NL Fisheries – 500 Years of Turmoil

Turmoil in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery has been around since John Cabot dipped his basket over the side and pulled up that first startled cod fish. 500 years later little has changed.

This year once again processors complain that they can’t make a decent profit if they have to pay fishers a reasonable price for their catch. Fishers say they’re being robbed blind by processors and can’t afford to keep their boats in the water. Plant workers are caught in a vicious cycle of low wage, dead end, part time employment and countless small towns are dependent on worker salaries and EI subsidies to support economies offering little hope for the future.

Isn’t 500 years of turmoil long enough?

The Province has no authority to issue licenses or set fishing quotas. That authority rests with the federal government. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can lobby, yell, protest and scream but in the end quota decisions will be made in Ottawa.

Processing and labor regulations are a different story and since the Province controls these it makes them the most logical catalyst for change without ending up in a perpetual game of hot potato with Ottawa.

At the risk of being stoned to death the next time I walk down the street I’m going to suggest that it’s time for our provincial leaders use their powers to cut the B.S. and treat the fishery like an actual business instead of a social program.

Unlike many urban dwellers I’m well aware of how much larger towns in this Province benefit from the fishery. It isn’t just small fishing communities that depend on it. Car dealerships, big box stores and grocery stores alike all profit thanks to the industry. Any upheaval will affect the entire provincial economy.

I’m also aware that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would love to see the historical small town way of life we’re all so proud of thrive, but thriving is one thing, surviving on infinite life support is another.

The fishing industry, in fact the entire province, is in need of a large dose of reality. It won’t be easy for anyone to go through but it’s a necessity.

When you’ve worn a band-aid for a long time just the thought of pulling it off can almost as traumatic than actually doing it. Sometimes it’s best to simply pull it off quickly and put up with the blinding pain that follows. There’s no doubt it will hurt like hell but at least it will be over and the healing can begin.

We could start by getting a firm grip on one corner of that band-aid. This would require the provincial government telling the FFAW to pick a side and stick with it or they’ll no longer be recognized as an official union.

Where else could a single union represent both harvesters and plant workers? Talk about a conflict of interest. If the FFAW forces higher wages for plant workers it means processors have less revenue to pay harvesters. Forcing a higher price for harvesters leaves less for plant workers. The entire situation is insanity on a grand scale and the FFAW only serves to muddy some of the muddiest waters in the business world.

Plant workers and Harvesters need separate and effective representation, not a middle man sitting on both sides of the fence at the same time and collecting union dues from each.

With the bandage firmly in hand we need to pull quickly and forcefully until it breaks free.

Legislation currently requires fish landed in the province to be processed (at least partially) here. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s the only hope plant workers have of remaining in the industry at all. The measure also ensures that the province sees some benefit from the resources.

Over the years there have been exceptions to the local processing rule, such as in the case of OCI and yellow tail flounder. Those exceptions should stop and reasonable incentives for industry to undertake additional value added processing need to be brought forward.

While we’re at it, let’s update the legislation to be more reflective of the real world most of us live in.

We want fish to be landed and processed here, no problem. But if that’s the law then we need to be fair about it. Let’s ensure harvesters are free to sell their catch directly to anyone in the province they wish, whether to processors, middlemen, stores, restaurants or individuals. Let’s also ensure that processors are not obligated to process fish only in areas where it’s landed. It isn’t the government’s role to pick which towns should be winners or losers. As long as the fish is processed or sold inside the province that should be good enough.

These changes alone would do a lot to level the playing field.

With the bandage now removed government should get out of the way and let nature take its course.

Yes there’ll be a great deal of pain and suffering but anyone who believes a solution will ever come without pain is living in a dream world.

Allowing fishers to freely market to customers will give them more say in how much they get for their catch and force processors to pay a reasonable price if they want to remain in business. If that means some processors have to close smaller plants and consolidate into fewer, more efficient ones, then so be it. If it means some plants simply can’t afford to operate then they’ll have to shut down and move on.

The same holds true for harvesters.

If harvesters are permitted to sell at a profit, either to processors or the public, then they’ll have the final say in how much they are willing to accept. If, on the other hand, they price themselves out of the market and their fish is left to rot on the wharves then they’ll have to sell their boats and get out of the business as well.

No bail outs, no work programs, no provincial or federal subsidies for unprofitable plants or harvesters, just the same business reality everyone else lives with in the real world.

Plant workers will be the largest group of casualties but what else is new. It’s the same for employees in any industry undergoing change and, as with harvesters and processors, reality needs to be injected here as well.

As employees, plant workers have no control over what happens around them but neither do cashiers at Walmart, workers at paper mills or waiters in restaurants. Such is the life of a wage slave like yours truly.

Workers who qualify for EI will take advantage of it while they can and those who don’t will end up on social assistance or find work elsewhere, either in their own home town, somewhere else in the province or even outside it. That’s how the world works outside the fishery.

It’s a painful proposition but in the end fishers and processors will wind up on an equal footing. If either of them can sell their product for a profit then they will do it, if they can’t then they will go out of business. That’s free enterprise.

If a business isn’t viable then it shouldn’t be in business. Artificially propping it up in an effort to ensure low paid seasonal employment and EI benefits for remote communities isn’t a valid business model, it’s a recipe for disaster where nobody wins.

Even the towns involved suffer. The artificial industrial environment set up to keep them alive makes them dependent. It lessens the urgency to find new opportunities and novel approaches to diversification. In the end it might be far more humane to pull that band-aid off and let these towns either sink or swim. Leaving things the way they are is only causing communities to slowly bleed to death as the younger generations depart for greener pastures and older residents die out.

When the youth are gone who’ll work in the fish plants and who’ll catch the fish? Where will the industry be then?

If, as a result of introducing reality into the fishery, some towns are unable to survive then that’s what has to happen. Whether they try to attract new industry to their towns or compete with each other to attract the more efficient fish plants that remain, there will be winners and losers. At least they’ll have the opportunity to work toward their own future and those that survive will be far better places to live in the long run

Towns around the world have suffered similar fates in the past just as they will in future. When faced with the closure of key industries towns normally face two options. Either they diversify (find another industry to sustain them) or they disappear into the mists of history. That’s been the natural order of things since time began but in Newfoundland and Labrador we’ve denied this reality by introducing the cultural custom of long term life support.

As things stand processors are encouraged to keep barely viable plants open with limited profit margins. This leads to a dependence on seasonal workers supplemented by EI funding. Those workers have no hope of ever improving their lot in life and the generations coming behind them are faced with a bleak future.

Because of a limited ability to grow efficiencies in their businesses processors also push down the price they pay to fishers in an effort to improve profitability and viability. Those harvesters in don’t have a lot of options for where they can sell their fish leaving them at the mercy of the plants and faced with an ongoing battle for survival.

Under the status quo the processors, fishers and plant workers are never going to be happy with their lot in life thanks to the artificial environment that’s been created around them.

A more realistic fisheries model may bring with it uncertainty but it can also bring innovation.

Perhaps there will be fewer but bigger plants. It might mean fewer but larger fishing vessels or it could even lead to a return to more small boat community based fishing. Who knows, but whatever the outcome at least it will be a natural result born of reality rather than from the virtual reality that exists today.

