Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 13 - Evidence - November 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:04 p.m. to study issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: proposed amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Convention).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I will call us to order, belatedly, and we will get underway. We are the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. At the moment, we are, and have been for some time, studying the revised convention of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and, in particular, certain controversial clauses that have been examined before and perhaps will be examined again.
We will not conclude tonight; we will need more time. We have asked other witnesses to come, so we will not conclude our deliberations tonight.
With that in mind, from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we welcome David Balfour, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management; and Guy Beaupré, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Renewal.
Gentlemen, if you would like to make opening statements, we will ask questions.
David Balfour, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We welcome the opportunity to discuss further the amendments to the 1978 Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, the NAFO Convention. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and departmental officials have discussed this issue with the committee on a number of occasions, and we appreciate this renewed opportunity as well.
[Translation]
The changes made to the NAFO Convention are important to Canada, for its fishing industry and for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These changes will help ensure the conservation and the sustainable management of the fish stocks and ecosystems in the Northwest Atlantic, and will also contribute to the economic development and the prosperity of coastal communities in the Atlantic provinces.
[English]
Canada's overriding objective over the last several years has been to curb overfishing and to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks and the long-term health of the ecosystems in which they live. Given that most of the NAFO- managed fish stocks are straddling — that is, they occur both within Canada's exclusive economic zone on the Atlantic side and beyond the 200-mile limit in the NAFO Regulatory Area — these concerns also reflect global interests.
Of particular significance for Atlantic provinces, mainly the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is Canada's membership and leadership in NAFO. Canada has been a full member since 1979 and of its predecessor, International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF, of 1950. However, much has changed since then, and this is why the amendments to the 1978 NAFO Convention are so important.
NAFO members agreed with Canada that it was time to modernize the convention in order to bring it in line with the provisions of the 1995 United Nations fish stock agreement. NAFO members agreed that we had to be forward- looking and to give ourselves the modern decision-making tools required to deal with the modern problems we face.
The amendments to the convention were only one of a number of reforms and important improvements to the management framework in which NAFO members engaged. First came the enforcement reforms in 2006. Changes to the NAFO Conservation Enforcement Measures, enacted in 2007, have made them compatible, or more stringent, than those of the United Nations fish stock agreement. They have led to encouraging successes in enforcing the rules on the high seas and the NAFO Regulatory Area. The Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, acting on behalf of NAFO, has increased enforcement and surveillance to detect and deter illegal fishing activities. Compliance has improved significantly as a result. Serious infringements in the NAFO Regulatory Area declined from thirteen in 2005 to seven in 2006, one in 2007 and zero in 2008.
We have also seen tangible results of increased cooperation, better management measures consistent with scientific advice, and enforcement vigilance. As a result, important stocks have recovered, such as 3LNO yellowtail flounder, 3M cod and 3LN redfish. Other stocks, such as 3LNO American plaice, are also showing signs of recovery. At the recent NAFO annual meeting, NAFO reopened two stocks: 3M cod and 3LN redfish after a decade of being under moratorium.
However, improved enforcement and cooperation was only part of the solution. Canada has consistently worked within NAFO to develop scientific advice and adopt conservation and management measures to effectively manage straddling stocks important to Canada, such as Greenland halibut, yellowtail flounder, 3L shrimp and others. However, we recognized the need to reconsider the way NAFO makes decisions and how we govern ourselves as an organization. That is why we, as NAFO members, negotiated and adopted amendments to the 1978 convention in 2007. Canada's supported these amendments because they are important and beneficial for Canada. All the stakeholders involved agreed with us that the amendments were in the interests of Canada. Senior officials of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were full members of Canada's delegation that negotiated these amendments and supported us throughout the negotiations.
As I said earlier, NAFO faces very different issues today than when the original convention was agreed to in 1978. Parties today are committed to applying an ecosystem-based approach to the fisheries management in the Northwest Atlantic, which includes protecting the marine environment, preserving marine biodiversity and reducing the risks of long-term impacts on fishing. The amendments to the NAFO Convention were designed to provide the organization with a more modern and forward-looking governance framework that would allow it to meet its ongoing and future commitments under the United Nations fish stocks agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, and other international instruments.
Mr. Chair, I will outline the key benefits of the amended convention. First, under the original 1978 NAFO Convention, fish stocks were managed as single species and management decisions did not always adhere to the received scientific advice. Over time, this type of management proved to be ineffective for the long-term health of fish stocks. As a result, over 10 stocks have been under moratorium for many years and are only now starting to recover. The amended convention now shifts NAFO to an ecosystem-based approach to decision making, an approach that considers the interrelationships between marine species and between these species and their habitats. This includes considering how catches of one fish stock could affect other fish species, as well as identifying and addressing the impacts of particular fishing gear on sensitive ocean habitats.
Second, under the 1978 rules, members could object to any management decision, decide on a unilateral quota and fish it without constraint, even if it ultimately resulted in overfishing. The old convention also lacked a dispute resolution process, leading to long-standing disagreements, some still unresolved even to this day.
Under the amended NAFO Convention, we will have a controlled system to address objections and disputes, a system that requires a contracting party that objects to a conservation management measure to set out alternative measures it intends to take for conservation and management of the fishery, consistent with the objectives of the convention, and an active role of the commission in trying to resolve the issues. In this way, contracting parties will be held accountable for their actions so that we avoid these unnecessary and counterproductive situations and reduce overfishing.
