Evidence of meeting #39 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 convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
President, Fisheries Council of Canada
There is one element that's been added and that's consistency. If Canada takes measures on straddling stocks, NAFO has an obligation to try to seek consistency with those measures.
This convention adds a dispute settlement mechanism. We've always had the consistency principle in there, but we've never had any way for it to have teeth. With this document, we have a dispute settlement mechanism that gives a little more play to the consistency obligations of NAFO to what Canada does in management measures. That's also one answer to Mr. Blais' question as to what's in this that's really a bit of a take-away.
October 22nd, 2009 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here this afternoon and for the great presentation.
Although I come from a little fishing village called Escuminac on the Miramichi, I certainly have a lot to learn. I'm new on this committee, and I'm enjoying the steep learning curve.
On Tuesday, we heard from Minister Hedderson from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was a little vague when he was discussing Newfoundland's role in the NAFO Canadian delegation. Am I correct to assume that industry's role during these talks would be similar to that of a province, in that you are consultative and you get time to provide input into the process?
4:20 p.m.
President, Fisheries Council of Canada
Yes. I sit on many advisory committees and that sort of stuff. One of the real hallmarks of a great type of model is in fact the NAFO advisory committee, which, as you say, deals with provinces and industry in terms of seeking input, analysis, and so forth. It meets at least, I think, three or four times, or maybe five times, during the course of the year, before the meeting.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
I feel this could be very important, as you do too, that the input is given to these people and that they can work on behalf of all Canadians.
We know the fishing industry is very important. Can you discuss the role that the industry plays in those talks and, if possible, give us your views of the process of reforming the convention?
4:20 p.m.
President, Fisheries Council of Canada
Mr. Chapman is more intimately involved in the meetings and discussions, so I'm going to ask him to enlighten you on that.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
There is a distinction between our role in preparation for and at the NAFO meetings, which are held on an annual basis, and the process that was involved in the negotiation of the new convention.
In the negotiation of the new convention, we were not at the table. We received regular briefings, I would say, three to five times a year for the period of time, the two years or so, that these discussions were taking place. In those briefings we would be informed of the positions of the various parties and also draft text. On issues such as the dispute resolution procedure and the voting, we had as a delegation an opportunity to make the decision, in effect. It was very clear that, especially on the voting procedure, it's a judgment call. It could go either way. There were cases to be made for both.
The Canadian delegation collectively made its judgment to go with the two-thirds process, but that was second-hand. We were not at the table.
In all other aspects of the NAFO meetings, we are effectively at the table and we have real-time observations of what the other countries are involved with. In fact, we often advance the Canadian perspective through the industry contacts that we have at the table. We're involved in bilateral meetings as well.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Then would you say there was pretty well a general consensus amongst all parts of the Canadian delegation?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
In terms of the delegation meetings on the NAFO convention, I don't recall any views expressed contrary to the consensus of the Canadian delegation.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
So you're saying there was a comfort level with how the process unfolded with the delegation and in working with the other states.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
Yes, I believe so.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Were you comfortable with Canada's negotiation team?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
President, Fisheries Council of Canada
Perhaps I could add that one of the issues we were concerned Canada would not be able to maintain in the new regulations was the consistency clause, because that type of phrase has been...not watered down but changed in UNFA to compatibility.
That was really quite an achievement, I think, in terms of the negotiations, that we maintained the consistency clause whereby that implies an obligation on NAFO to be consistent with management measures and decisions that we make with respect to straddling stocks.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
There is one other point under that controversial clause whereby, at a coastal state's request and if the coastal state concurs, the NAFO regulations can apply within our zone. We discussed that clause extensively during our discussion and in the process of our review.
In all aspects of the debate, nothing was brought to my attention that gave me any concern that Canada would lose or have its sovereignty eroded. Just as it exists in the northeast Atlantic, it exists in the northwest Atlantic. It's an enabling clause, but it doesn't diminish in any way Canada's ability to decide to exercise its sovereignty or not.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
It's nice to hear that.
I understand NAFO sets management measures every year, as it did for the reopening of the two stocks this year. What happens if a decision is not finalized at the meeting? Could people just fish wherever then?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
It's almost a theoretical question. We've never run across it before. It often can happen, if you can't reach agreement at a particular meeting, that you convene an intersessional. The annual meeting was held in September in Bergen, and there will be an intersessional discussion on 3M shrimp in London next month. I'm not sure that it's not just a theoretical question.
Insofar as the theory even exists, you have a default scenario built into the green book, as I understand it, the conservation control measures, whereby you can default to the prior year's decision if there is no consensus or agreement on the coming year. Maybe other experts can confirm that.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague.
I have just a couple of quick questions, but there may not be quick answers, though.
I was interested in your comments with respect to having a written text, and how it applies in the seas is something completely different. That's true. You can have it written down. It's like piracy; it's illegal, but we still have a lot of it on the high seas. Can you answer as to the way the objection procedures play today, as opposed to how they might play in the future under the dispute mechanism? Some comments on testimony said it could be dragged out for months and months. As opposed to today's NAFO convention, how do you see that playing out? Can we see this going on for years while a country overfishes a stock?