Free enterprise can have unexpected outcomes and not all of them are bad, just ask the people involved in “Community Sustainable Fisheries” in Maine or Nova Scotia. Closer to home the the Fogo Island and Labrador Cooperatives prove that new models can make a difference.

Newfoundland and Labrador needs to come to terms with is a daunting future. Either we have the stomach to pull off that band-aid and suffer the pain or we can continue ignoring the problem while hoping the infection beneath it doesn’t get worse as we keep treating the symptoms.

I Had a Dream.....of Genie

Have you ever had that dream, you know, the one where you’re walking along a beach when without warning you stumble over a lamp,(or perhaps a Screech bottle) and a genie with a thick accent, wearing a Sou’Wester, suddenly appears through the fog offering you three “fishy” wishes?

No? Never had that dream? Fair enough. In truth I haven’t either, but wouldn’t it be great, especially if those 3 wishes actually came true!!!

Just in case something like that ever actually happens (I like to be prepared for any eventuality) I’ve spent some time thinking about what I’d wish for and I believe I know what my three “fishy” wishes would be.

First I wish our federal politicians would actually take steps to protect the fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap instead of just fishing for political points by talking about it.

Of course I wouldn’t want them to follow the same tired and useless direction they’ve taken in the past such as lobbying for unenforceable rules or penalties within NAFO or by plodding through tons of documents and legalese related to the dream of “Custodial Management”, the very definition of which seems to change depending on who speak with.

No, I’d ask for something far simpler and much easier to attain, in fact something that could be put in place in a very short time and with very little effort on Canada’s part.

You see while Canada’s legal right to unilaterally enact “Custodial Management” of fish stocks outside the 200 mile limit may be in question, the Country has every legal right under Article 76 of the United Nations Law of the Sea, to prevent foreign nations from disturbing the sediment and sea floor on the Continental shelf, which includes the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap.

No doubt the law was initially written to ensure mineral and oil resources couldn’t be pillaged by nefarious nations so you may well ask what invoking it might accomplish when it comes to protecting migrating fish stocks.

My response would be, “a great deal”.

You see the only way the 100 or more foreign vessels plying the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap at any given moment (with the approval of NAFO regulators) are able to turn a profit is through the use of bottom dragging gear that scoops up everything it encounters. Simple nets or lines just aren’t profitable any longer.

If you take away the ability to disturb the bottom sediment then you also take away the ability to bottom drag in the area. Take that away and you destroy their ability to profit from their adventures. It’s as simple as that.

No profit means no foreign fishing.

Other nations around the world have invoked the U.N Law of the Sea in a similar manner and with great success. Canada has not.

My second wish would provide Newfoundland and Labrador with some modicum of influence when it comes to fisheries management off our shores. Simply put, I’d wish for joint federal and provincial management of the fishery.

Some might say our politicians have been working on exactly that issue but it’s a difficult thing to accomplish. They might even tell you it would require opening up the constitution of Canada for amendment. Something very few political types even want to contemplate.

I’d question the accuracy of the information coming from those people if I were you and I’d also wonder just how hard those at the federal or provincial level have truly been working to resolve this issue.

In 1922, after years of refusal by Quebec to relinquish control of its coastal fisheries to Ottawa (even after multiple rulings against them) the federal Fisheries Minister invited Quebec representatives to a discussion on the issue. Following that meeting (that’s right, a “meeting”), full responsibility for management of coastal fisheries was transferred to the province of Quebec.

With the exception of the area around the Magdalen Islands, fisheries management was simply handed over to the province of Quebec. It wasn’t a case of joint management or of sharing responsibilities but of complete control.

Quebec continued to manage its own coastal fishery, unhindered by the federal government, until 1983 when the government of Quebec agreed to return control to Ottawa.

No constitutional changes were required, nor was there any need for decades of discussion, debate, reports, lobbying or pleading. It was simply done.

By comparison, over the past several decades the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been practically begging the federal government, not for complete control of the fisheries, but simply for a shared management approach.

1986 – A Provincial Royal Commission recommended Joint Fisheries Management

1989 – A panel established by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recommended Joint Fisheries Management

1998 – Another panel established by DFO also recommended Joint Fisheries Management

2003 – Yet another Provincial Royal Commission recommended Joint Fisheries Management

2003 – The Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling on Ottawa to implement Joint management of the fishery.

2003 – The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador released a white paper on Joint Fisheries Management

And in 2005, then leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, said he favoured joint management and the Conservative Party of Canada, in its Policy Directions document that year wrote:

“A Conservative government will adopt, with any interested coastal province or territory, a system of increased provincial management over fisheries through a system of joint management and joint fisheries councils modeled on the system proposed by unanimous resolution of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly and as detailed in the government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s white paper on the subject as released in
2003.”

The list goes on…

No constitutional changes were required to give Quebec control of their fishery, not constitutional changes were necessary to enact joint provincial / federal management of offshore oil resources and no constitutional changes are necessary to allow joint management of the fisheries off Newfoundland and Labrador shores. All that's requuired is the political will.

My third and final wish (it sucks to be limited to just three but Genies appear to be pretty strict when it comes to that rule) would be to provide certain protections and guarantees for small boat fishermen and coastal communities in the province.

By small boat fishermen I mean those who work reasonably close to shore and who still use traditional fishing methods. I’m not referring to larger corporate interests who share in the blame for the state of affairs we see today.

It’s these small boat fishermen who built this province and it’s they who did the least damage to fish stocks for the hundreds of years they practiced their way of life.

Unlike the unsustainable fishing practices of larger foreign and domestic enterprises, the small boat fishermen were not to blame for the collapse of the ground fish stocks yet they and the communities that depend on them have suffered disproportionately as a result.

Joint management of the fishery would put some control back into the hands of the provincial government which is far more answerable to the people than federal agencies and could even pave the way for the issuing individual quotas small boat fishermen.

All these fishermen need is some guarantee of fish to catch and legislation making it illegal for processors to refuse fish at the wharves, simply because a fisherman isn’t “beholden” to that fish plant, might go a long way toward ensuring the survival of the small boat fishery as well as many coastal communities.

So, with all that said, and with the likelihood of me actually stumbling across a “Fisheries Genie” being slim at best, the questions each of us need to ask ourselves and our political representatives, both federal and provincial, are:

Why hasn’t Canada taken the simplest of steps at the U.N. in order to protect Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore fish stocks; and

Why haven’t the Harper and Williams governments been able to enact joint fisheries management when a precedent, that doesn’t include a constitutional debate, already exists with Quebec and while both levels of government claim to believe it’s the right thing to do?

NL Launches Own Fisheries Research Program

From CBC News:

Williams Launches Fish Research Program

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams launched a program of fisheries science and research Friday, even though the area is the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Williams, who unveiled a $14-million program that will include chartering a research ship, noted the federal government has consistently scaled back spending on fisheries science since the 1990s.

"We have leading international scientists in this province [who] are not getting the credit they deserve, and don't have the resources and the funding that they need to get the job done," Williams said.

"Those days are over."

Williams made the announcement in St. John's on Friday, 18 years to the day after the federal government announced it was imposing a moratorium on northern cod, which had been the largest single fishery in the country.

