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 News Release - Custodial Managment

The following news release was issued by the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture this week. It speaks volumes about the total mismanagment of fish stocks happening off our shores.

Fisheries and AquacultureSeptember 28, 2009

NAFO Ignores Scientific Advice: Further Proof of Need for Custodial Management

The Provincial Government is disappointed with the results achieved by the Government of Canada at the recent meetings of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). The meetings were held in Bergen, Norway, from September 21-25. The province had hoped that the Federal Government would better represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador and achieve appropriate conservation measures that would protect stocks off the coast of this province.

The voting members of NAFO once again ignored scientific advice related to a number of stocks including Greenland halibut, 3M cod and redfish, and 3LNOP white hake and skate. These stocks, which straddle the 200 mile limit are located on the east coast of the island on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and at the Flemish Cap. Ignoring scientific advice in the NAFO zones outside the 200 mile limit negatively impacts stocks which are harvested by Canadians inside the 200 mile limit.

“Clearly, the approach of the Federal Government is not working,” said the Honourable Tom Hedderson, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. “This is another demonstration that it will always be problematic for Canada to have to vote with 11 other countries to gain protection of fish stocks off our shores. Once again, we are provided with proof of the need for a system of custodial management to manage fish stocks that straddle the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.”

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has recommended two years in a row that there be a 15 per cent reduction in the total allowable catch (TAC) for Greenland halibut. This was in line with the advice of the NAFO rebuilding plan agreed to in 2003. Despite this, NAFO has maintained the TAC at 16,000 tonnes for 2010.

The 3M cod stock has been under moratorium since 1999. The NAFO Scientific Council recommended a TAC of 4,125 metric tonnes. Despite this, a TAC of 5,500 tonnes has been established for 2010. NAFO members voted in favour of this, including the Government of Canada.

“Clearly, we cannot even trust our own Federal Government to pursue outcomes consistent with scientific advice,” said Minister Hedderson.

The TAC for 3M redfish will increase from 8,500 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes. Again, this is against the advice of the NAFO Scientific Council, which recommended keeping the quota at current levels for 2010.

The Scientific Council had also expressed concerns over 3LNOP white hake stocks and recommended a TAC of 850 tonnes. This was the average catch in recent years. NAFO agreed to decrease the quota from 8,500 tonnes to 6,000 tonnes in 2010.

The TAC for 3NLO skate will decline from 13,500 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes. The Scientific Council had recommended a TAC of 6,000 tonnes.

“The scientific evidence indicates that we need to be concerned about the future of many stocks that our industry depends on,” said Minister Hedderson.

“Our government is particularly concerned with the results of the 2008 shrimp survey and the dramatic decline in biomass estimates. If these trends continue, the decline in biomass and quotas will have a significant impact on the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. This demonstrates the need for better conservation.”

The Federal Government’s approach to addressing the situation on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has been to work for changes in NAFO.

“Custodial management is the only viable solution,” said the minister. “Furthermore, our government continues to ask the Federal Government to reject the proposed amendments to the NAFO convention, which seriously threaten Canada’s ability to protect fish stocks inside the 200 mile limit.”

- 30 -

Media contact: Lori Lee OatesDirector of CommunicationsDepartment of Fisheries and Aquaculture

709-729-3733, 690-8403

oatesll@gov.nl.ca
2009 09 28 1:50 p.m.

Is Ottawa Party to a Cover Up?

Over the past few days several individuals and news agencies have been questioning the validity of a conspiracy theory making the rounds.

The theory speculates that perhaps someone onboard may have intentionally scuttled (sank) the Spanish Trawler, Monte Galineiro, which went down near the Flemish Cap off Newfoundland earlier this week.

According to media reports the vessel was being closely tracked by a Canadian Coast Guard patrol vessel, with the intention of conducting a fisheries inspection once the weather cleared, when she suddenly issued a distress call. The vessel sank minutes later.

All hands onboard were plucked from the frigid North Atlantic but questions have since arisen about the incident and whether the sinking might have been intentional.

The theory itself is deeply flawed but there are never the less a lot of valid questions that should, and likely never will be, answered.

For a fairly large vessel to sink as quickly as this one did it would need to take on a lot of water very rapidly.

The most likely reason for such a sinking would be a large hole in the hull. The other likely possibility is that the “sea cocks”, which allow water to be taken in for ballast, were opened, either intentionally or not, thus the conspiracy theory.

Since the ship did not impact with a foreign object like an ice berg, the concern over why a four year old vessel took on water and sank so rapidly is a real one.

Another question is what she was doing on the very edge of Canada’s 200 mile limit when she sank? Some estimates put her at about 214 nautical miles from shore.

