Thank you, Mr. Blais.
You're correct. The old NAFO did not work, and I see no reason to think, based on what we have in front of us in this amendment package, that the amended NAFO will work.
The reason I say that is part of the reason the old NAFO, the existing NAFO, didn't work was, number one, this objection procedure. For many years, year after year, the contracting parties would sit at the negotiating table in NAFO and arrive at decisions--it was a simple majority vote--and then the party that didn't like the decisions would go away and lodge an objection, and fish freely, overfish.
It's well documented--the case of Spain and Portugal, in particular. In 1986 they acceded to the European Union and then the European Union completely changed its position and started doing what Spain and Portugal wanted, and objected and objected. So although there was this theoretical agreement to a total allowable catch at the table, in reality there was free fishing.
The second thing is there was no effective enforcement scheme in the convention. There have been repeated attempts to fix that under the existing NAFO. Mr. Bevan claims it's working better now. Mr. Byrne suggested a possibility as to why it might be perceived that way. I don't know if that's correct or not, but we're all aware of the global economic situation.
However, the new NAFO, the amended NAFO, the proposal that's before you, doesn't deal with the objection procedure. It just provides for some long, convoluted review process, where people will talk and talk, and the result will be that a country is still free to do what it wants.
It doesn't provide for effective enforcement provisions in the convention. There might be agreement today that we will agree to do such and such on the high seas, but next year, government changes, everything changes, so in our view....
If I might, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bevan said to you there were only two alternatives. Mr. Bevan said your alternatives are to adopt this package of amendments or to live with the existing NAFO organization.
I understand the tenor of your question is that given that the old NAFO didn't work, maybe we should try this new arrangement, but in reality, we know now that a new arrangement will not work because it hasn't fixed the problems of the old arrangement.
I suggest to you there is a third option. That third option is to shred these amendments. Reject them on behalf of the Canadian people. Exercise your privileges. Reject this package of amendments. It's not sufficient. It's not adequate. And then send new Canadian negotiators back to the table at an appropriate time to secure an arrangement that will work in Canada's interests.
Thank you.