Williams has had an often contentious relationship with both Liberal and Conservative federal governments, primarily over benefits from the province's offshore oil industry. Friday's announcement had less to do with ideology and more to do with the gradual diminishment of fisheries research in Canada.

"It's not a partisan comment, and it's not intended to be an attack on the current government," he told reporters after the announcement. "This has been a federal government problem that crosses all party lines."

Williams said the program will "change the face of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, but this time in a much more positive and forward thinking direction. No longer will we exclusively rely upon the research of others to guide the fishery into the future."

The government is chartering the Celtic Explorer, a 65-metre research vessel from Ireland, to undertake an acoustic survey of northern cod in 2011. The vessel will conduct research on offshore fish stocks. The government has already sponsored inshore fisheries research.

George Rose, a former federal research scientist who has been outspoken about fisheries management issues for years, has also been appointed as director of a newly founded Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research, to be based at Memorial University's Marine Institute in St. John's.

"We can more or less stand on our own feet here in terms of our knowledge base about our own fishery, something that I think has been overdue for a long time," Rose told reporters after the announcement.

Rose's own research program at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was discontinued.
In a statement issued on Friday, federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said "sound science is a cornerstone of managing the fishery and a priority for our government. We were interested to hear of the Province's initiative as they have been talking about this for many years. Because some of their activities will likely require federal approval, we look forward to seeing their proposal."

Under the Terms of Union that brought Newfoundland into Confederation in 1949, Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over inshore and offshore fisheries. Williams said he recognized that management decisions over quotas will rest with Ottawa, but that there will be a new and independent source of information about the health of local fisheries.

He also said he would not object to the federal government joining the research initiative at some point.

"[But] we can't wait. We can't afford to wait," he told reporters. "This will be a wonderful thing.… the outcomes will be significant from this exercise that we've launched today, and hopefully we'll be able to fund it up even more."

Newfoundland and Labrador will also spend $2 million to sustain the Canadian Centre of Fisheries Innovation, a research and development agency that recently lost federal funding.

Latest Fishery Scores: BC 1 - NL 0

Today, June 15, 2010 is the day an official investigation into the collapse of sockeye salmon stocks on B.C.'s Fraser River is scheduled to begin.

The Cohen Commission of Inquiry is touted as being, “…a lengthy and technical probe into the disappearance of almost 10 million fish from the Fraser River sockeye run. The collapse of the stock prompted the federal government to order an investigation to be led by B.C. Supreme Court Judge Bruce Cohen.

According to reports, a discussion paper released in advance of this week's hearings indicates the inquiry will examine everything from fish biology to the organization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and will attempt to gain a full understanding of the collapse.

One question Ottawa: In 1992 a moratorium was introduced after the collapse of the Atlantic Cod stocks, after 500 years serving as the economic engine of Newfoundland and Labrador. That collapse led, either directly or indirectly, to job losses for about 20% of the province’s workers. Why has there never been an official inquiry held to understand the reasons behind that collapse?

Could it be because the findings are already suspected in the circles of power and that those findings would finally expose to the light of day the way the stocks were mismanaged, sold off, bartered away for votes and foreign “favors” ending once and for all the fantasy Ottawa and DFO have foisted on the public?

In the absence of valid answers I simply ask.

Winning an Un-Winnable Battle

How do you win an un-winnable battle?

It’s a question that's been on my mind since learning that the Harper government, in spite of Parliament's rejection of new NAFO amendments that could see foreign vessels patrolling Canadian waters, has decided to go ahead and adopt those amendments anyway.

After such an incident there are those who question whether democracy is utterly and truly dead in Canada and whether our sovereignty itself has been bartered away. There are those as well who will see this as the final nail in the Atlantic fishery with NAFO nations freely able to rape the ocean clean once and for all. Already, in some circles, talk has turned to the need for independence and separation from this “undemocratic” Canadian federation.

All I can say to those good folks is that they might want to consider choosing their battles wisely and perhaps, in this instance anyway, the right way to counter Ottawa’s actions is to simply accept them as our new reality while seeking ways to address the underlying concerns on a more local level.

Let’s think outside the box on this one.

Beating our collective heads against an immovable object (the PMO, DFO, take your choice) isn’t going to solve the problem at hand and make no mistake this is indeed a problem.

The Harper government has shown in the past that it has no love for Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly isn’t going to backtrack on a very public decision simply to make Atlantic Canadians happy.

On the other hand, if we could find a way to mitigate the damage, and perhaps even enhance our power position in the fishery, over time, wouldn’t that be a victory in itself?

With that premise in mind, perhaps we should consider working within this new system rather than futilely fighting it without any real hope of victory.

A great example of just such a "novel" approach already exists in the province so there isn't even a need to re-invent the wheel.

A few years ago the provincial government and some local groups felt that the Feds weren’t doing enough to protect our rivers and salmon populations. They argued and fought with DFO for a while until finally deciding the best approach was to simply do something about the problem.

As a result a number of provincially funded wardens were hired and sent forth into the Newfoundland and Labrador wildneress. A public awareness campaign about poaching was started and this campaign led to citizens groups forming their own civilian river watches.

Thanks to these efforts and others salmon poaching in Newfoundland and Labrador is way down from where it was in the past, stocks are generally improving and Newfoundland and Labrador now has far more say in the protection of its rivers than it has had for decades.

Could a similar approach work with ocean stocks? Could this be the answer to so many of the concerns people have expressed about foreign influences on the offshore?

Let’s explore the possibilities for moment.

Instead of battling Ottawa over a decision they aren’t likely to undo we might be better off lobbying the provincial government and our own people to take the bull by the horns (or the fish by the tail) when it comes to fisheries conservation.

If we can find the collective will to act we might see a far different fishery a few years from now.

Every day Cougar Helicopter flights pass back and forth between St. John’s and our oil platforms at the edges of our 200 mile limit. Provincial Airlines planes travel over our Grand Banks on a regular basis every day. The Province’s newly purchased water bombers, when not fighting major fires, will be sitting idle. No doubt these bombers require test flights from time to time to help ensure they’re in good working order. Couldn’t those “test flights” skim over the Flemish Cap just to see what’s going on out there.

With enough eyes in the air reporting back on every fishing boat, row boat or rubber duck near our waters, in a very public manner, nobody at DFO will be able to claim they don’t know what’s happening or deny that anything illegal is going on at all.

The cost of these measures is essentially zero. All it takes is the will to co-operate.

But let’s take it a step further.

What about the countess cargo vessels and oil tankers that ply our waters every day? Couldn’t they be asked, as a courtesy, to help spot questionable fishing boats and report whatever they see? It’s just a quick radio call after all.

What about fishermen themselves?

Since the fishery has always been a major contributor to the province’s economy isn’t it time for Newfoundland and Labrador to invest a few dollars into helping the ground fish stocks recover? It doesn’t have to cost a lot and the return on investment might be surprising.

Most fishermen already know the tricks of the trade. They know where the most important fishing and breeding grounds are. They know where illegal fishing is happening and they know who is involved (both foreign and Canadian). Perhaps it’s time to get them directly involved in the conservation effort on a more formal level.