It would be of value to know what direction she was traveling in when observed by the Canadian Coast Guard. Was she heading toward Canadian waters? Was she heading away from them? Did the vessel appear to be attempting to evade or outrun the patrol vessel?

The captain of the Monte Galineiro claimed he heard an explosion in the engine room and reported a fire onboard. Why wasn’t there smoke visible before the Monte Galineiro went down and why did some crew members claim to be wakened from their sleep by an emergency alarm, not an explosion as claimed by the ship’s Captain?

These are valid questions. Unfortunately the Canadian government, under the auspices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has said it will not be conducting any investigation into the incident. Preferring instead to leave that to the ship’s Country of origin, Spain.

Personally I doubt very much that anyone would intentionally sink their own vessel during February in the North Atlantic while sailing in 10 foot waves.

If they did, the majority of the 22 member crew, some of whom were rescued in their underwear, could not have been informed. To do so before putting them in such a frightening life and death situation would almost ensure that they would want to get their revenge on the perpetrator by telling authorities.

Indeed the crew knew a Coast Guard vessel was in the area but in reality, would anyone, other than a total psychopath, throw himself and more than 20 others into a situation where mere minutes mean the difference between life and death?

What could the motive be?

Would someone take that gamble simply to avoid the slap on the wrist that would be waiting for them even if they were found to have tons of illegal cod onboard?

I doubt it.

Perhaps the most sensible statement regarding the conspiracy theory came from St. John’s Maritime Lawyer, Owen Myers, in a “Sou’Wester” article, when he said the Monte Galineiro wouldn't face serious fines under "toothless" North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) rules, even if it was convicted of illegal fishing. "It seems very unlikely to scuttle a $20-million vessel in order to escape a Canadian fisheries inspection," Myers said. "It's kind of like getting a traffic ticket. You're not going to blow up your Ferrari sports car because you've been given a parking ticket. I think it's really well-known that that is the problem with the NAFO convention - there are just no penalties in it."

There’s a lot of truth in those words.

It seems that nobody really knows what happened out there on the high seas but isn’t that the problem?

Shouldn’t somebody be trying to find out?

Putting aside the conspiracy theory itself for a moment, since it only clouds the issue, the question of exactly why this ship sank and what she was doing in the area prior to the sinking should not be cavalierly brushed aside, as is being done by Canadian authorities.

Late last week Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Danny Williams, issued a press release saying his government would not sign onto, or support, the latest trade discussions between Ottawa and the EU because of a number of ongoing issues, including NAFO’s lack of control over illegal fishing, the EU’s continued flouting of fisheries law and Canada’s lack of concern for protecting Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests.

The federal government’s lack of interest in finding answers to the questions being asked only serve to prove Mr. Williams point.

With trade talks taking place between Ottawa and the EU, with the premier’s position publicly known and with the lingering questions about this particular vessel left unanswered there is ample reason for the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the people of the province to have concerns.

Was the vessel so loaded down with illegal fish that she ripped her engines apart, causing a fire, by pushing the ship to her limits in an effort to avoid inspection?

Were her fishing trawls in the water or onboard when the incident happened? Knowing this, or even if they were in neither place (had been cut) would add valuable information to the situation.

Was the crew of the Monte Galineiro doing nothing illegal at all? If so, an independent investigation would help clear the crew’s reputations, and that of their home nation.

Was there a design flaw in the ship, perhaps allowing the sea cocks to accidentally open or water to enter around the propeller shaft? If so, knowing the answer might save lives in future.

There are a lot of important questions left unanswered, not the least of which is why the government of Canada is doing nothing to find those answers.

Williams Talks Tough on Canada / EU Trade Discussions

A press release was issued by Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Danny Williams, on Friday outlines his province’s concerns with plans for a new Canadian / EU Trade Agreement and withdraws his province’s support for upcoming negotiations by Ottawa.

The release states that, “While Newfoundland and Labrador fully supports improved trade with the European Union, any actions taken in that regard must address priority areas of concern for the province. In particular, the province is extremely hesitant to allow the Federal Government to head these negotiations, given past actions that question their commitment to issues of importance to the province.”

It goes on to say that "At this point, we are not willing to sign on to support the negotiation of a new and comprehensive economic agreement with the European Union.”

“This decision should not be confused with a lack of support for an improved trade relationship between Canada and Europe. Indeed, Newfoundland and Labrador values and respects its trade relations with Europe which have existed with the province for over 5 centuries…However, other concerns prevent the province from giving unqualified support for the Canadian Government’s process as it moves forward

"The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is unable to support this at this time on the basis of very genuine concerns that our province’s issues may not be safeguarded or dealt with in an appropriate way by the Federal Government.”