Third, under the original convention rules, NAFO's decisions were made by a simple majority vote, leaving an impression that there were only winners and losers. In some cases, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this led to defiance of the rules, unilateral quotas and overfishing. The amended convention emphasizes consensus. A two- thirds majority voting system has been introduced for those situations where consensus cannot be reached. Any NAFO member that wishes to change the way NAFO allocates fish must obtain support from eight of the 12 NAFO members instead of the seven needed before. As a result of this change, Canada's fish quotas at NAFO will be better protected, thus addressing a key preoccupation of the Canadian industry.
We have heard many unfounded criticisms of the amended convention. These criticisms are that the government failed to protect Canada's sovereignty to make decisions for fisheries management enforcement within Canadian waters; the change in the rule on decision making from the requirement for the current simple majority to a two-thirds majority will weaken Canada's ability to obtain support for more restrictive, conservation-based management proposals in NAFO; the amendments with respect to the objection procedures are not robust enough to limit objections and unilateral decisions; and the dispute settlement procedure in the amended convention does not provide for a binding decision. I have said, these criticisms are unfounded, and I will respond to each of these respectively.
First, with respect to sovereignty, the amended convention is quite clear. Canada maintains control over its waters, and NAFO measures will not be applied in Canadian waters unless Canada requests that they apply and votes in favour of such measures. The amended NAFO convention explicitly maintains Canada's sovereign right to take management decisions on fisheries within its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone, EEZ. It is clear that NAFO has no mandate to take management decisions within Canadian waters, nor does it give foreign fishing vessels rights to fish in Canadian waters.
Second, the change to a two-thirds voting requirement, as previously noted, will provide better protection for Canadian quota shares of the NAFO stocks. This reflects the priority of Canadian industry and Canada in the current context of a number of other NAFO members seeking to increase their share of the NAFO pie.
Third, with respect to the objection procedure, the amended convention provides for constraints on the use of the objection procedure, limiting the grounds for objections and placing the onus on the party wishing to object to demonstrate grounds for its objection and to adopt equivalent conservation measures while the objection procedure operates. It provides for an ad hoc panel to provide recommendations to the commission that may implement the panel's recommendations. This process provides more transparency into the objection procedure. It should provide a resolution to an objection relatively quickly, within about five months of an objection being submitted.
Finally, the amended convention strengthens decision making by including, for the first time, mechanisms to resolve disputes. Contracting parties can invoke dispute settlement procedures that ultimately provide for a binding decision. This is a longer process as international dispute settlements generally take time. However, in the interim, the ruling of the ad hoc panel would apply.
Canada's interests are better protected within the amendments to the NAFO Convention. The reforms are in Canada's best interests and the interests of fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. They provide clear benefits important for Canada and for Canada's fishing industry. They will help to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of fish stocks and ecosystems in the Northwest Atlantic.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
Senator Robichaud: Would you please explain the objection mechanism again? I read somewhere that it is not much better than what we had because there is no way of enforcing it. Would you run through the time that it would take for an objection to be put, and then for the objecting party to come up with a plan of their own that respects conservation measures? In the meantime, what happens to the objector? Can the party continue to fish? In the past, they just fished without any regard to conservation.
Mr. Balfour: As I think you were pointing out, under the current convention, a party can object, establish a quota and just fish, and no mechanism exists to bring resolution to that as a question.
Under the proposed amended convention, where a party objects to the quota that has been established for them under NAFO, they need to provide an explanation of the reason for their objection. They need to, in setting a quota for themselves, demonstrate that they would be operating within the conservation objectives of NAFO.
As a coastal state, for example, if we disagreed with the reasons, we could call for an ad hoc panel to be convened. We would likely see that being convened very quickly following the annual NAFO meeting at which quotas are set, which occurs in September for the following calendar year. We would expect a report by that panel within a few months' time so that a decision could be taken by the fisheries commission, likely within a period of up to, say, five months time after the objection had been filed. That decision could be given effect early in the calendar fishing year to which that objection was launched.
We would see this as operating in a very quick, responsive manner under the new convention.
Senator Robichaud: However, you say that the objecting party or member will give reasons to set a quota for themselves and show how they will respect conservation measures. Does he also continue fishing during that time?
Mr. Balfour: Yes, that party can fish while the objection is being considered by the ad hoc panel. However, it would likely be early in the fishing year. The quotas only commence, say, in January. It may be a fishery that is not even fished in January. However, we would launch the ad hoc panel process immediately in September so that we would be able to see a decision brought to the fisheries commission of NAFO early in the subject calendar year and possibly even before the fishery commenced.
Senator Robichaud: Is there a time limit as to when I can put an objection in? If the season for a certain species is February and I do not start fishing until March or April, then I would not say that I do not agree until I started fishing, which would give me some time.
Mr. Balfour: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Beaupré, to respond to that.
Guy Beaupré, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Renewal, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you. There is a period in which a party can object to NAFO measures. There is a small period of time after the annual meeting, and, after that, there is a 60-day period for parties to launch an objection. The objections are limited to certain aspects only, whether they feel that the measure goes against conservation efforts or whether they feel discriminated by the measure.
Senator Robichaud: What is the time limit?
Mr. Beaupré: It is 60 days.
Senator Robichaud: After the quota has been agreed to by NAFO, is that correct?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes, at the annual meeting.
Senator Robichaud: They launch the objection, and can they then fish?
