First, I wasn't there with regard to negotiating the terms of the new convention. I'm not really in a position to speculate or comment on imputed motives.
I have to say, however, that when I read the text of the convention, I see that it is very clear about confirming the rights of the coastal state and the sovereignty of the coastal state within its exclusive economic zone. It's clear that the NAFO convention is to operate on the high seas outside Canada's EEZ.
The provision you referenced is reflected, as I understand it, in other modern regional fisheries management organization conventions, such as that governing the fisheries on the eastern Atlantic. But when I read the provision, I see it as in fact putting others on notice: You know what? You'll do nothing inside the Canadian zone unless Canada asks for it--because we have some reason to ask for it--and we vote in favour of it. Besides that, you're not doing anything within the Canadian zone.
That's reflective of Canada's sovereign rights under all the other international instruments. It's also there in the event that one of the other three coastal states in the NAFO area perhaps had some reason--looking at the management of fisheries from an ecosystem point of view, maybe, things being different--to want to see some basis of cooperation with others, whether it be science or the safeguarding of vulnerable marine areas or the like. Really, in terms of the way forward, this convention has an emphasis on cooperation with all in order that we are managing fisheries within the context of an ecosystem and managing to secure the sustainability of the resources and benefits for everyone's respective fishing fleets within their rights and histories.
I don't believe we would read that section of the convention as in any way suggesting that the EU or others would do anything within the Canadian zone. It's as much an affirmation that you're not doing anything unless we explicitly ask you to do that.