Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and honourable members, my name is Bob Applebaum, as you have heard. I'm a former director general for international relations in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, retired since 1996.
During my public service career, I was a member of the Canadian delegation during the 1970s to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This conference resulted, among other things, in the extension of Canadian fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles.
I was also a Canadian delegation member in the immediately following international negotiations that produced the present Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization convention in 1978. The purpose of this convention was to provide for the international management of fisheries outside 200 miles. And I'd like to emphasize that last part—outside 200 miles. Nothing in the present convention—the convention that is right now in force—will allow even the possibility of any international management inside the Canadian 200-mile limit.
About two years ago, I and three of my former colleagues—Bill Rowat, a former deputy minister of fisheries and oceans; Scott Parsons, here today, a former assistant deputy minister; and Earl Wiseman,who succeeded me as director general for international relations—discovered that something puzzling to us was happening in the negotiations that were then in progress with the stated purpose of strengthening the NAFO convention. We had thought these negotiations were to develop an amendment to change one particular section of the convention, to limit the ability of NAFO members to opt out of NAFO conservation rules through a convention procedure that allowed for objections.
We learned, in discussions with DFO officials, that much more was going on than that. We learned that the existing NAFO convention was being substantially overhauled to produce what was really a new convention. We also learned that a member of the European Union delegation was doing all the writing. Scott referred to that before. Please note that. A representative of the major overfishing countries was doing all the writing, and the Canadian delegation had allowed that to happen.
When we were shown the current drafts, we saw things we found very disturbing. Specifically, we found one provision that would empower NAFO to manage fisheries inside the Canadian 200-mile limit, with the proviso at that time that Canadian concurrence would be required. This was astounding to us since no one had ever before conceived that international fisheries management inside 200 miles would ever be considered—at least not by Canada. And secondly, we found that the voting system in NAFO was to be changed from the simple majority system in the present NAFO convention to a two-thirds system. This would make it harder, as you have heard, for Canada in future to get NAFO decisions on tough conservation measures to reduce catches from the fish stocks that straddle the Canadian 200-mile limit.
We assumed these things were mistakes and that the Canadian officials involved, who previously had no involvement in the law of the sea conference and the earlier NAFO convention negotiations, and the DFO officials, who had no experience in the negotiation of international conventions—they had been going to NAFO meetings—didn't understand the implications of what they had developed.
We raised our concerns with DFO officials and tried to give them the background they didn't have. And I left the meeting with the impression that these things would be fixed in the ongoing negotiations. A few months down the road, we obtained new and close-to-final drafts of the proposed amendments, and we were very disturbed. The provision for NAFO management inside 200 miles was still there. The Canadian concurrence had been changed to a Canadian request, but the revision was now expanded so that the full range of NAFO powers for the area outside 200 miles—NAFO management and enforcement, all the range of NAFO powers for outside 200 miles—could now apply to the entire area of Canadian east coast waters, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence up to the shore lines. And the two-thirds voting system stayed.
We also realized that the new provisions to limit the possibility of foreign states opting out of NAFO conservation decisions were a bit of a sham. There was now to be a review procedure, but nothing that could result during the fishing season in a binding decision that would overrule objections and prevent overfishing. You've heard some vague expressions of how this all can lead to a binding decision. Nothing there can lead to a binding decision during the fishing season that would overrule objections and prevent overfishing.
As a final point, we realized the new amendments did nothing to improve enforcement outside 200 miles. They could have incorporated the new high seas enforcement provisions already developed in the mid-1990s in the UN Convention on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, but they didn't include those provisions. Overall, the new amendments, which the public has been told will strengthen NAFO's ability to conserve the fish stocks outside 200 miles, would instead weaken NAFO.
We brought these concerns to the then Minister of Fisheries in writing, thinking he did not understand what was going on. We never received a reply to that letter. The negotiations concluded, they finished, with all the objectionable provisions intact. Since then, we've campaigned publicly against these amendments. The Government of Newfoundland has become alerted to the problem and the premier has written to the Prime Minister asking him to withhold Canadian ratification and to prevent the amendments from coming into force.
My three colleagues and I have also written to the Prime Minister supporting Newfoundland's position. Dr. Parsons and I, speaking for our two colleagues as well, are asking you today to join us and the Government of Newfoundland in requesting that the Prime Minister refuse ratification of the proposed amendments and lodge a formal objection in NAFO that will end the current process. It will also open the door for new talks aimed at achieving meaningful improvements to the NAFO convention without undermining Canada's sovereign rights inside 200 miles.