Mr. Beaupré: They object, and as they do so, they must describe why they object.
Senator Robichaud: That is no problem.
Mr. Beaupré: That is right; they can set a quota, and then they can fish.
Senator Robichaud: They set their quotas and their conservation measures, which, in the past, were not in compliance with what we believe should have been set. Nothing changes that, does it?
Mr. Beaupré: I am not sure that I understand the question.
Senator Robichaud: They will set their own conservation measures. Is that right?
Mr. Beaupré: No. They will set their quota, they will fish it, and, at the same time, the commission will be engaged in trying to resolve the issue with the parties. That does not exist in the current convention. Right now, a party can object for whatever reason, they can go fishing, and the commission has no mechanism to try to resolve the issue.
Senator Robichaud: However, a time limit still exists within that mechanism that will allow the objectors to go out there and overfish, if I can use that expression. Is that right?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: What is that time limit?
Mr. Beaupré: It depends on the time that it would take the commission to do the deliberations. We estimate the time limit to be about five months for the commission to come to a solution.
Senator Robichaud: That could be after the season is over for that year. Is that right?
Mr. Beaupré: It could be, yes. However, it is usually not.
Senator Robichaud: It would give an objector almost a full season to do whatever they wanted to do.
The Chair: I want to be clear. We should all be clear on that point because it is a key point. Just so that we understand, previously, there was no real objection mechanism that was in this convention, but people who did not abide by the quotas could set their own quotas and fish.
Now there is an objection mechanism, but the people can still continue to fish. I do not really see what has changed except that on paper, there is an objection procedure that could take some time. In that period of time, people can continue to fish anyway. I am not sure I understand what really has changed.
Mr. Balfour: Under the current system, a party can object without providing any explanation or reason, set a quota and fish, and there is no mechanism at all to resolve it. Therefore, it carries on in perpetuity, if they so choose.
Under the amended convention, there is a mechanism and a duty by NAFO to resolve a dispute on a timely basis. From a meeting in September to bringing a resolution into effect in a matter of a few month's time is pretty responsive, and it is certainly a significant improvement over the current situation where there is no mechanism to achieve a resolution.
The Chair: Yes, as long as NAFO follows what is laid down. However, our experience in the past has been that NAFO has not followed what has been laid down. As a matter of fact, everyone has concluded, whether it is the department, the pros or cons, that what we had previously did not work. I think that is clear. Everyone agrees with that.
I do not want to take up much time on this, but I hope other senators will continue that line of questioning because we need to be clear on that particular point. Are you finished, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I will leave something for the others.
Senator Watt: On the same line of questions, from what I am reading and what I am hearing, I do not see any big changes other than the fact that there is a procedure in place to review. There is not much more than that.
I am concerned about a binding decision. How do you deal with a binding decision, if there is one? To whom do you take that?
Mr. Beaupré: To answer the first part of your question, that you do not see the difference between the two, I will give you a concrete example.
About five years ago, Denmark on behalf of the Faroe Islands and Greenland decided to object to their quotas on 3L shrimp. They set their own quota, which is about 10 times the quota set by NAFO. They have been objecting every year to their quota and fishing the whole time. The current convention has no mechanism to address that issue, absolutely none. Therefore, they continue fishing 10 times their quota through the years. They object, and they fish.
Under the current convention, if they wanted to object, they would have to provide reasons for their objections and demonstrate that it does not go against the conservation measures of NAFO, or they object because they are being discriminated against. Therefore, it is a limited field of objection. At the same time, the commission would have to engage in trying to resolve the issue with the parties with NAFO at the table.
Senator Watt: How do you resolve if there is a dispute?
Mr. Beaupré: There are two types of disputes: an objection against the NAFO measures, the commission, or a dispute between two parties. The dispute between two parties is a different process.
Senator Watt: If there is a dispute, you have to have reasons for it. You cannot have a dispute for the sake of dispute.
Mr. Beaupré: That is right. A panel can be called to try to resolve the issue.
Senator Watt: However, no real binding decision can be made?
Mr. Beaupré: If the panel was called and they deliberated, their decision would be binding in the end.
Senator Watt: Is it binding when it is ratified by the different countries and interested parties?
Mr. Beaupré: It would be a decision of the panel created.
Senator Watt: The panel represents the various countries, is that correct?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Supplementary to that, there is a voting mechanism on that panel. What is that mechanism?
Mr. Beaupré: If I recall, there is no voting on the panel. The panel is created by the members, and it brings down a decision at some point that should be binding at that point in time, but I will check on that.
The Chair: Therefore, it is not appealable; it is binding. Is that correct?
Mr. Beaupré: No.
Senator Raine: Can we control the panel?
Senator Watt: Coming back to the voting system, if I understand correctly, the way the change is taking place now, rather than having a simple majority, now it is 50 plus one. That is what you would need now with that the new convention. Sorry, I am wrong; it is 50 plus one in the existing convention and a two-thirds majority in the new one.
Mr. Balfour: The spirit of the new NAFO, as opposed to the old NAFO, is that it operates through consensus to the maximum extent possible. It is about reaching decisions in a like-minded way because there is a right thing to do in terms of securing the sustainable use and conservation of the resource; and to have a principles-based sharing of the resource among parties on the high seas.
