I'll answer your questions in the order they were raised. The first question was about the finality of the clause that you were referred to by Mr. Bevan.
First of all, the current NAFO convention has an objection procedure. Any country can opt out of decisions. The proposed NAFO convention has an objection procedure. It's the same procedure. Any country can opt out of NAFO decisions. Under the old NAFO convention it was not possible to overrule those objections and compel any country to live with NAFO decisions. Under the proposed new convention there is no possibility of overruling objections and forcing any country to withdraw or not follow up on its objections.
All the proposed new NAFO convention does is provide a review process. I think Mr. Bevan may have referred to that as an appeal process. He can use the words he wants. I think most people think an appeal process, at least in the court systems we have, produces a binding decision. However, this is not an appeal process. The proposed new convention is a review process. It produces no binding decision. Countries are just as free at the end of the process to do whatever they want, as they were under the old NAFO convention.
The next question that was raised was about whether NAFO will be able to send patrols into Canadian waters. The NAFO system provides for international enforcement outside 200 miles. It allows it, and it's done, and we have a system of joint international enforcement outside 200 miles. If Canada acquiesced, gave its consent, or gave its request, or whatever way you want to use the words, to NAFO to do that inside Canadian waters, NAFO, under the proposed new convention, will have the jurisdiction and ability to do that. Under the old convention, the current convention, they couldn't do that. Under the new convention they will be able to. That's within their jurisdiction, providing Canada requests it. Now the game is, how do you pressure Canada to make the necessary request? There are ways to do that.
The third reference is a bit of a red herring: UNFA. You were raising a red herring. The UNFA convention had a number of provisions to deal with problems of overfishing on the high seas. There is an arbitration procedure available under it, but it's all rather irrelevant to anything that happens under the proposed new NAFO convention. I don't think it's even worth dealing with those provisions about going to international courts.
The UNFA convention provided a system of enforcement that allowed a coastal state, or any member from an organization but Canada, to be able to actually seize a foreign vessel that was breaking the rules and hold it out of the water so it couldn't fish for some period of time before the flag state had to take it home. That was its key enforcement provision, which was never followed up by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans after the UNFA provision came into force. Instead, there is no similar provision in the NAFO convention. That was the opportunity that negotiators had to incorporate that into the NAFO convention, but they didn't. They left it as flag-state enforcement.
I've tried to answer your three questions.