Evidence of meeting #36 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was within.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Balfour  Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Guy Beaupré  Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

I don't exactly know what feedback you're looking for, because if this procedural motion is in order, our saying something in opposition to it is not going to stop it from coming to the floor for debate and a vote. If the intent is to debate this motion, the substance of the motion, on Thursday in the second hour, and bring it to a vote, I'm not sure we're opposed to that.

Would you allow us, as Conservative members, to caucus briefly on this? Perhaps the other parties would like to do likewise.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

We will suspend for five minutes while we have a talk.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Okay. I call the meeting back to order.

Is there any further discussion on the motion? I'll read it here. The motion we are debating or discussing at this point in time is that debate on the motion moved by Gerry Byrne concerning amendments to NAFO be suspended until Thursday, October 8, 2009, at 4:30, and that all questions regarding this motion be put and a vote be taken no later than 5:30 p.m.

Does that make sense? Is that understood?

Mr. Kamp.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Thank you. First let me apologize for taking up valuable time in having to speak to our colleagues here, but I think we're prepared to support that if you want to call the question.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Is there no further discussion on that motion?

I will put the question.

(Motion agreed to)

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Chair, a point of clarification on a procedural issue, if I may.

Once the vote is taken on Thursday night, any member of this committee can then report it to the House the following day. Do I understand that advice to be correct?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I have to check on that. I'm not sure. One second.

My understanding and the advice I've been provided is that normally it's the chair, but it has happened in the past that other members have tabled reports.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Given the time sensitivity to this particular issue, and given the fact that it is an option of any committee member to be able to report to the House what the findings or the report of this committee were, this report will indeed be reported to the House the following day, Friday. Is that in order?

This is not part of the motion; this is a procedural issue.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I assume that the question you're asking is, can it be tabled in the House the following day? My understanding is yes, it can be tabled in the House the following day.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Chairman, without ever trying to compromise your standing as chair, I'd like to give notice that if you're not available on that Friday, a member on this side of the table will table it on Friday.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Yes. I guess we'd have to decide at another point who would be available if I am not. It doesn't necessarily have to be one side of the table or the other. I think the committee could decide who would table it.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

But I understand the committee itself does not have to decide that. Any member of the committee can stand on Friday and--

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

The advice I have received is that normally it's the chair, and there have been past practices where other members of the committee have tabled a report. I'm not sure how that determination of who would table the report was made. I didn't receive that advice.

We'll get back to you on Thursday. We'll look into past practices, how it was determined, who determined that. Sometimes it's determined by the chair or it's designated to the vice-chair or whatever, but we'll report back on Thursday on that practice.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Can we have confidence that the chair will delegate that authority and responsibility on Thursday if, indeed, you're not available on Friday?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I stated that we would get back on Thursday and will deal with the issue on Thursday. You can have all the confidence you want.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. I'm not sure who is going to lead your presentation today, whether it's you, Mr. Balfour, or Mr. Beaupré. I'll give you the option of who leads.

Generally, we have a 10-minute time limit for presentations by our guests. You'll hear a little beep; we have a little clock, and it generally signals when the time has passed. I'd ask that you try to stay as close to the timeframes as possible.

Each party has a certain time allotment as well for questions and answers; you'll hear the beeping throughout. The members of the committee are fully apprised of the constraints they need to work within. So that we can get through as many questions as possible, I'd ask that you stay close to the timeframes provided.

Do you have any questions before we proceed?

4:10 p.m.

David Balfour Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

No, Mr. Chairman. I'll be making the presentation on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. We will indeed be diligent in trying to ensure that we respect the time requirement you've laid out.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I'd ask that you introduce your associate as well when you're making your presentation, and I'll ask you to proceed at this time. Thank you very much.

4:10 p.m.

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

David Balfour

I'm here this afternoon with Mr. Guy Beaupré, acting associate assistant deputy minister of fisheries policy renewal with the department.

We welcome the opportunity to outline the amendments to the 1978 Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, also known as the NAFO Convention. I note that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans also reviewed this issue in early March of this year, at which time senior DFO officials were present.