If Ottawa won’t adequately protect the fish stocks then the province should set aside 2 or 3 million dollars a year (a pittance in the grand scheme of things) to pay for provincial fisheries patrols.

Why not?

Once most fishing captains have caught their quota for the season many of them simply take their boats out of the water and sign up for EI. Why not put yearly contracts out to tender seeking local captains to help patrol our waters once they’re finished fishing?

Of course these “civilian” patrols wouldn’t have any legal authority to stop rogue fishing boats or arrest anyone involved but they could certainly take a page from the same environmental activists who so often branded them as “barbarians” over the seal hunt. They could video tape the offending vessels, request official intervention from on site, provide very public evidence against violators and generally make offender's lives a living hell on the high seas.

Who knows, Ottawa might one day even help defray a small part of the cost should such a plan prove itself effective. After all, if off season fishers are gainfully employed in conservation efforts rather than collecting EI it would not only help remove the “stamp fishery” stigma attached to the industry but the effort could actually lead to savings in the EI system itself.

With enough Newfoundland and Labrador eyes on the water and in the air it might finally become a losing gamble for anyone bent on illegal fishing and I’m willing to bet it won't take long before the risks begin to outweigh the benefits for these culprits and we begin to get things under control.

As for addressing Ottawa’s new found fondness for allowing foreign patrol boats into Canadian waters, well, with countless eyes already on the water what possible excuse could they come up with for asking foreign nations to “invade” our 200 mile limit?

I began my little rant by asking how you win an un-winnable battle. I’ll close by saying that sometimes winning can take on different forms depending on your perspective.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we trying to win a battle with Ottawa for the sake of winning or are we truly trying to protect fisheries habitat regardless of Federal meddling and mishandling?

A few years ago when inland salmon stocks were in trouble DFO wasn’t stepping up to the plate. Today, thanks to local efforts those stocks are improving and Ottawa has practically abandoned its inland efforts, preferring instead to leave much of it up to the province and the public (not officially of course but the result is the same). In this case the dynamic has shifted and Newfoundland and Labrador has grown in strength.

Perhaps there’s a lesson in this for the future of the offshore as well.

Good-Bye to the Historic Atlantic Fishery

It may sound like a doomsday mentality but the truth is what it is.

The End is Near for the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. She's gone bye's she's gone!

This week the Parliament of Canada was set to debate the proposed adoption of radical changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) regulations that would see Canada sign onto a plan allowing member nations of NAFO far more control of fisheries management in the Atlantic off our shores than ever before.

The changes have been attacked by fisheries experts throughout Atlantic Canada, including several former high ranking personnel at Canada’s own Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) who have said the proposed changes will erode Canada’s ability to manage stocks inside its own waters and impinge on Canada’s sovereignty in North Atlantic waters.

Instead of listening to the pleading of experts in the area, or even proceeding with the planned 3 hour debate in the House that would have allowed some of those concerns to be expressed and captured on the public record the Harper government introduced a motion to halt the debate just 40 minutes in and now have plans to dispense with the Parliamentary vote altogether and simply adopt the changes.

It seems the deal is done, or soon will be, and with that decision the final nail in the coffin if the Atlantic fishing industry will be hammered home.

While DFO has itself been a master mis-manager of fish stocks over the years at least it’s answerable, to some degree, to Canadian citizens. NAFO on the other hand is not answerable to anyone in Canada and is known for intentionally allowing over fishing and turning a blind eye to illegal fishing activities off our coast.

One doesn’t have to look far to see where NAFO stands on fish stock protection. They have proven time and time again that they are either incapable of or unwilling to protect fish stocks wherever they wield their power. This was proven once again a couple of weeks ago when NAFO made the decision to allow a continuation of a shrimp fishery on the Flemish Cap just outside Canada’s 200 mile economic zone, contrary to the best scientific advice.

In a special meeting in London the organization decided against closing the Flemish Cap shrimp fishery in NAFO area 3M in spite of the fact that the NAFO Scientific Council had advised them that the stock has collapsed and that the fishery should be closed.

During a NAFO vote on the closure six member states supported a European Union proposal to simply reduce the allocated fishing days, a move that will accomplish nothing since the number of fishing days allocated in recent years have not been anywhere close fully utilized. The net result will see no real reduction in the amount of shrimp that will be taken from an already collapsed stock.

With the collusion of the federal government the new NAFO regulations will soon be adopted by Canada, giving the organization even more control over fisheries in the area and permitting them with an opportunity to someday dictate regulations inside Canadian waters as well. It seems that the time to wave a sad good-bye to the Atlantic Fishery and the serene outport way of life in many parts of the region is upon us.

It’s indeed a black day for all of us.

Where Have all the Fishes Gone?

“…In 1992, Ottawa imposed a moratorium on the Northern cod fishery. It resulted in the largest layoff in Canadian history: 30,000 jobs. The latest science says that stock has barely recovered.” – Jeffry Simpson, Globe and Mail, November 13, 2009.

The Globe & Mail article in which Mr. Simpson made that statement was dedicated to discussion of the Canadian government’s recently announced plans to hold a judicial inquiry into declining salmon stocks on the Fraser River in B.C.

Perhaps a judicial inquiry on the BC situation is a good idea but the announcement of one, not to mention the Globe’s comparison of the West Coast issue to the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery, brings to mind a very simple question: Why has an inquiry never been held into the Atlantic fisheries collapse?

Sure, studies have been conducted, scientists have debated the problem for years and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans continues to count all the little fishies in the sea, but where has any of that gotten us?

The fish are still on the missing list.

Eighteen years after the fishery was first closed the ground fish stocks haven’t recovered. Doesn’t that reality alone warrant an inquiry to help uncover not only what led to the collapse but what has been done, or hasn’t been, in the nearly 2 decades since.

The North Atlantic fishery collapse led to 10’s of thousands of people being thrown out of work overnight. In the years that followed entire towns and villages disappeared as the people who lived there were forced to give up their way of life. Ultimately the fisheries collapse led to the largest mass out-migration from any province in Canadian history.

To this day no inquiry has ever been conducted.

Admittedly some steps were taken. Fisheries task forces, committees and the like have come and gone and while those are all well and good they have their limits.

A judicial inquiry, with the power to access official records and question witnesses under oath, whether they like it or not, might be our only hope of ever shedding even a glimmer of light on one of the most devastating economic, commercial, cultural and environmental catastrophes of our collective history.

Did the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans really mismanage the fish stocks as they’ve so often been accused of doing? Are they mismanaging those stocks even today?

Are politicians, both Provincial and Federal, past and present, at fault for promoting unsustainable levels of fishing with no other goal in mind but to pander to voters?

Did Ottawa secretly barter away fishing rights as a means to improve trade relations with foreign nations and prop up the economy in other parts of Canada?

The questions that might be asked are almost limitless but sadly, to date, the answers have been non-existent.

Why, nearly 20 years into a fishing moratorium, has no official inquiry ever been called?

There are those who believe the time for an inquiry has passed, that perhaps one should have been conducted back in the mid-nineties when the moratorium was put in place. I disagree.

At the time the moratorium was introduced the public was led to believe that a couple of years down the road the stocks would rebound and all would be well again. That didn’t happen and I strongly believe an inquiry now would have the benefit of hindsight when looking for the reasons why.

