Fisheries Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[David Balfour]

A formula determines the funding of NAFO. I believe it's on the basis of three components. The first is that the coastal states, and as I had mentioned earlier there are four coastal states, pay the first 10%. Another 30% of the cost of NAFO is shared equally among all the members of the organization. The balance is then paid on the basis of the shares of fish landings by the members. Given the fact that Canada is a coastal state and has a significant amount of the share of landings of fish from the NAFO regulatory area, I think we pay on the order of about $640,000 of a total budget of about $1.5 million--something on that order. That is all consistent with a formula that has been a standing practice for NAFO.

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

Basically, a little more than a third of NAFO's activities are funded by the Canadian government pursuant to various formulas. I was rereading some notes, namely those of Earle McCurdy, who represents workers and the industry in Newfoundland. When he appeared before the committee in March, he pointed to a number of flashing yellow, if not red, lights when he said that the new format was not necessarily a good one and that he could not muster up much excitement about the outcome. Now, Mr. Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, is making a lot of noise about what is happening right now and is against ratifying the agreement that was negotiated.

Granted, when it comes to negotiating, of course you can always do better, but did we not negotiate a third-rate agreement? Did we not agree to a little less to ensure that NAFO continues to exist? To what degree did we feel the need to compromise more than the others during negotiations, for example, with respect to sovereignty? As far as I know, this was all put forward by the European Union, not us. The two-thirds formula will not necessarily improve things for us. If it was already hard to reach a consensus through the majority formula, just think what it will be like with the two-thirds system: even worse.

I have a hard time saying that we should have confidence in the agreement and move forward. Why should I accept what is on the table, and disregard NAFO's track record and the fact that there are still several unanswered questions about sovereignty and the two-thirds formula? Why should I accept the new formula or agreement if I firmly believe that we are not the better for it.

[David Balfour]

First, in terms of the financial arrangements for NAFO, those are very much consistent with the financing formulas with respect to other international fisheries organizations in the world. It's reflecting the standard practices.

On NAFO, one needs to compare the existing 1978 convention and what it offers, where it offers parties the ability to object to a decision of NAFO, to set their own quota, and to fish their own quota for as long as they want, versus a new process that requires that there be an accountability, a transparency, a demonstration of cause and reasons for an objection, a process to try to bring a resolution to those objections, and ultimately a process to bring a closure to these types of situations. That is all within what is provided for within the international legal fisheries instruments that exist for the management of fisheries on the high seas, such as the UN Fishing Agreement and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

If you're looking at it in terms of a from-to, the proposed new convention is a significant improvement over the structure that we currently operate with. The new convention also is very clear that it operates within a recognition of the rights of the coastal state and the sovereignty of the coastal state to manage their fisheries resources within their exclusive economic zone. NAFO gives effect to measures on the high seas outside the 200-mile limit. There is nothing within that agreement that in any way compromises the sovereignty of Canada, and it allows a mechanism through which Canada can ensure that we have an effective management and conservation of transboundary stocks that overlap into the high seas and international waters to secure sustainable benefits for the Canadian industry on a long-term basis.

Is this new convention an improvement on the current situation or not? I would say the answer to that is yes. And yes, it's consistent with what we can do within the international fisheries instruments.

Finally, the sovereignty of Canada is protected and affirmed by this new NAFO convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Balfour.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, folks, for coming today.

Sir, I'd like to have your answers short and succinct, if at all possible, because we don't have much time to ask them.

Sir, you said, and I quote, “Canada takes scientific advice seriously”, yet recently the Government of Canada voted for an increased TAC on cod. The NAFO Scientific Council recommended a TAC of 4,125 metric tonnes. Despite this, a TAC of 5,500 tonnes was established. The United States had already voted against it, but Canada voted for it.

Secondly, redfish was increased from 8,500 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes, and the TAC for 3NLO skate was reduced from 13,500 to 12,000. The Scientific Council had recommended a TAC of 6,000 tonnes.

