Fisheries Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[David Bevan]

I think it's fair. There's been some concern raised about the possibility of NAFO making decisions relevant to completely Canadian stocks like those in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I don't think that's something people need to be concerned about. Clearly, when we're dealing with something like Greenland halibut, we've agreed to follow the NAFO decisions relevant to the TAC and our share of the Greenland halibut. That means that we are giving up our possibility to decide to unilaterally set quotas, etc., on that outside of an objection procedure under NAFO. We have in that sense said we are surrendering a bit of the management to NAFO.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay.

I'm trying to clearly comprehend Mr. Byrne's suggestion and your response. In law you can't give up what you don't have. I think Mr. Byrne was asking why we can't have some reciprocal provision that would extend beyond the 200-mile limit. I don't think there's any authority in NAFO or anyone else under international law to allow any country to extend its reach beyond that 200-mile limit. Isn't that correct?

[David Bevan]

Well, for sure UNCLOS does not anticipate that. These regional fish management organizations are, however, in international law. So there is no unilateral opportunity for Canada to say you're fishing on the Flemish Cap and we think you should have the following quota, and you should use the following gear, and so on. We can't do that outside of the regional fish management organization because we don't have the possibility, under international law, to extend it. So we gain control of actions out there through organizations such as NAFO, and by making the interventions that we've been making to get these arrangements that do get control over fishing on the high seas.

Right now, with our investment in enforcement, with our understanding of what's going on out there, I think we can say that we are able to ensure that measures adopted by NAFO are complied with.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Even if we all agreed in this room that what Mr. Byrne was proposing was a good idea, is it within anybody's jurisdiction to provide that reciprocal authority? I would think it wouldn't be.

[David Bevan]

If it's with the agreement of NAFO, it will be reflected in a NAFO decision. So those decisions would apply. However, for Canada to unilaterally impose its will on the high seas, whether it's in NAFO or in the middle of the north Atlantic, that doesn't exist.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

So from what I understood in this very interesting arrangement, there is a reliance on the host state to enforce NAFO rules against the host state's own member. In this case you mentioned—the 200,000 euro fine—Spain imposed that fine against Spanish interests. What is the incentive for the host countries to act against their own people? I would think it would be politically very unpopular, even though it may be legally required. What is the incentive for countries to do that?

[David Bevan]

They have a legal obligation. They've ratified UNFA, and that requires their obligation to maintain control over the vessels they flag. And if they are part of NAFO through the European Union, they have a legal obligation there to enforce the rules.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

And if they fail?

[David Bevan]

Then they are failing to meet their obligations, and that will certainly be a significant problem for all parties. That's perhaps why they haven't done that and they aren't complying.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

If a country fails to enforce its obligation against its own member fishermen, or boat, or fisherwoman, there's nothing we can do about that?

[David Bevan]

There's no quick response. You can take them under UNFA. There could be a dispute under NAFO in the new convention and that could lead to UNFA, but you can't just send a gunboat out to do something on very quick actions. Certainly that has happened in the past, as we are aware, but it wasn't quick; it involved a lot of diplomacy.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston.

This committee wants me to attend another meeting, so we have a couple of minutes for each party. If people will adhere to the time, then I can get to the meeting; if you don't, I won't.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what we've learned so far at this meeting is that there is indeed a legal opt-out option for any foreign nation and contracting party to fish as it sees fit in the NAFO regulatory area. In other words, that throws the assertion that Canada now has custodial management of the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks out the window.

We've discovered that countries are now lining up to feast at the Canadian fish buffet. To allow ratification, Canada is prepared to engage in talks with contracting parties to ensure that ratification of this convention proceeds. We also know that Canada has proposed certain measures that actually allow foreign countries and NAFO contracting parties, NAFO generally, to be able to engage in operations and management of Canadian fish practices inside our exclusive economic zone and that we failed to negotiate any sort of comparable arrangement outside the economic zone.

That, Mr. Weston, is exactly the point here. You asked the question if it's consistent with international law. If NAFO so decides and Canada agrees to letting NAFO control inside our 200-mile limit, then NAFO could allow Canada to control outside the 200-mile limit, so it would be completely consistent with international law. The problem is Canada didn't ask for it. We allowed NAFO the rewriting of the NAFO convention inside the 200 miles without asking for the rewrite of the NAFO convention to allow Canada to manage outside the 200 miles. That is the failure of Canadian foreign policy and international fish management, in my opinion.

Mr. Bevan, would you like to respond?

[David Bevan]

I would point out that currently the dispute settlement is not there, and therefore objection procedures, unilateral action, are certainly allowed under the current convention. Under the new convention, there is recourse to deal with objections through the dispute settlement process and leading to UNFA.

With respect to negotiations under way relevant to ratification, there aren't any. There are no negotiations because there was an agreement made in 2007 and then again in 2008 by all the contracting parties to accept the new convention. There was no relationship to the fish discussions at all. So I would just make that point.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

So Canadian fishing stakeholders should not expect any significant changes to quota sharing between the 2008 arrangement and the 2009 or 2010 arrangement. What you're saying to us under oath is that there really shall not be any significant resharing of quotas to the Faroe Islands or any other stock or species to any of the other contracting parties, because there are no negotiations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Mr. Bevan, be as short as you can.

[David Bevan]

No negotiations have taken place relevant to the new convention to get it ratified. That is the case.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But there may be some redistribution of quotas down the road that have nothing to do with this.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Mr. Byrne, give the witness a chance to answer.

[David Bevan]

We're not working under the new convention; therefore unilateral action is still permitted under the old convention. If stocks open up, there's going to be definite interest. We're convinced that we'll be able to maintain it, because we have provisions to help guard our share in the NAFO conservation enforcement measures. I'm optimistic that we'll keep the shares the same way, and I assure you there is no link to ratification and any discussions on fish.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan and Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

When do you expect Canada to ratify? What advice would you give the minister to eventually ratify it on Canada's side?

[David Bevan]

I think we should proceed with ratification. There'll be an obligation to take it to the House. The decision on that rests with the minister, but I would recommend that we proceed.

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

As you know, the Pacific Salmon Treaty was also supposed to come to the House and it didn't, so that's why I asked the question. I'm quite concerned that it may be ratified without any House consultation. But that's not a question for you; that's for the minister.

I thank you very much for that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lawrence MacAulay]

Mr. Calkins.