The amendments to the NAFO Convention are important for Canada and for Canada's fishing industry. They will help to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of fish stocks and ecosystems in the Northwest Atlantic and thereby contribute to the economic development and prosperity of coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

Canada's overriding objective has been to curb overfishing and to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks and the long-term health of the ecosystems in which they live. Given that most of the NAFO-managed fishery stocks are straddling—that is, they occur both within Canada's exclusive economic zone on the Atlantic side and also beyond the 200-mile limit on the high seas in the NAFO regulatory area—these concerns also reflect global interests.

Of particular significance for Atlantic provinces, and particularly the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is Canada's membership and leadership in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO.

After 30-some years, NAFO members agreed that it was time to modernize the convention in order to bring it in line with the provisions of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. NAFO members agreed that we had to be forward-looking and to give ourselves the modern decision-making tools required to deal with the modern problems we face.

The amendments to the convention were only one of a number of reforms that NAFO members engaged in. First came the enforcement reform in 2006. Changes to NAFO conservation and enforcement measures enacted in 2007 have led to encouraging success enforcing the rules on the high seas in the NAFO regulatory area. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, acting on behalf of NAFO, has increased enforcement and surveillance to detect and deter illegal fishing activities, and compliance has improved significantly as a result. The serious infringements in the NAFO regulatory area declined from thirteen in 2005 to seven in 2006, one in 2007, and zero in 2008.

We have also seen tangible results of increased cooperation, better management measures consistent with scientific advice, and enforcement vigilance. As a result, important stock such as yellowtail flounder, 3M cod, and 3LN redfish have recovered, and other stocks, such as American plaice, are also showing signs of recovery. At the recent NAFO annual meeting, NAFO reopened two stocks, 3M cod and 3LN redfish, after a decade of their being under moratorium.

But improved enforcement and cooperation was only part of the solution. Canada has consistently worked with NAFO to develop scientific advice and adopt conservation and management measures to effectively manage straddling stocks important to Canada, such as Greenland halibut, yellowtail flounder, 3L shrimp, and others.

But we recognized that there was a need to reconsider the way NAFO made decisions and how we govern ourselves as an organization. That's why we as NAFO members negotiated and adopted amendments to the 1978 convention in 2007. Canada supported these amendments because they were important and beneficial for Canada.

Provincial governments and industry representatives were by our side throughout the whole multi-year process and were consulted extensively. All the stakeholders involved agreed with us that the amendments were in the interests of Canada. Senior officials of the Newfoundland and Labrador government were full members of the Canadian delegation that negotiated these amendments and supported us throughout the negotiations.

As I said earlier, NAFO faces very different issues today from those when the original convention was agreed to in 1978. Parties today are committed to applying an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in the northwest Atlantic, which includes protecting the marine environment, preserving marine biodiversity, and reducing the risks of long-term impacts on fishing.

The amendments to the NAFO convention are designed to provide the organization with a more modern and forward-looking governance framework that will allow it to meet its ongoing and future commitments under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and other international instruments.

Mr. Chairman, I will outline the key benefits of the amended convention, to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised.

Firstly, under the original 1978 NAFO convention, fish stocks were managed as a single species, and management decisions did not always adhere to the received scientific advice. Over time, this type of management proved to be ineffective for the long-term health of fish stocks. As a result, more than ten stocks have been under moratorium for many years and are only now starting to recover.

The amended convention now shifts NAFO to an ecosystem-based approach to decision-making, an approach that considers the interrelationships among marine species and between these species and their habitats. This includes considering how catches of one fish stock could affect other fish species, as well as identifying and addressing the impacts of particular fishing gear on sensitive ocean habitats.

Secondly, under the 1978 rules, members could object to any management decision, decide on a unilateral quota, and fish it without any constraint even if it ultimately resulted in overfishing.

The old convention also lacked a dispute settlement process, which led to longstanding disagreements. Under the amended NAFO convention, we will have a controlled system to address objections and disputes. This is a system that requires a contracting party that objects to a conservation and management measure to set out alternative measures it intends to take for conservation and management of the fishery that are consistent with the objective of the convention, and an active role for the commission in trying to resolve the issues. In this way, contracting parties will be held accountable for their actions, so that we avoid these unnecessary and counterproductive situations and reduce overfishing.