Nearly 20 years after the fact many of the politicians, bureaucrats, government scientists and DFO staffers who were involved at the time but who might have been hesitant to answer the tough questions are likely to be retired from public life or close to being so today. This fact alone would help loosen stiffened tongues that might not have been as willing to be loosened back in 1992.

The timing is ripe for an inquiry of this nature unfortunately the collective spirit in Ottawa is, as usual, very weak.

The near collapse of salmon stocks on the West Coast is indeed a worthy reason to hold a judicial inquiry and I applaud the federal Conservative government for taking this action so quickly. That said, I can’t help but wonder why Mr. Harper and his recent predecessors (no matter the political stripe) have all been so comfortable in ignoring the devastation of the East Coast fishery.

Fisheries Minister Rocks Boat

I never thought it would come to this but it has. Here I was enjoying a nice summer hiatus and today I find myself suddenly back in front of the keyboard writing in defense of actions taken by the Federal government of Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s right folks, your’s truly has not only broken his summer respite but I’ve also been reduced to defending the actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), a federal agency that has all but destroyed the outport way of life and ruined Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy with their utter mismanagement of the North Atlantic fishery.

It’s not something I enjoy doing but when the situation calls for it what options do I have?

The reason for my inability to sit idly by (which I was doing quite happily) comes after the recent announcement of this year’s commercial cod quota by Federal Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea.

It seems the Minister (who is well known for a number of politically motivated and underhanded decisions since taking office) has left this year’s northern cod quota largely unchanged from the previous year. According to the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), “…quota increases are almost non-existent” and this, so it would seem, has fishermen across the Province very, very angry.

According to the FFAW’s David Decker, Minister Shea and her officials “either have no idea about their own science data, or are choosing to ignore it. (this is) another crippling blow" for the industry.

Clearly the words of someone who is angry with the current situation, but for what its worth, I’ll tell you what makes me angry and, at least in this case, it certainly isn’t the Fisheries Minister or DFO.

What gets under my skin, and the reason I find myself sitting at my keyboard today is the absolute unmitigated gall of the fishermen and the FFAW leadership who are once again screaming for an increased cod quota when they know full well that the cod stocks are in such poor shape.

Yes, the science shows that inshore stocks are showing signs of an increase, in fact rather encouraging signs. That said, the hope now is that as inshore stocks continue to grow they will help repopulate the offshore which where the species is still teetering on the brink of extinction, even 17 years into a moratorium.

Yes, the offshore fleets that are illegally fishing need to be stopped and Canada is not doing enough to fix that problem.

Yes, foreign ships skirting international waters on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or Flemish Cap need to be stopped (blown out of the water would be my approach) and again the fed is doing nothing to fix the problem.

Yes, Canadian quotas for offshore fleets (of any species) need to be better controlled, bottom dragging needs to be done away with and so much more needs to happen, none of which is on Ottawa’s radar.

In short there are many things Ottawa can be blamed for when it comes to the fishery, including allowing the stocks to collapse in the first place, but when it comes being conservative when issuing quotas for rebounding inshore stocks the only blame I see in all this rests squarely with the fishermen and the union, not with Ottawa.

We all know it’s been a hard year in the fishery but is that an excuse to increase quotas and make a quick cash grab at the expense of the future viability of the fishery itself?

The FFAW is often the first to complain about fisheries mismanagement but they’re also the first to scream to high heaven when quotas are managed with the future of the stocks in mind.

Grab a buck today and to hell with tomorrow should be the motto in the fishery these days.

That’s an attitude that boils my blood.

Between endless federal governments and provincial governments, the fishermen and their union and the plant operators as well the fishery has devolved into a mess of monumental proportions. It’s a quagmire of muck and slime so twisted and convoluted that it would take a nuclear bomb dropped into the middle of it to disassemble it and untangle the individual components so they could be rearranged into anything even resembling a viable industry.

Fishermen consider themselves “independent business owners” yet they have no product (the fish is a public resource), they have union representation and they collect EI for more than half the year. What kind of independent business owners do any of us know who fit that description?

The fisheries union (FFAW) represents both the suppliers (the fishermen) and the plant workers. This means that in practice the FFAW is supposed to fight for the best per pound price for the fishermen when dealing with plan owners, and also fight for the best wages for plant workers, wages that can only come from the plant owners if they get a lower price from the fishermen. Add to this the fact that the FFAW itself has its own fish quota and operates a handful of fishing boats and the level of conflict becomes staggering.

Ottawa has always put political expediency ahead of fisheries protection or management (perhaps with the exclusion of this current quota which is why I’m really ticked at the FFAW). DFO has been negligent and corrupt in their management practices for decades and the state of the stocks is all the evidence of this anyone needs to see.

Consider as well that countless political leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador have made a career out of parlaying fish plants for rural areas into election wins and the blame for the overall mess in the industry casts wide net over everyone involved.

Believe me, if the verbal diarrhea flowing from the FFAW’s David Decker hadn’t raised my hackles today I’d be out enjoying a great summer day (thanks again by the way) but there comes a time in each person’s life when there is only so much B.S. you can put up with and this my friends is one of those times.

For (pick your divinity) sake, the cod fishery was decimated nearly 20 years ago and in all likelihood the crab, lobster and many other commercial species are headed in the same direction. It’s time for all the stakeholders to do what needs to be done. Let the chips fall where they may.

For starters quotas should only ever be set based on the most conservative science, as was apparently the case this week, never ever for political reasons, which is usually what’s done.

Yes there is no doubt fish caught in off of Newfoundland and Labrador’s shore should be processed in the Province but plant owners need to be given the freedom, with that parameter, to run their business as they see fit. If they want to close down most of their plants so the remaining ones will provide meaningful and full time work and so they can make a real profit for the investors they should be able to do so. In other words fish plants need to become an actual place of business that produce fish products not EI stamps.

Fishermen need to make a decision. Either they want to be employees of a fish producer or they want to run independent business enterprises. They can’t be both. If they are independent business owners then they should have their EI access cut off and lose their unionized status. If they want to be employees of the plants then the plants can buy their boats and licenses and give them a decent wage for fishing.

Yes, this will all mean great hardship in many places across the Province but at least it will finally bring some order to the chaos. What kind of life is it for people who spend year after year watching the industry decline all the while realizing their only real goal is to get enough stamps to make it to your next season of EI?

It’s time for some leadership and backbone, something clearly lacking among all the generally recognized stakeholders in this industry, with the exception of the one forgotten stakeholder.

Far too often forgotten with all the flapping mouths are the silent stakeholders, the public, you and me.

The fish stocks, if they belong to anyone belong to all citizens, not just the fishermen.
The seemingly endless tax dollars thrown at the industry (usually into a large empty and bottomless money pit) comes from the pockets of John’ and Judy Public. This means we all have a right to intercede in what’s happening. In fact we have more than a right, we have an obligation. Perhaps its time the silent stakeholders took a stand.

Well, this taxpayer has reached the end of his rope and is willing to say loud and clear for everyone to hear, “Enough is enough. Either fix it or shut it down completely”.

