Fisheries committee  Thank you for that question. I think what we were discussing was how the current NAFO convention we operate under was brought into effect in 1978, well before modern international fisheries instruments such as the UN Fisheries Agreement you referenced. That agreement brought gre

Fisheries committee  Because we are operating under the 1978 convention, the Faroe Islands have objected and they've established a quota for 3L shrimp that is 10 times the quota established by NAFO. This quota was set out for everyone on the basis of historic shares and uses. This has carried on for

Fisheries committee  Yes, that is something that would require that kind of voting. I would think that if any measure of that sort were ever to be contemplated sometime in the future, any request or proposal that came forward from Canada would include with it the measures to ensure that there was p

Fisheries committee  Absolutely.

Fisheries committee  It doesn't even then come to a vote. As I said, at NAFO we endeavour to operate by consensus. Most of the measures, the conservation measures that are being adopted, are done through a consensus process. It's all about cooperation. If Canada didn't see some useful purpose and

Fisheries committee  There is no process under the current convention for any of that. It's a matter that would have to be dealt with through an undefined process, currently.

Fisheries committee  The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was actively involved in all deliberations in the lead-up to the negotiation of this amended convention, just as they are involved in all NAFO meetings. For example, this year they participated, along with the Newfoundland industry, in

Fisheries committee  It's the 12 parties.

Fisheries committee  It would be a request from Canada. The request is not put to a vote. Canada can request what it chooses and wishes to request.

Fisheries committee  Well, we're saying that Canada could vote against the measure that maybe we requested. So it would be in a meeting of the fisheries council, with all 12 parties present, where Canada would vote against the measure.

Fisheries committee  It would still not happen. The provision is very clear that Canada would have to both ask for it, in the first place, and it would have to vote for it. So if it votes against it, then it doesn't happen. It allows Canada, then, to say, well, we think we want to do, say, scientific

Fisheries committee  Yes, that's correct.

Fisheries committee  Well, first, as I think we explained earlier, this provision is present in other modern conventions for RFMOs. It was reviewed by Department of Justice experts at Foreign Affairs, and it's our view that it doesn't present an issue or a risk to us. Certainly, with respect to the

Fisheries committee  There are 12 members of NAFO. As we described earlier, the operating approach of NAFO is to reach decisions by consensus, not by votes.

Fisheries committee  It would be Canada that would request it.