommend you to ask someone who has claimed specific products are being traded for fishing.


"I think we should be able to sell MORE fish to the EU. Why turn our backs on the EU as a market? They have 300 million affluent people."

WJM!! And you call yourself, "bit of a greenie"? That's interesting. Well, consider the following statement, "Distant water nations fished 16 times the quotas of fish set for the Grand Banks from 1986-92 (http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/suscoasts/chapter3-bst.htm). And you want more fishing to take place? If anything, it appears that YOU are part of the problem.

WJM said...

Loyola Hearn, George Baker and other MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have told us so.

The same Loyola Hearn who didn't think the US was getting its fair share of yellowtail on the Grand Banks?

Or a different Loyola Hearn?

WJM said...

Why has Canada allowed the number of countries to increase to 20 from 4 at the time of Confederation?

Canada can neither "allow" nor "disallow" fishing outside its sovereign jurisdiction.

A better question might be: why was the Newfoundland fishing industry so unwilling to make the investment in a distance and process-at-sea fishery? Why was the Newfoundland industry totally uninterested in going as far afield, and in fishing species, when other nations were?

WJM said...

Fish is being used as trade. I refer you to the document cited above.

Where in that document does it say that fish was used as trade?

As for WHAT specific products were traded for fishing quotas, I recommend you to ask someone who has claimed specific products are being traded for fishing.

How can you "use fish for trade" without trading it FOR SOMETHING?

If you haven't traded it for something, YOU HAVEN'T USED IT IN TRADE.

So, if you are saying that fish wasn't traded for something, or that you don't know that it was, then you are saying that fish wasn't used in trade, or that you don't know it to have been used in trade.

On the other hand, if you are saying it was used in trade, you should be prepared to either inform us what it was traded for, or to find out what it was traded for.

Which is it?

gordon said...

"So, if you are saying that fish wasn't traded for something, or that you don't know that it was, then you are saying that fish wasn't used in trade, or that you don't know it to have been used in trade."

You yourself used the following phrases, "in the context of Canada-EU trade" in reference to fish and "I think we should be able to sell MORE fish to the EU". If you sell, then that is trade. It stands to reason. It addition (once again), it is mentioned as part of Canada-EU trade in the document I cited above. For some reason, you feel that if a certain product or thing is not specifically mentioned in exchange for fish, then it is not trade. Your argument is absurd.


"you should be prepared to either inform us what it was traded for, or to find out what it was traded for."

I'll say it again, fish is clearly stated as part of Canada-EU trade. I reported this fact to this blog. The premise, supporting details, citation and conclusion are tight enough as they are. I am not abliged to state or even find a specific product that was allegedly traded in exchange for fish because such I never made such a claim. All I did was report facts. I do not not know anyone who made a claim that fish was being traded for a specific product, do you? If so, then ask that person. Better yet, tell us who this person is. If you don't know, then just let it go. You've wasted enough time already.

Anonymous said...

It is very difficult for us to get our point out there on what really happened for Newfoundland and Labrador to have failed so badly. We know we didn't have anyone working on our behalf when it came to politicians, because they were all captured and programed to Ottawa's whims and desires. But, of course, there was something in it, no doubt, for those politicians who were so corrupt to do so.

Here, now we have on this and other blogs, a person who is supposedly working for Ottawa, trying to refute everything that is true, everything that really is going on to disrupt economies being ceeated in Newfoundland and Labrador, since all resources are reserved for the rest of the provinces of Canada, or the world.

Ottawa allows a person such as THE ONE ABOVE WHO USES 3 INITIALS to inflitrate the blogs and dismiss everything that is going on in trade, all of which is as plain as the nose on one's face. Oh my God, what A corrupt country, indeed, that we are living in.

I only wish we could get the message out tO all Canadians what really has happened in this province for us to be such a poor sister to them. Good Grief if it was really known, I mean, if the Canadian PEOPLE could find out about the corrupt politicians and their aides. But since non-transparency is the name of the game in Ottawa, it is very unlikely that it will ever be known. What we have to do is convene a delegation to send them across Canada and get the word out there. It will never get out from our politicians standing up in Parliament and telling the truth. Even if one politician who was honest enough and who wanted to, the time would not be alloted for him/her to do so.

mt.pearligan said...

Anonymous, please don't let WJM get to you. He's a contrary old sod who only comes on these blogs to annoy people and play devil's advocate. Those who are regular to the blog do their best to ignore him.

no longer proud said...

anonymous said:

"...if it was really known, I mean, if the Canadian PEOPLE could find out about the corrupt politicians and their aides..."


Hate to tell you, but the Canadian people don't care if the feds are robbing us blind for central Canuckistan's benefit. After all, we're "only f@#*ing Newfies..."

mt.pearligan said...

My original question: Why has Canada allowed the number of countries to increase to 20 from 4 at the time of Confederation?

WJM's response:

Canada can neither "allow" nor "disallow" fishing outside its sovereign jurisdiction.

WJM, I don't know what's wrong with you exactly. I think the reason you're so contrary and irate is that for some reason you don't always get the whole picture. For example, the above question of mine - did I mention anything about the waters "outside" of its jurisdiction? No, I'm speaking about Canada having allowed the number of countries permitted to fish WITHIN its territorial waters. Understand the fundamental difference?

WJM said:

A better question might be: why was the Newfoundland fishing industry so unwilling to make the investment in a distance and process-at-sea fishery? Why was the Newfoundland industry totally uninterested in going as far afield, and in fishing species, when other nations were?


WHY WAS THERe AN OBLIGATION OR NEED TO FISH THE DEEP SEA????????? There are trees in Labrador right now that aren't in the process of being cut down - DOES that give any other country a right to come and harvest them? It was our resource and it was given away.......

NOW!, ONCE AGAIN Genius, answer my question:

Why has Canada allowed the number of countries fishing its territorial waters to increase to 20 from 4 at the time of Confederation?