Meanwhile, back to my reason for writing today, Minister Shea and the quota she set this year (sorry for going off on a tangent but anything to do with fisheries issues tends to cause mass confusion), all I can say is, “good job” Ms. Minister. If you only performed as efficiently, properly and non-politically with regard to the numerous other aspects of your portfolio we might finally get somewhere with this mess.

Canada's Economic Recovery Plan (For Dummies)

With the economy on life support, businesses closing their doors and laid off workers stacked up like chord wood across the Country the political thermostat has been cranked up on bust in Ottawa and the self serving rhetoric is flying around like hungry bees at the hive.

Unfortunately the only ones with anything to gain from all the hyperbole are the politicians themselves. Like it or not, the rest of us are on our own.

They can spin it however they like but the fact remains that there is no money available to bail out the forestry sector or the commercial fishing industry, both of which until recently employed hundreds of thousands of individuals. You see the problem with those industries, according to the Conservative talking heads, is not one that Ottawa can address. It’s all about a lack of markets for their products.

On the other hand to listen to our elected officials, you’d somehow believe that pouring billions upon billions of our tax dollars into the auto sector, which employs tens of thousands, is simply the right thing to do.

Funny, but I thought I read someplace that a lack of buyers for North American gas guzzlers was what was killing the industry. My mistake I guess.

Meanwhile, up on the Hill, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are all claiming to be the champions of the working classes. Yes sir, they all want to be seen as standing up for little guy who’s lost his job. Why if the Harper government doesn’t soon implement changes to the qualifications for EI and help those people the opposition will…well it…

What? What exactly will Mike, Jack, Gilles do anyway?

Every MP in Ottawa knows the odds of electing another minority government are staggering. Nobody knows if the Liberals can actually win the next time out or not. According to the polls both the NDP and the Bloc stand to lose seats if an election were held right now. Add to this the fact that it would take all three parties to boot the Tories out of office, at a time when a huge percentage of MPs (mostly with the Bloc) need only one more year in office to qualify for their fat taxpayer funded pension and we all know exactly what they’ll do.

They’ll complain and attack each other for political advantage, protect their own incomes, ensure that 45 members of a party bent on splitting Canada apart get a good federally funded pension and they’ll do all of this, knowing full well that at the end of the day none of it will help the unemployed who need EI to survive.

On the topic of EI, I’m sick and tired of the rhetoric surrounding how many hours it takes to qualify. Once again the political elite and pundits have pulled Newfoundland and Labrador out of their back pockets (or from slightly to one side of it) in an effort to show how unfair the rest of the Country is being treated and how easy Newfoundlanders have it on the “rock”.

The latest trend these days is to compare the number of hours necessary to qualify in BC or Ontario, between 600 and 700 hours, while, and I quote, “…in most parts of Newfoundland it’s almost a God given right to collect and you only need the minimum of 420 hours”.

What they never mention is that the high number of hours quoted for Ontario, BC (or what ever province is the flavor of the day) is what’s needed in urban areas with low unemployment rates. By comparison, in the North East Avalon region (call it the St. John’s area if you like) you also need more than 600 hours to qualify, just as in most urban parts of Canada.

While I’m on the subject, they also don’t inform anyone that roughly half the population of Newfoundland and Labrador lives in that particular area or that in parts of Ontario and BC and across Canada there are rural areas, just like those in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the minimum number of hours are all anyone needs.

The only difference between Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to EI qualification, is that many other provinces have far more people living in those rural areas than Newfoundland and Labrador does and as a result are more likely to have large numbers collecting EI, or as Jim Flaherty is likely to refer to them these days, “EI finalists”.

Personally I don’t like the idea of someone only having a job for 45 days being able to collect EI for a year. On that one point Stephen Harper and I can agree, but really, why all the bawling and blaring over EI anyway? To hear Steve and Diamond Jim Flaherty talk about it you’d think lowering the number of hours required was going to crush Canada and send the national debt spiraling into some bottomless abyss.

It seems they’ve conveniently forgotten something. For years the Canadian debt was paid down by siphoning off EI premiums meant to be used in just the sort of situation the Country finds itself in today. Billions were diverted over the years to debt reduction instead of being put aside for income support. Some estimates put the figure at $50 billion or more.

In other words the comparatively low Canadian debt the Harper government is so happy to talk about in these hard times is there, in large part, thanks to $50 billion in EI premiums that were collected from individuals and businesses who thought they were paying an insurance premium. If the debt now needs to be increased by a billion or two in order to see workers and families through the tough times it’s only fair Mr. Flaherty get off his high horse and pony up.

But of course he won’t and the reason is simple.

Any increase in EI costs would impact the federal budget and debt. If, on the other hand, a large percentage of laid off workers don’t qualify for EI and instead have resort to joining the welfare rolls it’s a provincial cost to deal with and who really thinks Ottawa could give a crap about provincial deficits or crushing debt loads?

So what lessons can we take away from all of this?

1. Canada’s politicians are very concerned about job losses and stabilizing family incomes, primarily their own;

2. Money to bail out corporations in major urban centers and protect tens of thousands of jobs– Good. Money to bail out industries in rural areas and save hundreds of thousands of jobs – Bad;

3. Canada’s growing deficit isn’t the result of large corporate bailouts or unchecked federal spending. It’s being caused by laid off workers who paid into EI and who would now like to collect a little of the insurance they paid for; and

4. No matter how bad things get, or how much they improve, someone will always find a way to crap on Newfoundland and Labrador simply because it exists.

The Demise of Newfoundland & Labrador - Manufactured Right Here

What do hand soap and bathroom tissue have in common?

Both can be found in the bathroom. They are both considered basic necessities and, as far as I can tell, every scrap of either one used in Newfoundland and Labrador is imported from someplace else.

Why is that?

I mention those two products simply as an example but the same holds true for much of what we consume in Newfoundland and Labrador. For centuries our people have been contented to import almost all of the basic necessities of life while exporting our valuable raw materials elsewhere.

Will this outdated and short sighted practice ever end?

I recently read an article out of Memorial University that was written nearly a decade ago. One passage noted, “Newfoundland continues to import many of the products its people consume while exporting primarily raw materials, a trade imbalance which has served to exacerbate the island's economic troubles.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Before Confederation our biggest trade imbalance was with the United States, afterward it was (and is) with Canada. Only the players have changed, the game remains the same and it’s a one sided game that’s not in our favor.

The reality of 1949 is that many of those who voted for Confederation did so because they hoped for lower prices on imporated products. Very little consideration was given to producing many of those products, and related jobs, right here.

For as long as anyone alive today can recall Newfoundland and Labrador depended primarily on two major exports, fish and forest products. Today Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy isn’t as dependent on the fishery or the forest as it once was but the numbers show that little has changed with the overall picture of where we once were and where we are now.

In 1948 fish and fish products accounted for 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s exports, pulp and paper products 32% for a combined total of 72%.

These days (as of 2007 anyway) energy exports accounted for (wait for it) 72% of the Province’s exports.

We’ve traded fish and forests for oil and gas all the while continuing to import the vast majority of our manufactured goods.

Either way you slice it the Province still exports its resources instead of creating value added products for the local and export markets.

It seems we’d rather ship off our raw materials instead of creating a genuinely diversified economy through manufacturing right here.

