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.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The much talked about paragraph 10 of Article VI has to do with one of the cornerstones of this debate, the concerns and so forth. Was this paragraph added at Canada's request or the European Union's? Who asked for it? How did it come about?
5:10 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
From what I remember, it was introduced by the member nations of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which includes Iceland, Norway, the European Union, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
If I understand correctly, they submitted a text, and they were part of the debate on the text. Is that right?
5:10 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No. As I said earlier, it was based on a text that incorporated certain elements from other conventions or wording submitted by various countries. I cannot say when exactly this provision was put forward or by whom.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
The paragraph in question was not put forward at our request?
5:10 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
What was the party sitting across from us hoping to accomplish by asking that the paragraph be included or discussed? What would that party gain? How would that party benefit?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
One of the main reasons for discussing the modernization of the convention was to try to figure out what might happen in the future. The current convention has been in force for some thirty years. We have to keep that in mind when considering any amendments to the convention; it may be in force another thirty years or so, maybe more, maybe less. We have to look further ahead and anticipate what might happen. Since we no longer look at things on a stock-by-stock basis nowadays, but rather in terms of the ecosystem as a whole and the interactions between the various stocks, we need to remember that, in the long term, we may want NAFO measures to be equally applicable in the area of one coastal state as in the NAFO area.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
When this paragraph, or what ultimately became paragraph 10, was being discussed, were you very receptive to it? Were you more opposed to it? Did you say that we would hold on to our sovereignty, that the proposal was encroaching on our territory and so forth?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think that the sovereignty issue is as important to Canada as it is to all the countries at the table. It is a very....
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Were you hesitant to discuss what happened to paragraph 10?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Of course the matter was scrutinized by the departments of justice and foreign affairs.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It is important to ensure that Canada retains control and is able to decide whether the NAFO measure will apply within its area, that the decision reflects Canada's will.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
You realize that this proposal could open a door that was previously closed.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
But it was in other conventions.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, that is correct.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Pursuant to paragraph 10 of Article VI, a measure will apply only if Canada wants it and votes for it. I believe that was considered sufficient to ensure Canada's sovereignty.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I think we are opening a door that was closed before. The way I see it, as soon as you do that, even if the country in question, Canada, says that it will not entertain a discussion, it opens the door to being pressured into doing some of the work in terms of managing its 200-mile area.
Is my thinking correct or not?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Our current working environment is consensus-based, with countries working together to make decisions in the interest of protecting and conserving fish stocks. This environment is different from the old one; it is more conducive to openness with a provision like this.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you once again.
Gentlemen, again I've heard the terms “precautionary principle” and “conservation”, and yet Canada, and yourself, sir, admitted that they supported the higher TACs for the various fisheries. People like Boris Worm of Nova Scotia, and others, have indicated to us quite clearly that most fish stocks are in trouble around the world. I think most of us can agree on that. I don't understand why Canada would support any kind of a higher TAC. If you're using the precautionary principle, in my view, that means it should go to the lowest TAC that is possible, not somewhere in between or even higher. That's simply a statement in that regard.
Sir, you talked about the voting procedure if Canada said we wanted to use this provision. So we make the request to allow management inside our waters--only under our request, of course--and then through those negotiations we can vote against it if we wish. I understand there are two votes. One vote would be Canada's. Who would have the other vote? It would be another NAFO country, is that correct?