The voting is only used when a decision through a vote is needed because you cannot arrive at a consensus. This is something that, certainly from the standpoint of our industry, is seen as being very important. Very likely, the type of issue where a debate or dispute might arise would be on sharing quotas on resources in the NAFO Regulatory Area, where Canada is a significant holder of quotas for important stocks.
Our industry's view is that the two-thirds vote is a way of helping to protect the Canadian shares in those fisheries. However, we expect that conservation measures adopted by NAFO would continue to be brought into effect through a matter of consensus.
I will give you the example of the reopening of 3M cod — a cod stock that occurs on the Flemish Cap, outside the Canadian zone and off the continental shelf — at the last NAFO meeting in Bergen, Norway, in September. Mindful of all the efforts and sacrifices that have been made by those who had fished the stock in the past to secure its rebuilding through moratoria, the last thing anyone would want to see is a fishery prosecuted such that we would see that stock be put at risk in any way. As part of the deliberations about the reopening of 3M cod, Canada put forward a proposal as opposed to moving to, as the rules provide, a 10-per-cent bycatch allowance of that stock in other fisheries in that area on the Flemish Cap, which is the normal rule for open fisheries. There was an agreement by consensus that we would continue to have the rule of a 5-per-cent bycatch of that cod stock, which was the rule while the fishery was closed and under the moratorium. It is an indication of the approach that NAFO members are now taking to the management of the fishery into the future.
Many attitudes were present for many members of NAFO in the past, prior to the collapse of these resources, about the exploitation of the fisheries and overfishing, and so on. However, many of the major parties, such as the European Union, are now very committed to sustainable use, an ecosystem-based approach and cooperation. Quite frankly, I do not think that members of the EU would be able to get away with practices that occurred in the past. There is a commitment to seeing that there is a conservation-based harvesting by all parties in the NAFO Regulatory Area.
We have seen a significant improvement in compliance with the NAFO rules by all the parties. As I had noted in my remarks, we have seen a dramatic decline in serious offences in the NAFO Regulatory Area. We have extremely improved cooperation with NAFO-party flag states where, with our presence in the NAFO Regulatory Area, we can detect a violation in terms of inspection of vessels, recalling vessels to their home ports for further inspection and so on.
It has become a different world in the fishery compared to what was in there in the 1970s, 1980s or early 1990s. We have, for example, with the European Union, a requirement for all countries that will be exporting into the European Union as of January 2010 to be able to provide documentation that attests to the fact that the fish and seafood being supplied into their market is coming from a legal, sustainable fishery.
This is a requirement that they have imposed, and that they have to abide by in their fishing practices as well. It is a reflection of what is now being required of the European Union by their citizens in their practices in fisheries on the high seas. We see it reflected in many of the discussions and deliberations that we have with them, and will continue to as we go forward in NAFO and other regional management organizations of which they are members.
The Chair: Our problem is that we are being asked to believe that the leopard has changed its spots. Those of us who have experience with the leopard are dubious about whether the leopard has actually changed its spots.
I understand that there has been compliance, but it is easy to comply when there are no fish. It is much harder to comply when fish stocks are healthy. When fish stocks are unhealthy as a result of overfishing, it is relatively easy to comply.
I wanted to return for a moment to the panel decision; to be very clear on the record as to the panel decision — whether the panel decision is binding or whether the panel makes a recommendation. Could you clarify that for us?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes, Mr. Chair. At the end of the process, if the members of NAFO call for a panel to review the decision, the decision of the panel is binding over the commission.
The Chair: I see.
Senator Robichaud: In your notes here, you say that provisions exist for a panel to provide recommendations to the commission, which "may" implement the panel's recommendations. Is there not a difference of interpretation here?
Mr. Beaupré: It is a two-step process. The commission first will try to resolve the issue; and if a party chooses to do so, a party might request a panel. However, that is a different step. At first, it is understood that the commission will try to resolve the issue. If it cannot or a party requests such, it can go to a panel, whose decisions will be binding.
Senator Robichaud: On the last page of your presentation, in the first paragraph, it reads:
. . .to adopt equivalent conservation measures while the objection procedure operates. It provides for an ad hoc panel to provide recommendations to the Commission which may implement the panel's recommendations.
Nothing here says that it is binding, and these are your own words. I am just trying to see how we can fit that in here.
Mr. Beaupré: As I said, it is a two-step process; and if we get to the panel, the panel's decision would be binding.
The Chair: Therefore, the text is not correct. Your spoken testimony is the correct testimony, is that right? The text says: "It provides for an ad hoc panel to provide recommendations . . . which may implement the panel's recommendations."
You are saying now that is not accurate; the panel's decisions are binding without going to the commission, which may or may not implement it.
Mr. Beaupré: It is a two-step process, and, ultimately, the decision of the panel would be binding. However, in the first step, it may not be binding if the commission is able to resolve the issue.
Senator Watt: Does that still require ratification from the prospective country, even if it is approved?
Mr. Beaupré: No.
Senator Watt: It does not require ratification, then?
Mr. Beaupré: No. Do you mean voting? No.
The Chair: We need clarity as to whether the panel's decision is binding. On the two-step process, are you saying that the commission tries to resolve the problem before it goes to the panel? Then the panel deals with the problem and then comes to a conclusion. Following that, either the conclusion is binding or the conclusion is a submission to the commission. It is one or the other. Which is it? Is it the panel making a binding decision, or is the panel making a decision that it recommends to the commission?
Mr. Beaupré: If the commission decides to create a panel, which is a step the commission may decide not to do.
