Fisheries Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[David Balfour]

I'm going to ask Mr. Beaupré to jump in on this because I wasn't party to the negotiations. But I know that the development of this proposed amendment was established by a consensus of all 12 parties to NAFO. It wasn't as though anyone was compelling or imposing. It's about all parties coming together in a willing spirit and agreeing that the principles of the new convention are such that NAFO will be more effective in achieving its objectives into the future.

[Guy Beaupré, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just explain in a few words how the process went. We started the process on the basis of a draft amended convention that brought together elements of text from other conventions, like the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and others, as well as text that parties put on the table for their own interests. So even though the European Union had the pen, as we say, the text we worked from was a combination of pieces that came from various sources. The negotiations took place on that basis, and the discussions were on whatever text the parties wanted to have.

All during those negotiations, any text that the Canadian delegation put on the table had the agreement of our delegation, composed of all the representatives of the members of the industry, as well as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So it was a long process of discussions within our delegation, discussions at the table, and some negotiations on text. All of the text from the Canadian delegation was first scrutinized by our Foreign Affairs and Department of Justice experts. So this was an ongoing process throughout the negotiations.

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

Is it accurate to say that like most negotiations the Canadian delegation didn't get everything it wanted; it got some things and gave up some things? In an ideal world, would we want a different convention than what we see in the end here?

[Guy Beaupré]

I think the Canadian delegation was quite satisfied with the results. The main elements of importance to the Canadian delegation included a more constrained objection procedure, which we have in the current amended convention; a dispute resolution mechanism, which was also very important because none exists currently in the convention; a modernized convention that reflects an ecosystem approach and a precautionary approach; and a better voting system so the shares we have in NAFO are protected.

These were the main elements we had going in. We felt we came out in a way that was satisfactory for the whole delegation.

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

Is it accurate to say that those key elements and goals for the negotiations were outlined in a document put together at the 2005 St. John's conference--sort of that basis for NAFO reform--and in the amendment negotiations you were seeking to implement those things that the Government of Canada had already signed off on, a previous government but the Government of Canada nonetheless?

Let me turn to article VI, section 10, which has come up for debate a number of times. I'll read it into the record:

The Commission may adopt measures on matters set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 concerning an area under national jurisdiction of a Contracting Party, provided that the coastal State in question so requests and the measure receives its affirmative vote.

Is this a novel clause, or do we find it in other RFMOs around the globe?

[David Balfour]

It appears in other RFMO instruments, such as for the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. This is the sister organization to NAFO for the management of fisheries in the eastern Atlantic on the high seas. So in this case, countries like the EU would be subject to the same type of provision as a coastal state with respect to their exclusive economic zone.

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

Yes, that's my understanding as well based on testimony from Professor McDorman of the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria. It's also in the South Pacific convention.

Is it fair to say that this kind of approach is somehow reflective of a growing sense that global fish stocks are at risk, that the status quo is not leading us where we want to go, and that we need to be taking a new approach to international management of fish stocks? Is this kind of clause part of that or is it from some other motivation?

[David Balfour]

Well, it reflects a concept of cooperation. It really is about the way forward in terms of looking to the future for NAFO and other similar RFMOs.

We all know that in NAFO we've seen the collapse of stocks as a result of overfishing. We've seen moratoria and the need to come together, cooperate, and manage on an ecosystem basis with the complexities of ecosystems. It means that there could be times where, for example, you need to cooperate from a scientific point of view on the high seas and within an EEZ to ensure that you have the knowledge base to be able to manage the stocks wisely.

This is the kind of thing that this provision would potentially contemplate if there were the need to do that at some time in the future.

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

Are there examples of any of the other regional organizations where this has been invoked, where a country has allowed the RFMO into their EEZ to manage or to do science or whatever it might be? Are you aware of any?

[Guy Beaupré]

I think in NEAFC, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which is essentially a commission of only coastal states.... All the parties to that commission are coastal states, so they are very much in a situation where what they manage is very much inside and outside.

I cannot give you a specific example of where this was used, but certainly in terms of the science and the ecosystems considerations where no boundaries would count, basically, it would be important for parties to be able to do that if they so chose.

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

So is it primarily for science or primarily for enforcement that you see a potential for where this could be used in the future if this is adopted?

[David Balfour]

We would see it being utilized, if it was utilized in the area of cooperation, particularly in the area of science in terms of collaboration on research and understanding of ecosystems.

We've seen in NAFO the need for us to have a much better understanding of the impact of fishing on sensitive marine ecosystems. That's a very complex subject of science. You could contemplate the need for a much more cooperative approach into the future. That would be the kind of thing that in pragmatic terms would make sense to see contemplated.

But in doing that, one would still expect that anything that would be done within the Canadian zone from a science standpoint would be under the authorization and the direction of the Canadian management authority, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I have a few questions just to get a little deeper into this.

How long did it take to negotiate this convention?

[Guy Beaupré]

It took between a year and a half and two years.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So it took two years. Were both of you gentlemen involved with the negotiation process over that period of time?

[Guy Beaupré]

No. David wasn't there. I was there with Mr. Bevan.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

At what point during the negotiations did the request for the management within the 200-mile EEZ come onto the table?

[David Balfour]

First, there has not ever been any request for management within the Canadian zone. This is about, as Mr. Beaupré has explained, the incorporation of language from other modern regional fisheries management organization conventions that were drawn--

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

My question was, when did it come on the table as part of the negotiations, what timeframe, early on or later?

[Guy Beaupré]

If I recall--and I may be wrong--it was part of the original text that we started from. We went through the text item by item. So whenever this item came up, it was looked at. As I said before, it was based on the equivalent article in other RFMOs.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So it wasn't requested by an EU country.

[Guy Beaupré]

No.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Then it was the EU that wrote the document that put that in there.

There has been some debate about them being the writers of the document. So they're the ones who put it in there. Is that correct?