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?

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.

Fishermen Saved, No Word on the Status of Cod Fish

A spokesperson with the Coast Guard Search and Rescue in Halifax says all of the 22 crew members of a Spanish fishing trawler are alive after their vessel sank 400 km east of St. John's earlier today...She says the crew of the 30-metre Monte Galineiro jumped into life-rafts or into the ocean after the vessel caught fire this morning. The coast guard vessel Leonard J. Cowley happened to be only 10 minutes away when it received the trawler's distress signal and were on scene almost immediately.

As far as Web Talk goes I'll just leave you with the following picture which shows the reported location of the foreign fishing trawler. I'll leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions about what it was doing there.

Here's a hint: The yellow line shows a due easterly course of 400 kilometres from the Avalon Peninsula.

The ocean areas depicted in lighter blue are the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.