Fisheries Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[David Balfour]

There are 12 members of NAFO. As we described earlier, the operating approach of NAFO is to reach decisions by consensus, not by votes.

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

Who does the voting? That's what I'm trying to find out.

[David Balfour]

It's the 12 parties.

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

It says, if I'm not mistaken, you would require two votes on that. Am I correct?

[David Balfour]

It would be a request from Canada. The request is not put to a vote. Canada can request what it chooses and wishes to request.

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

I'll try to reword my question.

Canada has this provision in here, that we indicated we would probably never use, but it's in there anyway, which means that Canada might use it one day. Under a particular circumstance, Canada requests NAFO management inside our 200-mile limit, for whatever reason. During those negotiations, you said that we could vote against that if we wanted to. Who would do the vote? Canada and who else, or is it only Canada?

[David Balfour]

Well, we're saying that Canada could vote against the measure that maybe we requested. So it would be in a meeting of the fisheries council, with all 12 parties present, where Canada would vote against the measure.

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

And if two-thirds of those countries said yes, they want to come in, what would happen then?

[David Balfour]

It would still not happen. The provision is very clear that Canada would have to both ask for it, in the first place, and it would have to vote for it. So if it votes against it, then it doesn't happen. It allows Canada, then, to say, well, we think we want to do, say, scientific research or whatever for these purposes; these would be the conditions under which we would consider doing it, this is how we would supervise it, and so on.

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

Sir, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Canada agree to have science from other countries come in right now, without this amendment? We can do that now, can't we?

[David Balfour]

Yes, that's correct.

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

You don't need an agreement to state that. So the only reason I can think of as to why this agreement is in here is because the EU asked for it. I wasn't at the negotiation table, but I don't think Canada would have asked for it, because Mr. Applebaum stated quite clearly in their negotiations for years and years that Canada never would have contemplated this type of idea. He reported that to the Senate committee earlier this week.

You can correct me if I'm wrong. I have to question myself as to why would this provision be in here, why the two-thirds instead of the 50% plus one. Why not exercise the most strictest of precautionary principles when it comes to quota and TAC on these precious fish stocks? I don't understand, sir, why you would have been part of, obviously, a group of people who would have consented to higher quotas, and even though it's within a range, why you wouldn't have gone for the lowest quota in that regard. If we truly believe in conservation and the precautionary principle, which we hear repeatedly from officials within the department, why would Canada have gone to the higher route in that regard? It's quite disconcerting. When I hear four people who worked in DFO at very senior levels raise some very serious issues about this particular agreement, it sets alarm bells ringing and red flags all over the place, and I say this with great respect. I simply haven't been assured by the department that it's actually doing the right thing for Canada, and especially the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Those are my comments.

[David Balfour]

Well, first, as I think we explained earlier, this provision is present in other modern conventions for RFMOs. It was reviewed by Department of Justice experts at Foreign Affairs, and it's our view that it doesn't present an issue or a risk to us.

Certainly, with respect to the decisions that are being taken by NAFO and the views that are brought forward by the Canadian delegation, we are very much mindful of operating within scientific advice. We certainly did that at the last NAFO meeting.

For example, as I said, the 3M cod stock on the Flemish Cap is a stock that has been rebuilt and is now opening to fishing. It could have continued to rebuild at a TAC in excess of 8,000 tonnes. The figure of 4,125 tonnes was very low and very conservative within the range. We believed we could provide fishing opportunities at 5,500 tonnes--along with the other measures that were adopted, such as the bycatch provisions I described earlier, which allow for us to ensure that this resource will be pursued in a sustainable and precautionary manner.

Every party to NAFO wants to ensure that these stocks that are reopening will be managed carefully in order that they continue to rebuild and will be there to provide sustainable fishing opportunities well into the future.

So we have been, I believe, very cautionary in terms of the TACs that have been established, and will continue to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Balfour.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here today.

I want to focus on a couple of areas.

First, I want to pursue a little bit more this exclusive zone issue. One of the comments that Raymond Andrews made March 10, 2009, was this:

Mr. Applebaum gave a very clear answer to that when he was here last week. Can somebody come into Canadian jurisdiction without the request of the state, which is Canada? The answer he gave was one word: No.

Just so I'm clear, if Canada makes that request, is that a votable request? Is that something that would be voted on by the members, that would have to have a two-thirds majority, including Canada, to let people within their 200-mile zone?

[David Balfour]

Yes, that is something that would require that kind of voting.

I would think that if any measure of that sort were ever to be contemplated sometime in the future, any request or proposal that came forward from Canada would include with it the measures to ensure that there was proper and full supervision by Canada with respect to any activity by other NAFO parties within the Canadian zone, be it for scientific research purposes, enforcement, surveillance, or whatever to ensure that Canadian sovereignty was in no way being compromised.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Let's take this to the next stage, then. Let's say Canada wants to go in there. Then they get into this process and it's, “Oops, I don't think this is such a good idea.” Then, if we say no, that vote is never even held.

Is that true?

[David Balfour]

Absolutely.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. So it doesn't even come to a vote.

[David Balfour]

It doesn't even then come to a vote.

As I said, at NAFO we endeavour to operate by consensus. Most of the measures, the conservation measures that are being adopted, are done through a consensus process. It's all about cooperation.

If Canada didn't see some useful purpose and conditions that were acceptable to Canada for any scientific research or enforcement or whatever within the Canadian zone, then it would just not happen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

How would that happen under today's convention? I understand you can invite somebody in today, if you want to. Is there a process under today's convention?

[David Balfour]

There is no process under the current convention for any of that. It's a matter that would have to be dealt with through an undefined process, currently.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I love undefined processes.

In your negotiations in the lead-up to this, which took a couple of years, as you were indicating, my assumption would be that there is nothing in that agreement that you wouldn't have had some blessing for prior to agreeing to any of that.

Which provinces were actually involved in that process? And would they have had a mandate from their governments on that process?

[David Balfour]

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was actively involved in all deliberations in the lead-up to the negotiation of this amended convention, just as they are involved in all NAFO meetings.

For example, this year they participated, along with the Newfoundland industry, in a number of preparatory meetings with the department. These were held to discuss the mandates and directions that we receive from our minister to take to the NAFO meeting. They were all present at this year's NAFO meeting, where we were continually in dialogue with them to ensure that the decisions that were ultimately made were consistent with their objectives. Representatives of the Newfoundland industry have told me that they were satisfied with the outcomes of NAFO. They are concerned about ensuring that we respect the scientific advice, and that we take a sustainable approach to the reopening of fisheries.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I want to go back to the testimony of Mr. McCurdy, in relation to a comment that Mr. Byrne made about the Faroe Islands during that meeting. He said, “They file an objection annually and fish more than their quota, and there is no further remedy under the current NAFO regime.” He thought the new regime would result in an improvement.

Does that fall under the equivalent conservation measures, just because you can't object anymore? What are the equivalent conservation measures that someone has to take, as opposed to what's in place today?