Thirdly, under the original convention rules, NAFO's decisions were made by a simple majority vote, leaving an impression that there were only winners and losers. In some cases, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this led to defiance of the rules, unilateral quotas, and overfishing. The amended convention emphasizes consensus. A two-thirds majority voting system has been introduced for those situations where consensus cannot be reached. Any NAFO member who wishes to change the way NAFO allocates fish must obtain support from eight of the twelve NAFO members, instead of the seven needed before. As a result of this change, Canada's fish quotas in NAFO will be better protected, thus addressing a key preoccupation of the Canadian industry.

I would like to comment on the criticisms of the amended convention. In summary, the concerns are as follows.

First, the government failed to protect Canada's sovereignty to make decisions for fisheries management and enforcement within Canadian waters.

Second, the change in the rules on decision-making from the requirement for the current simple majority to a two-thirds majority will weaken Canada's ability to obtain support for more restrictive, conservation-based management proposals in NAFO.

Third, the amendments with respect to the objection procedure are not robust enough to limit objections and unilateral decisions.

Fourth, the dispute settlement procedure in the amended convention is useless as it does not provide for a binding decision.

Briefly, these criticisms are unfounded. I will respond to each of these respectively.

First, with respect to sovereignty, the amended convention is quite clear. Canada maintains control over its waters, and NAFO measures will not be applied in Canadian waters unless Canada requests that they be applied and votes in favour of such measures.

The amended NAFO convention explicitly maintains Canada's sovereign right to take management decisions on fisheries within its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. It is clear that NAFO has no mandate to take management decisions within Canadian waters, nor does it give foreign fishing vessels rights to fish in Canadian waters. I would also note that this provision applies to all coastal states, including Danish-owned Greenland, French-owned Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and the U.S.A. None of these parties seem troubled by this article.

Second, with respect to the change to a two-thirds requirement, as previously noted, this will provide a much better protection for Canadian quota shares in the NAFO stocks. This reflects the priority of Canadian industry and Canada to protect quota shares.

Third, with respect to the objection procedure, the amended convention provides for constraints on the use of the objection procedure, limiting the grounds for objections and placing the onus on the party wishing to object to demonstrate grounds for its objection and to adopt equivalent conservation measures while the objection procedure operates.

Fourth, the amended convention strengthens decision-making by including timely mechanisms to resolve disputes for the first time. Contracting parties can invoke dispute settlement procedures that ultimately provide for a binding decision.

Canada's interests are better protected with the amendments to the NAFO convention. The reforms are in Canada's best interest and the interests of the fish stocks in the North Atlantic. They provide clear benefits that are important for Canada and its fishing industry. They will help to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of fish stocks and ecosystems in the northwest Atlantic.

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I would like to briefly report on the recent NAFO annual meeting held from September 21 to 25.

Canada succeeded in persuading NAFO to adopt conservation-oriented outcomes important to Canada to protect fish stocks and their ecosystems in the NAFO regulatory area. The decisions include the setting of total allowable catches and quotas for 2010, which include a rollover of the TAC of 16,000 tonnes for Greenland halibut for one year. As I noted previously, we reached agreement to reopen two stocks that had been closed to fishing for 10 years. Canadian quota shares of these stocks were maintained at pre-moratorium levels. These stocks have now sufficiently recovered to allow targeted fisheries.

There was also a commitment to redouble efforts to reduce the bycatch of southern Grand Banks or 3NO cod, and there were additional measures to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as corals and sponges.

Canada takes scientific advice seriously. In fact, the TAC decisions made at NAFO clearly reflected scientific advice and were within the safe scientific parameters. The NAFO decisions for the reopened stocks also incorporated additional conservation measures to ensure the continued recovery of these stocks. In addition, incorporated into a number of the decisions were commitments to undertake additional research, to improve scientific advice, and to improve the reliability of catch statistics to improve future decision-making.

The NAFO decisions took into account the views of the Canadian industry and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian industry representatives on the Canadian delegation expressed to me their satisfaction with the NAFO outcomes, which will provide significant economic benefit to the economy and people of Newfoundland and Labrador. By Canadian industry estimates, the maintenance of the TAC for the Greenland halibut means over $25 million, primarily for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

With respect to 3L shrimp, Canada's quota next year will remain at almost 25,000 tonnes, with a harvest value of $29.7 million.

The total allowable catch of yellowtail flounder was maintained at 17,000 tonnes for 2010, and Canada's share of 16,575 tonnes has an estimated harvest value of over $6 million.