The Chair: I understand that. I understand the commission has the first go at it. However, if it is unable to resolve it, it goes to a panel. Then the panel comes to a conclusion. Is the conclusion of the panel binding and, therefore, must be followed by everyone, or is it simply a recommendation to the commission, which then may make it binding?
Mr. Beaupré: It is a binding decision.
The Chair: Is it binding before it goes to the commission?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Hubley: I would like to talk about custodial management. You noted that Canada's objective over the last few years has been to "curb overfishing and to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks and the long-term health of the ecosystems in which they live."
Is this what you term Canadian "custodial management"?
Mr. Balfour: I believe I made reference to compliance reforms that were undertaken by NAFO in 2006. We have seen more effective mechanisms of collaboration between flag states and parties to seek cooperation in the inspections of vessels on the high seas in the NAFO Regulatory Area to confirm compliance with all of the fishing rules.
In the NAFO Regulatory Area, what we have is quite an effective enforcement presence from Canada. We have two offshore patrol vessels, which are constantly stationed in that area inspecting foreign vessels to ensure that they are catching the right species according to their licences, that they have proper fishing gear, that they are in the proper location and so on, and that the bycatches are in accordance with the provisions stipulated. We have a requirement for observers on vessels. We have air surveillance coverage of all vessels in this area. We have a very effective means to ensure detection of those who are in non-compliance: fishing in areas where they are not authorized to fish, or where it is illegal to do so.
We are able to effectively secure the sustainability of the use of the resources on the high seas. As I had mentioned earlier, we have good cooperation with flag states in recalling vessels where we have detected violations; they would be called to their home ports. Our fishery officers are invited to observe the off-loading and inspection of those vessels. These countries also file records of the prosecutions of violators with the NAFO secretariat and the fines that have been imposed — in many cases, significantly higher fines than have occurred with Canadian similar type of offences.
That is really what we are seeing in effective management of the fishery.
Senator Hubley: I think the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has asked successive governments to pursue Canadian custodial management of straddling stocks. Do you feel that is, in international law, a term that is accepted, or do we look at what the actual objectives are to NAFO; to devise or think, in our own way, what custodial management really means?
Mr. Balfour: I am not a lawyer, so I am not able to provide you with advice on the application of international law. However, I can certainly say that, with the enforcement measures currently applied by NAFO with the amended convention, we will see a regime in which Canada will be able to ensure that the use of straddling stocks, both inside our zone by Canadians and on the high seas by Canadians or others, is prosecuted within conservation limits, and in a sustainable manner.
Senator Hubley: It is difficult to think that a country can overfish 10 times what they should ultimately have, year after year after year, and we did not have a way of curbing that. Do we now? In your estimation, do you think that will not happen again?
Mr. Balfour: With the new convention, absolutely. We would have the tools to bring to closure those situations that we cannot currently.
Senator Raine: I would like to get clarification on the situation where Canada can ask NAFO to regulate inside our 200-mile limit. Why would that be in there?
Mr. Balfour: It is not to say that Canada would ask NAFO to do anything inside the zone. However, you should remember that Canada is one of four coastal states in the NAFO area. We have the United States, France on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon, Greenland and Canada.
The NAFO Convention covers more than just Canada in a relationship as a coastal state. However, certainly this provision gives an articulation to requirements that are set out under the United Nations fisheries agreement, for coastal states to have compatible measures to those that are established on the high seas by regional fisheries management organizations.
This provision in the convention allows Canada to determine compatibility as opposed to NAFO determining what would be a comparable and compatible measure inside our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, to what is required on the high seas: management measures, such as the appropriate mesh-size opening for trawls that are used to harvest Greenland halibut; whether, when you have a fishery subject to moratorium and there is no commercial fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area, as a compatible measure, maybe you can allow the use of that resource for recreational, personal-use purposes; that you would have different requirements for observers on Canadian vessels in the Canadian zone versus what is required for observer coverage in the NAFO Regulatory Area; and matters of that sort.
It effectively allows for Canada to be able to be the determiner of what would be a compatible measure rather than having that to be determined through a NAFO mechanism where it would be amongst the other 11 parties or members of NAFO.
Senator Raine: I still do not understand this. As I read it, it was almost as though we would be giving up some of the jurisdiction inside our 200-mile zone. We would ask them to do that.
Mr. Balfour: That is almost hypothetical. It is not to say that there is not an interest in cooperation amongst all parties.
Senator Raine: This is just a mechanism in there so that you could have a better flow of information back and forth.
Mr. Balfour: It does not have to be an extreme circumstance. I have to say that there is cooperation with other NAFO contracting parties about science, collection of data and exchange of data. We are into collaborations with researchers from Spain, for example, to understand the characteristics of different stocks, sensitive areas and how we could come up with more definitions of strategies to avoid encounters with species, such as sponges and corals, where we should be protecting them and so on. That is all part of the future approach as we put a greater emphasis on managing within a total ecosystem rather than managing single species and to just fish hard on a species without being mindful of how that species may contribute in a food web and in an ecosystem and be important to other species and so on. This is very much part of the way forward in the approach to management of fisheries in Canada and as well through an organization such as NAFO in the future.
The Chair: Senator Raine has raised the clause that is the most controversial and on which we have had the most testimony, pro and con. We have heard that NAFO could do that now. Negotiation can happen between countries without actually setting it down in words. Of course, words can be interpreted. It depends how you interpret words.