Sir, you said you take scientific issues seriously, but when the NAFO Scientific Council makes serious recommendations, why is Canada...? And what, may I ask, are the names of the people who voted for those TACs that allowed this to happen? Could I have the names of the people who voted for that? Why did Canada allow the increased TAC when I consistently hear from yourself and the minister that conservation is what drives us every day when we wake up?

Could I have a very quick answer on that, please?

[David Balfour]

First, with respect to the 3M cod, the advice that NAFO received from the Scientific Council was that a TAC could be established anywhere between 4,125 tonnes and above 8,000 tonnes and we would still see rebuilding of the stock with it being reopened. A TAC of 4,125 would have, according to the scientists, projected a rebuilding at 125%, where 5,500 would provide for a rebuilding at 115%.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Who negotiated that on behalf of Canada?

[David Balfour]

I was the head of delegation at the last NAFO meeting, so I was party to the discussions where, on the basis of the scientific advice, on the basis of the additional measures that were adopted at NAFO, such as continuing a bycatch provision at 5% rather than increasing it to 10%, this stock is still within the safe range and is rebuilding to a TAC of 5,500 tonnes where it's acceptable.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

We also consistently hear on domestic sides as well...regarding the precautionary principle. Wouldn't the precautionary principle have gone for the lower amount?

[David Balfour]

The precautionary principle, or precautionary approach, would say that we should be precautionary when the stock is not in the safe zone. The stock was in the safe zone. It could have been reopened a year ago, but a reopening was deferred to allow for further rebuilding.

The decision that was taken at NAFO is reflective of the range of the scientific advice, and it's within the scientific advice.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay, that's fine, sir. Thank you.

[David Balfour]

I could go on to the other stocks that you enumerated. It's the same story.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

It's all right. I think the response would be similar or the same.

My question on this one is this. The minister, and you and everyone, said they would not foresee any reason as to why we would allow NAFO management within our 200-mile limit, that we have the sovereign right to do that, and you're absolutely correct. But my question is, why is that inclusion in there? Canada never did it. I can't say we just said, look, we're going to give you this. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want you just to listen to this and see if they're right or wrong. If Canada will never have any need for this, why is it now provided for? The answer, they figure, is that the EU insisted on inclusion of these provisions because it serves their interest. With this provision they'll be able to, in future, demand NAFO management inside 200 miles as the price for agreeing to restrictive conservation measures possibly proposed by Canada. Canada will either have to agree to it or accept less restrictive measures.

As you know, Mr. Applebaum, Mr. Parsons, and others, people who had serious levels of DFO experience, have raised this concern as to why that inclusion is in the latest agreement. So an answer, if possible: if we're never going to use it, if we have no reason for doing it--we have our sovereign right--then why is that inclusion in that NAFO agreement?

[David Balfour]

First, I'd have great difficulty in speculating or endeavouring to impute what the purposes or the intent of the EU folks were in terms of coming to the negotiation of the new NAFO convention, but I would say this inclusion in this convention is similar to what exists in other international regional fisheries organization conventions, such as the one that governs fisheries on the eastern Atlantic.

I could also read that in combination with the other points that are laid out in the convention, that talk about the rights of the coastal state, that affirm the sovereignty of the coastal state, that make reference to NAFO operating within the regulatory area, and that this provision is just another explanation to others that, by the way, there is nothing in this that would have anything to do with inside the Canadian zone unless Canada asked for it and voted for it. It's just another way of reaffirming that. It's also--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Who votes for it in Canada?

[David Balfour]

It would be voted--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

By whom?

[David Balfour]

It would be requested by the Government of Canada.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

They wouldn't bring it to Parliament to vote.

[David Balfour]

It would be requested by the Government of Canada, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that if one were ever to choose to invoke that, that would be the process.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Who would be the voters?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry. We'll get back to it on the second round.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay. I'll wait until my second turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I appreciate some of the light you're able to shed on this.

Let me start just by making sure I understand the procedure by which we ended up with these proposed amendments to the convention.

In testimony this morning I think I heard the words, or along this line, that the EU held the pen. The implication was that the EU basically wrote the amendments and then the other countries were forced to go along with them, that these are all EU ideas and the EU is getting what it wants.

Can you tell me how the process worked, to start with?