Even after centuries of economic turmoil we've yet to learn the lesson that ending our narrow minded practice of exporting all raw materials and instead increasing our manufacturing capability will help us become a more economically stable place to live.

Increased manufacturing and local purchasing would eventually improve our export values, decreasing our import costs and create much needed employment. Something that might be quite helpful in an area accustomed to double digit unemployment.

The fishing and pulp & paper industry are now mere shadows of what they once were in Newfoundland and Labrador. Eventually the same will happen to the oil, gas and mining industries.

Unlike Fish and forests (both currently mismanaged) oil and minerals are non-renewable. Once they’re gone they’re gone. When that happens, as it surely must, gone as well is the last of the work in Newfoundland and Labrador. Gone as well are the exports and the Province’s revenues. Newfoundland and Labrador will cease to exist in any relevent way.

Why, after 500 years have we not learned from our past?

Why do we continue to depend on others to manufacture the goods we depend upon instead of supporting, encouraging and facilitating the development of local goods through our purchasing power and with provincial incentives?

Until the public demands more locally produced products at their favorite stores nothing will ever change.

Make no mistake, the Wallmart’s and Sobey’s of the world don’t give a damn about where they buy their products as long as their customers keep coming back. They also don't care who they sell them to and won’t hesitate to pull up stakes and move elsewhere when the resources and money run out.

The way I look at it, a simple bar of soap may not be as glamorous or as lucrative as high seas oil development but after a hard days work on the rigs I defy anyone to tell me it isn’t worth producing.

New Federal Fisheries Minister Embraces Status Quo

As a matter of interest, on November 17, 2008 I sent a letter to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Gail Shea. The letter was also forwarded to several news outlets, both locally and across Canada, including the Telegram.

The letter was about news reports at the time relating to an assistance call that was made to the Canadian Coast Guard by a foreign fishing vessel plying the Grand Banks. The call concerned an ill crew member needing medical attention.

According to the reports, after receiving the distress call the Coast Guard responded and after traveling some distance toward the location they turned back when they were informed that another foreign fishing vessel in the area had a nurse onboard and was on its way to the scene.

My question at the time, as expressed in my letter, was why two foreign vessels were even there in the first place and perhaps more importantly why, after learning of their existence and already underway, did the Canadian Coast Guard not continue to the area, regardless of the cancellation of the distress call, and determine if any illegal fishing activities were underway.

As I asked the Minister, if there is one foreign fishing vessel making a distress call from the Grand Banks and it is responded to by yet another foreign fishing vessel, wouldn’t that cause the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, NAFO and the Canadian Coast Guard, all of which are responsible for protecting fish stocks, to wonder just how many boats are actually out there and what they are up to?

Well folks, today I finally have a response to my inquiry. Not from the Minister herself, but from one of the minions in the department.

Unfortunately the letter was sent to me via snail mail so I can’t post its original content here. I will however tell you that, as is the case with most bureaucrats, the response from this one is a full page letter that tells me absolutely nothing and never even attempts to answer my question.

I’m not surprised really. I’ve been down this road with Ministers, both federal and Provincial, before. The fact that any response was given at all is a testament to the fact that the Minister’s office was made aware that the letter had been sent to several media outlets, otherwise I doubt I would have heard anything from them.

Come to think of it, perhaps no response at all would have been better than the one provided.

Here are some key excerpts. Consider it your daily dose of political double speak, bafflegab and utter nonsense.

EXCERPT:

“…The department recognizes the advantages of cooperating with other States on issues of international interest and works through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) to manage and conserve fish stocks outside Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone. In addition to patrolling Canadian fisheries waters, Canada invests significant amounts in carrying out aerial surveillance and continual, year-round at-sea patrols in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA). These patrols are conducted by Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessels, with DFO fishery officers onboard, acting in the role of NAFO inspectors, to carry out at-sea boarding and inspections of vessels fishing in the NRA.”

“Regarding your particular concern about the event involving the two Portuguese fishing vessels, the CCG vessel had been tasked, as you correctly identified in your letter…to assist in a Search and Rescue incident…Once it became known that the assistance was no longer required, the CCG vessel was released from this tasking.”

“I hope this answers your question and…” blah, blah, blah.

No it doesn’t.

Nowhere does the letter answer the question asked, why did the Coast Guard vessel, which was already on its way not proceed to the area and check out the activities of those two fishing vessels instead of simply returning to port?

The letter was signed by Paul Steele, Director General of the Conservation and Protection Directorate and was sent on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, Gail Shea.

Clearly the Minister and Mr. Steele are working every day to put our tax dollars to use. Just what they are using them for we may never know.

Harper Promise Could Cost Fishermen Millions

Stephen Harper, while on a recent campaign stop in Newfoundland and Labrador, promised that under his government fishers could look forward to a 2 cent exemption from the federal excise tax on diesel fuel.

His candidate, Fabian Manning, in the riding of Avalon trumpeted the announcement as a great thing for the fishing industry.

Both Fabian Manning and the Prime Minister failed to mention one important point.

According to Earl McCurdy of the FFAW, fishers are already exempt from the entire 4 cent excise tax so this promise means nothing.

But is Mr. McCurdy correct when he assumes there will be no impact to fishers?

It's possible that if Mr. Harper actually keeps this promise, and introduces a 2 cent exemption on deisel fuel it will replace the existing 4 cent exemption and result in fishers actually paying 2 cents more per litre than they do today.

The result could see millions of dollars flow into federal coffers off the backs of fishers across the Country.

This is either an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, an attempt to slip a new tax grab in via the back door or a stupid conservative gaffe (not that we've seen any of those lately), which would show how little the Prime Minister, or Fabian Manning, actually know about the issues facing the fishery.

Either way it's certainly pause for thought.

Atlantic Fishery: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back

Greed and Stupidity in the Atlantic Cod Fishery

Last week, for the first time since a moratorium on cod fishing was instituted in 1992, there was actually some good news to report on the state of the Atlantic cod stocks near Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Independent newspaper ran an article proclaiming that 16 years into what had been a planned 2 year fishing moratorium scientists were finally "seeing some signs of life in the stocks".

According to respected fisheries scientist, George Rose, "...it’s very exciting to see it. Their behaviour looks more like it should look — that cod are behaving like codfish, which they haven’t done for a long time in that environment”. He added that the behaviour includes fish at the right water depth, fish over-wintering, and fish exhibiting pre-spawning courtship behaviour.

“That’s very exciting.”

Rose noted however that this is not the time to start looking at the commercial potential of these fish and said it is, "...the dumbest idea I can think of". Cautioning that this is a time when the priority should be to rebuild a stock that finally appears to be coming back from the brink of extinction.

As if to echo Rose's concerns scientists at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, reported that a multi-year study into various fish species show that stocks under extreme survival pressure (such as the Atlantic Cod) are prone to wild fluctuations in population. While some years may see a large increase in population, other years will see just the opposite. The reason for these fluctuations are varied and include such factors as climate, predation and the number of older breeding specimens.

All in all the news appears to be cautioiusly optimistic so I'm sure those with a future closely reliant on the future of the fishery will do their absolute best to protect the stocks and ensure they rebound to viable levels once again.

Or maybe not.