The reopening of 3LN redfish stock will provide 1,500 tonnes, with an estimated harvest value of about $1 million. These outcomes will provide benefits primarily to the economy and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will conclude with that, Mr. Chairman.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much, Mr. Balfour.

We'll go to Mr. Byrne.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

We're into it already. Thanks.

Thanks very much to the witnesses. Thanks very much for that recapping of the economics. It sounds pretty 1980s DFO, though. If someone were to celebrate the fact that we can still catch more cod--we shouldn't shut down plants, we shouldn't shut down the fishery, we shouldn't do anything, because here it is 1989 and we have people who depend on it and we can make money at it--that would be a good reason not to take a responsible point of view of conservation. That seems to be what you're saying.

The NAFO Scientific Council said on Greenland halibut that they really strongly recommend 14,000 tonnes as the total allowable catch. That was the preferred recommendation. It might have been, arguably, in some minds, within the parameters or ranges of science. But 14,000, not 16,000, was the preferred catch rate, and that's true of all four species NAFO made decisions on, whether it be 3M cod, which they really suggested be at 4,100 tonnes but which came in at 5,500 tonnes.... It sounds pretty 1980s DFO to actually glorify that.

But I want to get specifically to the objection procedure. You state, Mr. Balfour, that committee members should take it that the objection procedure is now gone. It's all binding. All decisions of NAFO are binding. Don't worry. Good decisions will prevail and will be done on a timely basis.

That's not actually correct. My understanding is that if a contracting party wants to object to any particular NAFO decision--a contracting party or parties--they simply file an objection as they did before. The provision is still available in the revised convention. They file an objection, and they fish as they see fit. The convention specifically prescribes that. They fish as they see fit up to and including the time an ad hoc panel can be established. The ad hoc panel will then convene. It will meet, it will discuss, it will debate, and it will come to a recommendation. Meanwhile, the objecting party is still fishing at levels it sees fit.

Then the ad hoc panel will report its recommendation back to NAFO, and a special meeting of NAFO then has to be convened. Then if there's further objection, which there can be, it has to go to one of the measures under UNFA or UNCLOS to have the matter referred, as prescribed by UNCLOS or UNFA, to something such as the International Court of Justice. We're talking about a period of about three to four years.

Is there anything in this convention that will create a binding decision of the original NAFO decision within weeks of any objection procedure being filed--not months, not years, but weeks? Because the quota will be cut. As we know, once the European Union--Spain or Portugal, in particular--filed objections in the past, they basically had their full quotas, and then some, caught within at least six months.

So really, the issue is what in this convention ensures that a timely, binding decision is made within days or weeks of an objection being filed. I think the answer is nothing.

4:30 p.m.

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

David Balfour

With respect to the decisions taken about TACs at NAFO, all the decisions that were taken were within the range of the scientific advice. You cited a few stocks that saw an increase. There were also stocks such as yellowtail flounder for which--despite the scientific advice, which suggested there would be permission for an increase in TAC--NAFO decided to decrease the TACs.

Under the new convention, compared to the old convention, as I think you well understand, currently a party can object, set a TAC, and simply fish it. That was the situation in the past, in the 1970s, 1980s, and in the early 1990s, and was part of what created the demise of a number of stocks and one of the reasons we have 10 stocks in the NAFO regulatory area closed under moratoria.

The new NAFO convention, with its intention to modernize NAFO, with an emphasis on an ecosystem-based approach, the precautionary approach of conservation, sustainable use, elimination of illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, is all reflective of the new and more recent international fisheries policy and instruments that have come into effect subsequent to the creation of the existing NAFO convention in 1978, such as the UN Fisheries Agreement. It's reflective of the provisions within that agreement for a binding dispute resolution for fisheries issues on the high seas. This is a high seas area fishery, which is guided by those sorts of international instruments.

In the NAFO convention, what we have that's different is that the parties at NAFO will come together and arrive at approaches through consensus rather than through the conflict of a vote and an objection. That pretty much continues to be the practice of NAFO in a contemporary way.