However, putting those two things aside, it is fair to say that, whether people are for or against it, they do not see why it is there. We heard from Professor McDorman in British Columbia, who said that it reflected other fisheries conventions around the world, but he had to bear in mind that no other fisheries conventions around the world have the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. He said he would rather not have it there, but he did not think it was a deal- breaker.
We heard from people who absolutely insisted that it should not be there. We heard last week from Earle McCurdy and Ray Andrews, and they were commissioners at the table who were in on the negotiation of the new convention. Earle McCurdy — and I think I am reflecting his testimony accurately — said that he did not see why it was there or how it got in there, and he thought it would be better if it was not there. As a matter of fact, he proposed a mechanism for getting around this. Senator Patterson and Senator MacDonald will remember that he himself proposed a way around a clause that he thought might be dangerous. I hope I am reflecting his testimony correctly.
This is the most controversial clause. There is a danger. I think people see that once the interpretation is put on this, certain things can be done. It is a foot in the door. It may be a small measure first, but once it happens, it happens.
Some people support the new convention; some people support the two-thirds voting; some people support other aspects of this and think it is perhaps a good thing. However, it is fair to say that no one, not even those who support the new convention, supports this particular clause. I think that is fair to say, senators. Senator Raine has put her finger on the most crucial clause. I hope we can explore that a bit more. Perhaps Senator Dallaire would like to do that.
Senator Dallaire: I was intending to go more into the enforcement side, if I may. You indicate that there has been increased enforcement, surveillance and detection to deter illegal fishing. First, for my edification, what is a non-flag state? Can you give me an example of a non-flag state or a non-flag ship?
Mr. Balfour: Any vessel that would be fishing legally is a flagged vessel. It is flagged by a recognized state. If it has no flag, it should not be fishing on the high seas period. In an instance such as that, if we detect a vessel of that sort in the NAFO Regulatory Area, then we would take custody of the vessel and bring it into a Canadian port and effect a prosecution. We have done that in the past.
Flag-state members of NAFO have duties to ensure that fishing masters with their flag comply with the rules that are established through NAFO and given effect through the flag state.
Senator Dallaire: The Coast Guard is rusting out. You say that you are receiving more air surveillance. You have two ships deployed in the area. What capabilities do you really have that have indicated such an increase in surveillance? Is it a decrease in ships in the area that has given you the better results? Do you actually have a far more effective capability available to you in which the department has invested and so on?
Mr. Balfour: A reduction of fishing vessels and efforts has taken place in the NAFO Regulatory Area. It has declined by about 37 per cent between 2005 and 2008. However, at the same time, with the amount of vessel fishing effort that is present, we have seen an improved compliance rate by those vessels that are fishing.
As well, a significant investment is being undertaken by the department for the recapitalization and renewal of the Coast Guard and its fleet, including our offshore enforcement patrol vessel. That is being undertaken by the department.
Senator Dallaire: It is not there now. Have you bought more aircraft to do surveillance, or are you buying satellite time?
Mr. Balfour: We have more satellite time. The aircraft we use for surveillance are provided through contract, so they are not owned and operated assets of the department. The vessels that we are utilizing have had mid-life refits and have a continued effective use. Eventual replacement is planned, when necessary.
Senator Dallaire: With the three other countries that are involved in this area and in the United Nations fisheries agreement, UNFA, how do we know that compliance is being followed within the 200-mile limit under UNFA? Do I understand the process correctly that there is a sort of meeting of those four countries in regard to inside the 200-mile limit?
Mr. Balfour: No. Canada has bilateral relations with Denmark on behalf of Greenland on, for example, how we will collaborate on the management of shrimp stocks along the Davis Strait, which is shared between Baffin Island and Greenland. We have similar bilateral collaboration with France on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the management of stocks that cross those two areas, but no mechanism exists for us to have a conversation amongst the four coastal states. Although, we do all certainly have those types of conversations in the form of NAFO, as coastal states recognizing that Canada is significantly the most important coastal state with interests in the offshore high seas fisheries.
Senator Dallaire: Have you had discussions at NAFO with respect to inside the 200-mile limit?
Mr. Balfour: Yes, and we discussed how that plays into the deliberations of what is being decided through the NAFO process, recognizing and being respectful of the sovereignty of each of the respective coastal states.
Senator Dallaire: Sovereignty is no longer an absolute. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. I would like clarification on a couple of areas to give us a little more context.
Much of the concern about some of the new measures put forth and the dispute mechanism are coming from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. In your presentation, you said, "Senior officials of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were full members of Canada's delegation that negotiated these amendments and supported us throughout the negotiations." Obviously, some change has occurred with respect to some elements of the government. Did Nova Scotia have a full delegation with the Canadian delegation that participated?
Mr. Balfour: No, the Province of Nova Scotia did not have representatives inside the process, but representatives of Nova Scotia fishing interests were part of the industry delegations to the NAFO negotiations.
Senator MacDonald: Was the Province of Nova Scotia invited? Did they decline? Was there any particular reason why they did not participate?
Mr. Balfour: I do not think they traditionally participate in the NAFO process as a province. From their vantage point, it is not as significantly important — of where they place their priorities — as it is with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, if the Province of Nova Scotia wished to be part of a delegation to NAFO, then we would certainly encourage them and invite them into the process.