No sooner had this new scientific information hit the media than the public was treated to the ramblings of none other than the deputy mayor of Bonivista, one of the most historic fishing communities in North America, calling for an increased cod quota this season.

Hedley Butler, who aside from being the deputy mayor is also a fisherman himself, says the waters in his area are teeming with fish. He says he understands the need for conservation, but (according to him) the stocks can handle an increased quota.

Butler says "...it's tough knowing that the stock is plentiful, but off limits.

I'm sure it must be tough indeed, but what makes Hedley Butler an expert on how much pressure the stocks can or cannot handle at this point in time?

He may be a fisherman, and as such can no doubt recognize an increase in fish population, but that doesn't make him an expert on the overall health of the stock.

More likely it makes him an expert on how much of that fish is worth and how much of it he want's to sell, regardless of the larger impact to the species or his community.

What did fisheries scientist George Rose say about increasing fishing pressure at this time, "...the dumbest idea I can think of..."?

It amazes me that after decades of discussion around the fragility of the cod stocks, after a shutdown of the commercial industry that put tens of thousands of people out of work and after the once mighty cod was nearly added to the endangered species list, someone like Hedley Butler, who was elected to protect the interests of a fishing community, would put short term greed (his own or that of others) ahead of the long term future of the cod stocks and that of his community.

Yes, Bonivista Bay may be teeming with fish at the moment but when you consider the overall numbers in the region, the stocks are nowhere close to where they need to be to sustain increased commercial fishing activity.
Those fish need to be left alone if there is to be any hope of rebuilding the stocks permanently. They are needed to help repopulate an already decimated species for the future of everyone in the Atlantic region, not pulled from the water and used to line the pockets of a handful of fishermen in the short term.

The political pressure being applied by Deputy Mayor Butler today is the result of exactly the sort of idiotic, self-serving greed that led to the unsustainable quotas of years gone by. Quotas so large they resulted in the collapse of the greatest fishery the world had ever seen.

One thing is for certain. If the Hedley Butlers of this world catch the ear of federal politicians, as they are likely to do, people living in towns like Bonivista all over this province, might as well pack up and leave for Alberta right now.

If the Hedley Butlers have their way, the George Rose's of the world, who are preaching caution and conservation, can put away their rubber boots and fish finders for good because in a few years there won't be a fish left to study.

To a politician every Fishermen and plant worker is another potential vote, and when it comes to a political choice between protecting the cod and protecting their jobs, the cod doesn't stand a chance.

This hidden message was inserted to ensure that if the head of the Sea Shepherd Society, Paul Watson, and his various splinter groups like Harpseals.org, post my article without my permission, as they've done in the past, they will also post this underlying message: They are nothing more than terrorists who prey on the sympathy of those who don't know any better.

Fisheries Minister Gambling Away Atlantic Fishery

"...instead of establishing "custodial management" beyond 200 miles as promised during the election, Minister Loyola Hearn will have done the exact opposite -- established a form of custodial management by NAFO and its members within Canada's 200-mile limit..."


The following appeared this week in the Ottawa Citizen. If after reading it you would like to make your feelings known to Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, his email address is:

hearn.l@parl.gc.ca

The piece was written by Bill Rowat, former deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans who also served as NAFO commissioner and led Canada's negotiations during the 1995 'turbot war' with the European Union.

Scott Parsons is a former DFO assistant deputy minister.

Bob Applebaum who served as DFO's director-general, international, and helped negotiate the original NAFO Convention.

Earl Wiseman also served as DFO director-general, international, and co-ordinated Canada's ratification of the UN Fish Agreement.

Running out of fish

From the Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007
Special Report

International management of the northwest Atlantic fisheries outside 200 miles from shore has failed miserably.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) was created in the late 1970s to prevent overfishing outside the Canadian 200-mile zone of the major fish stocks, known as the straddling stocks, that migrate across the line that separates Canadian waters from the high seas outside.
These stocks, which have been the mainstay of Newfoundland's fishery for hundreds of years, have been severely overfished outside 200 miles, primarily by European Union fishing vessels. The stocks are, for the most part, under moratoria, as they have been for many years, and show no signs of potential recovery.

During the last federal election, the Conservative party, in response to these problems, promised in its platform to: "Extend the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and be prepared to exercise Canadian custodial management over this area."

It appears that in making this promise the Tories were not fully aware of the difficulties under international law of doing what they promised. In any event, once in office, the government changed course and decided, instead, to launch an initiative labeled "NAFO reform." This was understood to involve strengthening the NAFO Convention, but during the subsequent negotiations what has emerged is the draft of a new convention that would instead weaken it substantially.

To strengthen the NAFO Convention, two major additions were needed:

a) An effective enforcement mechanism on the water, one that does not depend solely on individual state action, to remove vessels that break the rules. The United Nations Fish Agreement (UNFA), originated by John Crosbie in the early 1990s and driven to conclusion by Brian Tobin in 1995 after the "turbot war" with Spain, and to which Canada, the European Union and virtually all NAFO members are now party, provides a model for such a mechanism.

b) A compulsory and binding dispute settlement procedure, which could prevent individual NAFO member states from allowing their vessels to overfish.

The new draft NAFO Convention, as it is emerging, includes neither. It does not provide for effective enforcement and, as regards dispute settlement, it provides only for a review system that cannot culminate in a legally binding ruling.

And the negotiations to date have resulted in proposed revisions that, far from strengthening NAFO, would instead substantially weaken it.

One such revision would, for the first time since the establishment of the Canadian 200-mile zone, open the door to NAFO fisheries management inside the Canadian 200-mile limit.

In response to criticisms by the authors of this piece and representatives of the fishing industry, the minister of fisheries now says that he will not allow this, but whether the government holds to this latest position remains to be seen. If it does not, then instead of establishing "custodial management" beyond 200 miles as promised during the election, Minister Loyola Hearn will have done the exact opposite -- established a form of custodial management by NAFO and its members within Canada's 200-mile limit.

The other major revision that would further weaken NAFO is a new provision to change the voting system in NAFO from the simple majority that now applies in the existing convention, to a two-thirds majority system. Ignoring criticism of this EU-supported proposal, the minister recently indicated that Canada will accept it.

But this change would make it more difficult, in the future, for Canada to obtain in NAFO decisions that restrict catches outside 200 miles to low limits, where such limits are recommended by the NAFO Scientific Council. Pressures will increase for trade-offs between the needs of conservation and the needs of the foreign fishing fleets. It would also make it more difficult for Canada to obtain decisions to continue Canada's current quota share percentages in the stocks managed by NAFO outside 200 miles.

The current approach to these negotiations flies in the face of the government's commitments during the 2006 election, and would tie Canada's hands for decades, without achieving any improvements in our ability to deal with the straddling stocks problem. Canada would be better off with the current NAFO Convention than it will be if the package of amendments now being proposed is adopted. It is true that NAFO should be reformed, but not this way.

It is not too late to fix this but the clock is ticking. The forces at work are trying to get this new NAFO Convention adopted at the NAFO meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, next week. This is an artificial deadline that works against Canada's interests.

Canada must refuse to agree to this package of amendments and insist that negotiators work toward a new, stronger NAFO Convention, rather than a weaker one.