On the first one, just briefly, Canada can already do that, and did exactly what you described for years and years, by trading access to fish in the Canadian zone in return. So there is nothing new in what's proposed in the convention in that regard.
The objection procedure, which I often refer to as the objectionable procedure, was automatically used by the Europeans for a number of years. They objected to every quota they got, and took much more than their quota of fish. That would have been back in the day when Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Parsons and so on were actively working for the department, and it was very tough. There was no real remedy to problems, and in the world at the time there was less scrutiny of fish stocks and overfishing than with the current interest in sustainability and related issues. There wasn't the same focus at that time, so those were pretty grim years to go to NAFO meetings.
The new convention does have a dispute settlement procedure. It's tedious to go the whole route, but under the current regime.... For example, Mr. Byrne referenced the Faroe Islands. They file an objection annually and fish more than their quota, and there is no further remedy under the current NAFO regime. Under the proposed new regime, Canada, for example, as a coastal state, could intervene and take that to the dispute settlement mechanism, starting with an ad hoc panel within NAFO. If it is not resolved there, it can go to a more formal international dispute settlement panel. In that regard, it is an improvement on the regime that's currently in place.
On two-thirds versus 50% plus one, for the most part it's probably one vote. On the difference, personally, I think the Canadian interest is better served with the two-thirds than it was with the 50% plus one because of the interest Mr. Byrne raised of the other contracting parties sizing up Canadian allocations and saying to themselves they'd like a piece of that and maybe they could get enough support from other countries to get a share of it. We're marginally better protected with the two-thirds. On twelve votes, it is eight votes compared to seven votes. It's not an earth-shattering difference. But having said that, on the balance of the choice, I don't think it's a showstopper either way. My advice, as a member of the Canadian delegation, is if we get the two-thirds it is preferable to the 50% plus one.
On the Canadian delegation, you're quite correct. In the course of the meetings our opportunities really were in the Canadian delegation meetings, which are held maybe even two or three times a day between NAFO sessions.