Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the period that followed Canada's extension of fisheries jurisdiction, I was a member of the Canadian delegation to the meetings that produced the existing NAFO convention, and I was also a member of all the Canadian delegations to all the NAFO meetings in the period that followed that, until I retired in 1996.
In 2007, I was one of a number of former DFO officials invited to appear before a Senate committee that was reviewing international developments on fisheries in the northwest Atlantic outside Canada's 200-mile limit. Three of my former colleagues were also involved: Bill Rowat, former deputy minister, Scott Parsons, former assistant deputy minister, and Earl Wiseman, who succeeded me as director general of the international directorate.
In preparing for the Senate hearing, I met with DFO officials to get updated on current developments. I learned that negotiations were close to completion on a new NAFO convention to replace the existing one, which had been unchanged since its creation. The proposed new convention was intended to be an improvement on the existing one, with better provisions for the conservation of the fish stocks outside 200 miles in the northwest Atlantic.
When I reviewed the draft of the proposed new convention, I was struck immediately that two serious errors had been made, resulting in draft provisions that, if brought into force, would threaten the integrity of the Canadian 200-mile zone and would weaken Canada's ability in NAFO to get strong conservation decisions to protect the fish stocks outside 200 miles.
The first error involved a major change to the essential structure of the existing NAFO convention. In the negotiation of the convention in the late 1970s, the Canadian negotiators had erected an impervious barrier against any possible intrusion of international management into the Canadian 200-mile zone. Under the new law of the sea convention, negotiated just before, in the mid-1970s, Canada and all other coastal states got the exclusive right to manage fisheries in their 200-mile zones. Accordingly, the NAFO convention negotiated after that extension of Canadian jurisdiction restricted international management to the high seas outside the Canadian 200-mile zone. Nothing in that convention, which remains in force right now, allows for a hint of possible intrusion into Canadian waters.
I was astounded to see that the Canadian negotiators for the proposed new NAFO convention had accepted draft provisions that would allow international management inside 200 miles, all the way to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, into the gulf, right up to Canadian shores, the only condition being that Canada would have to acquiesce. This acquiescence could be given quickly, orally, in the heat of a negotiation, without consulting Quebec, Newfoundland, or any of the other Atlantic provinces. The leverage this provision would give other states, to either pressure Canada during negotiations to acquiesce or to accept poor conservation decisions outside 200 miles, should be obvious.
The other major error, referred to by Mr. Parsons, involved the two-thirds majority system, and he's explained that. The head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the proposed new convention has described this two-thirds rule as “more inclusive”. It's certainly that. It doesn't take much to figure out the nature of the positions that will have to be accommodated in NAFO to achieve this inclusiveness.
I and my three former colleagues drew the attention of the Canadian negotiators and the Minister of Fisheries to these problems, believing—I think we all believed, I believed—that in the final stretch of the negotiations they'd be fixed. They weren't. Instead, the provision of international management inside Canadian waters was, in one respect, made substantially worse. It now also provides not just for international management inside Canadian waters, but international enforcement inside Canadian waters.
The two problems I've brought to your attention are the most serious defects of the proposed new convention, at least in terms of what it says. In terms of what it omits, which should have been in there, Mr. Parsons has told you about those. But these two errors I've mentioned aren't the only ones.
There are other provisions as well where the language of the existing NAFO convention has been changed to weaken Canada's ability to obtain strong conservation decisions in NAFO. I found a few, but I expect that a rigorous analysis and comparison would bring up a number more.
I understand this hearing today is part of a process in Parliament to get Parliament's views on the proposed new convention, which the government will take into account in deciding whether or not to ratify it.
My own view is that the government should refuse to ratify it and, in addition, take the necessary steps available to prevent it from coming into force, as without these steps the convention will come into force for Canada even if Canada refuses to ratify it.
Instead, new negotiations should be launched to amend the existing NAFO convention in a manner that will strengthen the ability of NAFO, and Canada, to provide for conservation outside Canadian waters in the northwest Atlantic.
I can sum up the current situation very simply. The existing NAFO convention has its faults, but the proposed new convention does not cure them, and it's worse.
Also, as Mr. Bevan told you earlier this week, NAFO was currently working very well under the existing convention. It will work no better under the proposed new convention. There is, in fact, nothing that NAFO would be able to do under the proposed new convention that it cannot now do under the existing convention, except for one thing: under the proposed new convention, it would be able to manage and enforce inside Canadian waters, right into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, right up to the shoreline.
Finally, as Mr. Bevan told you, there are no conflicts now under the existing convention. But the proposed new convention would open up a new issue for conflict, and that is when pressure is put on Canada to allow NAFO to manage fisheries inside Canadian waters.
Thank you.