“In particular, long standing issues such as custodial management of our fishery, a proposed ban on seal products into the EU and prohibitive tariffs on seafood products entering the EU represent significant issues of concern that have been left unaddressed by the Federal Government for far too long.

Newfoundland and Labrador has not received any assurances that a Canada-EU agreement would include protection for measures such as the Atlantic Accords and Fish Inspection Act. Additionally, a track record of a lack of substantive and inclusive consultation on federal-provincial issues gives Newfoundland and Labrador great cause for concern, particularly in light of the far reaching implications of a possible Canada-EU trade agreement."

The official press release comes at a time when Newfoundland and Labrador is being challenged under NAFTA for the expropriation of provincial timber and hydro leases once held by U.S. registered paper maker Abitibi-Bowater.

It’s difficult to determine whether the province’s position on Canada / EU trade carries any real weight in Ottawa or not since it is the federal government that is ultimately responsible for international trade agreements. However the position taken by the Province serves to highlight a number of important issues for the province on both the national and international stage.

While the federal government does not officially need provincial support to enter into international trade agreements, actually making them work without the support of all the provinces is a problem.

Any agreement signed by Ottawa cannot infringe on provincial jurisdiction or legislative abilities.
A clear example of this can be seen in the case of the Abitibi-Bowater expropriation itself.

Newfoundland and Labrador has the legal right to expropriate the resources in question. It is up to Ottawa to defend the action under the NAFTA agreement and, should Canada lose that challenge, it will ultimately be the federal government, not the province, which is required to pay any penalties imposed.

Letter to Loyola Hearn

The following is a letter sent to Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn, earlier today.

If you wish to contact Minister Hearn directly about his apparent lack of concern or competence related to the fisheries portfolio, his email address is: hearn.l@parl.gc.ca


To: Loyola Hearn
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

From: Myles Higgins

July 3, 2008

Minister Hearn,

After listening to your continuous self-serving statements in the past 2 years there is no longer any doubt left.

As my dear mother is wont to say, “You’re full of shellac”.

At a recent St. John’s board of trade function you had the gall to stand before those assembled and defend the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

In doing so you said:

“NAFO rules for prosecuting vessels that are over fishing provide the same control that most people associate with custodial management.”"We are dealing with the international community and they have rights to fish, every right. No right to over fish and that is what we have stopped. But their own countries are not putting up with the foolishness either.”

You then spoke of recently coming back from a meeting with North Atlantic fisheries ministers, and said they have not had one violation of fishery regulations this year to date.

Well, that’s great. Will your next magic trick be another vain attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters or to pull your head out of Stephen Harper fat ass?

The number of fishing infractions has fallen to almost zero in the last couple of years but it isn’t because the regulations you are so proud of are being enforced or because other nations are getting serious about protecting the stocks.

The reason there are less infractions is because the cost of fuel is making it less profitable to travel all the way to Newfoundland and Labrador to rape the seabed. It is also because those who make the voyage get nothing more than a nod and a wink from foriegn patrol boats belonging to their home nations. Patrol boats that you sir have turned loose on unsuspecting fish stocks, a move that was made because Canada doesn’t have the necessary budget, equipment or the will to carry the mission.

Simply put you are wrong.

Foreign nations do not have the right to fish in this area. Not in Canadian waters they don’t. Not unless you and the Canadian government give them that right and why would you do that when Canada’s fishing industry is suffering and stocks are so low?

Perhaps what you intended to say is that they have a right to fish outside the 200 mile limit? Once again you would be wrong, as wrong as a Newfoundlander in cowboy boots and a Stetson.

We all know foreign vessels are given quotas inside Canadian waters and this has to stop. In addition, if you and your PM actually enacted custodial management and utilized the United Nations Law of the Sea to extend Canada’s economic territory, as you promised to do before forming the government, Canada alone would decide who has the right to fish in that area and who doesn’t.

But you don’t want to be saddled with that responsibility do you?

Clearly you would rather oversee the destruction of fish stocks in order to appease foreign governments and enhance international trade for the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec. Clearly this is more important to you than doing your job and protecting the fish off our coasts along with the jobs of Maritimers or Newfoundlanders and Labradorians alike.

You sir were elected on a platform that promised custodial management. To compare the mess that is NAFO with having full control of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap is an insult to the intelligence of every person who voted for you and to anyone who lives within a hundred miles of any coastline.

One of two situations clearly exists in your office today Mr. Hearn.

Either you have sold out your people and are desperately trying to convince them otherwise or you are a bigger idiot than anyone could have imagined. Either way you are a dangerous man to hold elected office and an even more dangerous one to be guarding the Atlantic fishery.

Myles Higgins