If there is an objection filed, the party now has to provide reasons for the objection on a narrow basis, in terms of why the decision of NAFO discriminated against them and so on. The ad hoc panel process that you referred to is something that, as you appreciate, hasn't operated yet because the new convention isn't in force. But it is contemplated that these types of disputes would be engaged on following the meetings of NAFO—which occur every year in September—on a timeframe that would see a resolution by the fisheries commission within a four- to six-month period, normally, in order that decisions can be in effect before much in the way of the fishery has occurred for the following calendar year, which is what NAFO meets in September to deal with, for example in September 2009 to set out TACs and fisheries approaches for the 2010 fisheries period.

So we would expect to see this provision operate in such a manner that we would see we would be giving effect to the resolution of these disputes not too far into the fishing season where they should be given effect. We would then be looking, if necessary, to invoke a formal dispute resolution under mechanisms such as the UN Fisheries Agreement. It's hoped that if one would have to do that after having it occur on a few occasions, perhaps we would not be having to do that too frequently again in the future.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

I guess it would be contemplated that the European Union would abide by international trade or World Trade Organization rules and not conduct an illegal ban of seals, but our contemplation doesn't seem to be having much effect on them because of what Canada--your government and my government--feels is an illegal trade ban on seals. And I don't think we should expect any different behaviour from the European Union or any other NAFO member state, for that matter, if this prescribed rule of law, the NAFO revised convention, specifically provides them with a method of objecting, fishing unilaterally and fishing unilaterally until such a time as the ad hoc panel reports--which you say is four to six months--and then availing themselves of all the tools and options available under article XV.

Now, article XIV, paragraph 2 specifically tells me, and everybody else in this room, that the objection procedure is still very much there and that any country that objects--any NAFO member state, any contracting party that objects--does not have to play by the NAFO rules; it is written right into the revised convention.

Article XV tells me that they have a whole host of tools available to them to keep the objection going. In fact, we heard testimony this morning--you may have been present at the foreign affairs committee--that one example of exactly this procedure was the Gulf of Maine circumstance, where Canada and the U.S. agreed to send it to the UNCLOS procedure, which is the International Court of Justice, which is exactly what is being prescribed here, and the matter took three years to resolve before that binding decision came down.

The interesting thing about this is that decisions are reached in NAFO on an annual basis. How can this be binding in a timely way, given that factual reality?

4:35 p.m.

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

David Balfour

As I said, the vast majority of decisions that are taken by NAFO are taken on the basis of a consensus. There is truly an effort to come together in a cooperative spirit to secure the sustainable use and the conservation of the resources. The types of practices that occurred in the past, that you allude to in terms of the European Union and of others, of objecting and setting quotas and overfishing those quotas, is not currently the practice that we're seeing from these parties.

There are a lot of decisions that are being taken that don't need to be put to a vote. For example, when we had discussion about the possible reopening of the 3M cod fishery on the Flemish Cap, Canada proposed that we have more stringent bycatch measures to ensure that we carefully manage the reopening of that fishery to secure its sustainability and continued rebuilding. All parties, including the European Union, agreed that we would continue with a 5% bycatch provision for 3M cod in other directed fisheries that would occur on the Flemish Cap catch, which is the level of bycatch that was permitted during the moratorium, where open fisheries would have permitted a bycatch at 10%. So this was very much a commitment on all parties to an ethic and an objective conservation in sustainable use.

These bycatches will be included against quotas of those parties that have quotas for 3M cod. So it's an example of the way forward where we would be expecting, as opposed to the past where objections were the recurring approach, that there would be an exception to an objection. There is going to be the requirement that a party would have to give cause and explanation as to why they're objecting. There is an openness and transparency in the process of NAFO. The world has changed and we have environmental NGOs at the table, observing all of the deliberations of NAFO. We have a great interest not only in terms of the public and the countries of NAFO parties, but also in terms of their industry to ensure that collectively we manage the fishery differently to give them the certainty and predictability that the fisheries will be there in a sustainable long-term way.

I do believe the philosophy and ethics have changed radically. The marketplace has changed as well, and insists on ensuring that people can't be out there blatantly overfishing, expecting to be able to sell into a marketplace any longer.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Mr. Balfour.

Monsieur Blais.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. There is a saying that history, unfortunately, repeats itself. Given NAFO's track record, it is very hard to be supportive, even when we are told there is a so-called better formula or new agreement format between the sovereign nations in the organization.

Are NAFO's activities still almost entirely funded by the Canadian government?