Senator MacDonald: I think I might encourage them as well. I am intrigued by this potential dispute panel. Can you tell me how many countries would make up the panel? Is this a predetermined number? How is the membership on the panel determined? Would Canada always be on the panel?
Mr. Beaupré: I would like to find the right number. I think, if I recall correctly — it has been a while — a panel would include members from each of the parties, but I am not 100 per cent sure. I can verify that.
Senator MacDonald: I would like to have that verified. Do we know whether Canada will always be on the panel?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes, Canada can be on the panel.
Senator MacDonald: Would it always be on the panel, though?
Mr. Beaupré: It can.
Senator MacDonald: It can, but would it be?
Mr. Beaupré: Yes, I think it would.
Senator MacDonald: I want to return to what the chair brought up earlier. One of the proposals made a couple of weeks ago was to essentially have provincial representatives, I suppose, discuss any proposals the federal government might put on the table in regard to this dispute mechanism. Steer me straight here, Mr. Chair; I believe Mr. McCurdy's proposal was that there be some sort of a joint proposal in which the provinces that are interested in whatever negotiations are ongoing would have to sign off with the federal government before the federal government would initiate and pursue the proposal. Is that correct?
The Chair: That is correct. His suggestion was what amounted to perhaps a memorandum of understanding or an agreement, however we want to describe it, between the federal government and the provincial stakeholders that there be an undertaking that the Government of Canada would never invoke this clause, would never request that this procedure take place and would never vote for it until after it had consulted with the various provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Nunavut.
Senator MacDonald: I want to run that proposal by both of the witnesses. Would the Government of Canada be amenable to that sort of approach? Would there be consultation with the provinces about making these decisions?
Mr. Balfour: First, I would like to say that all the decisions that are taken in NAFO are taken after extensive consultation with industry and provinces. That has been our approach to all of the positions that we take forward into NAFO, and certainly that would be our approach in the event that we were ever considering involving NAFO in some way within the Canadian EEZ.
I know that Mr. McCurdy had come forward and made that suggestion after having heard the relatively recent views that were expressed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador about proposed paragraph 10 of Article VI of the amendments, and that is something that is under review. However, I think that it is fair to say that Canada would be very mindful of the importance of ensuring that its responsibilities are well respected in the way forward. Clearly, there would be no intention to take any direction without engaging with provinces and industry.
Senator MacDonald: I think he was referring to not so much an engagement but almost a veto on the approach of the government, or they would have to sign off to release it.
Mr. Balfour: I am not in a position to offer any further comment about that.
The Chair: I believe it grew out of the statements that the Government of Canada would never do this. Perhaps they would not, no matter what stripe they were. However, if it is in there, it is a danger, and that was his point.
He also said, I think, that if you scrap all of this and try to start from square one all over again, that creates problems and difficulties as well. He did agree that there were good things in the revised convention, but he did not agree that this was a good thing. That was his suggestion for dealing with that particular clause. As Senator MacDonald said, it is more than consultation; it would be binding on the Government of Canada not to use this particular proposed mechanism of inviting NAFO to take measures within the 200-mile limit.
Senator MacDonald: To conclude, I want you gentlemen to realize that most people on the East Coast who are engaged in fishing have faith in the officials from the DFO to try to do the right thing by the fisheries. The problem over the years has been — I know you have heard me say this before — when the best interests of the fisheries come into conflict with the machinations of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. That is where DFO can get bullied around sometimes.
I am on your side on this. We just want to ensure that when DFO says something that their word is the final word and that they will not be overruled by another department.
Senator Raine: I am really a neophyte in all of this, so bear with me. The United Nations has the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, that has been signed by everyone. Am I right in that NAFO is part of that overall UNCLOS organization as a regulatory body or convention?
Mr. Balfour: I am not an international law expert myself, and there is a bit of a pantheon of international legal instruments. I think probably at the top of that is UNCLOS. Within that is the United Nations fisheries agreement. The purpose of that is to recognize and affirm the rights of coastal states and their sovereignty. Within it, some rules are set out for how regional management organizations would operate. However, NAFO and its predecessors were there prior to UNCLOS coming into force.
Senator Raine: I do not understand why Korea and Japan are in this organization, having the same vote as Canada. This is really not their turf.
Mr. Balfour: They have an interest in the fisheries resource. They have a history of fishing in those areas, and it is in international waters on the high seas.
Senator Raine: Why limit it to those 12 then? Why do we not have everyone in the world be part of it?
Mr. Balfour: The other parties could join the organization.
Senator Raine: Could anyone join at any time?
Mr. Balfour: Yes, but it does not mean that they would necessarily be given a quota by the organization.
Senator Raine: Those countries have quotas because they have historically had that.
Mr. Balfour: Yes.
Senator Raine: I gather those countries have not really been the issue — that the issue has been more the European Union, is that correct?
Mr. Balfour: Historically, some member countries of the European Union have been at issue.
Senator Raine: Hopefully, this new organization will be able to set a quota, based on conservation, to which everyone adheres.
Mr. Balfour: It is to set a quota based on conservation and also the practices of harvesting that quota so that they are reflective of an ecosystem-based management approach, reflective of the precautionary approach. These are principles that the new amended convention brings into the way that NAFO would operate.
Senator Raine: Was that not there before?
Mr. Balfour: No. It requires that NAFO operates in accordance with these principles; that it demonstrates, through its performance and in the periodic review of its performance, that it is achieving conservation and sustainable use; making its decisions within the scientific advice; and being mindful of the need to carefully protect the ecosystem.
These are all part of the way the fisheries need to be managed now and into the future. As well, as I was saying earlier, it is the way that citizens of countries are expecting that fisheries are managed, both here and in Europe. Our citizens will not tolerate the practices that some EU member states brought to the fisheries in the past.
Senator Raine: Obviously, two issues exist. One is total quota, which should be determined on a scientific basis; and then who gets what share of that quota. If the total quota does not satisfy everyone's wants, that is where problems arise.
Mr. Balfour: In fact, that is one of the main reasons why our Canadian industry is so insistent on supporting the move to the two-thirds voting in order to be able to more effectively protect the Canadian quota interests — the history that the Canadian industry has had in fishing in these areas — being mindful of the sacrifice that Canadian fishers and their communities have made as a result of the need to put stocks under moratoria and rebuild them. The Canadian industry will be there to receive the benefits of the rebuilding and not have, through some capricious way, others take that away from them.
Senator Patterson: You just answered my question about the ecosystem-based approach and how one stock relates to another, which I think scientists agree is the enlightened approach, rather than looking at individual stocks in isolation of the broader ecosystem.
You gave some specific instances of how the ecosystem-based approach is built into this proposed convention. You also talked about the precautionary approach. Could you expand on what that means and how it is built into the convention that is now before us for ratification?
Mr. Balfour: In the science, being precautionary means that we should be able to model the fish stocks. We should only be fishing or having harvesting when they are in a safe range and reducing fishing when we see that the state of the stocks are declining or becoming more at risk.
I will give you an example for yellowtail flounder, where there was advice from the NAFO scientific council that that stock has been growing. It had been under moratorium; it has been reopened for a few years and is showing signs of further rebuilding. They recommended that we could increase the TAC this year for that stock. It was the decision of the fisheries council to keep it at the level that it was last year. The decision was taken in part because American plaice, which is a stock of great importance to the Canadian industry, is closed currently, but it is a bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery. It is also rebuilding and showing promise to possibly be reopened in a year or two. Being precautionary and mindful of the relationship between the species, the decision was taken to keep the TAC lower for the yellowtail flounder this year.
Senator Patterson: Is the spirit of the new convention in place even though it is not ratified yet?
Mr. Balfour: I would say, yes, it is. The spirit of the new convention is the spirit of the way on which I believe all fishing nations agree, that we should be managing fisheries into the future. It is not about trying to crop off whatever abundance may be available, but rather to manage it carefully and well so that we can see when the fisheries reopen, we can provide stability and certainty to the industry in being able to continue to fish those resources, to continue to see them rebuild and grow.
Also, we can demonstrate to our markets, consumers and citizens that we are collectively effective in securing the conservation and sustainable use of the resource, and that there is a good compliance with that. This is really the future order of the world, where it will not be countries so much that will hold fishing states to account. Rather, it will be the markets that will require that people have appropriate rules, comply with those rules and secure a sustainable fishery.
The practices that occurred in the past, where people have declared their own quotas and fish them to the point of collapsing resources, are just absolutely unacceptable and would not be permitted any longer in the First World markets.
Senator Patterson: We were left hanging a bit on this invidious objection procedure that, obviously, has not worked in the past. I would like to try to nail that down for my own benefit and the committee's.
There is a two-stage process: First, an ad hoc panel is put together that will try to provide resolution to the objection, at the outside, probably within five months. Failing that, a dispute resolution mechanism is put in place, and it is binding. Is that correct?
Mr. Balfour: Yes.
Senator Patterson: A sentence that you said in your testimony is not in our printed text. I noted it. You talked about the dispute resolution process, saying it "is a longer process as international dispute settlements generally take time." After which, you added, "However, in the interim, the ruling of the ad hoc panel would apply."
Some of us were confused, as Senator Robichaud mentioned, because it says "may" in the preceding paragraph. However, the sentence that is not in the text that I have says that "the ruling of the ad hoc panel would apply." Do I have it correct?
Mr. Balfour: My understanding of how the dispute resolution mechanism would operate is that, in the first instance, there is an onus and an effort on the part of the commission ad hoc panel to bring the issue to resolution. If the dispute remains, then the recommendation of this process would be applied while that longer process takes place. It is not as though some country could just declare a quota and then continue fishing that while a longer-term process occurs; it would have to be reflective of the conclusion of the ad hoc panel.
Senator Patterson: We received quite different advice from the honourable fisheries minister from Newfoundland on this process just last week. Therefore, it is important that we nail that down. You are saying that the amended convention provides a stronger, more final process than that in the current convention. Is that correct?
Mr. Balfour: Absolutely. There is no process under the current convention; none at all. We have a process now. We have an accountability within a process that will take us to a definitive resolution and also a need for demonstration on all parties to show how they are acting responsibly within the principles of the convention, abiding by the necessity of conservation and so on, as they object and as they act while the matter is being brought to its conclusion.
As my colleague, Mr. Beaupré, noted earlier, specific reasons for an objection are now required to be provided. It is not the same as before when you could simply say that you object and that is it and fish your quota. You actually have to demonstrate that, in some way, you have been discriminated against as a result of the process of NAFO; how the decision of NAFO has been unfair to you. That does not exist currently. It makes everyone that much more responsible and accountable.
The Chair: What are the sanctions, though, if the binding decision is not adhered to?
Mr. Beaupré: If I may, Mr. Chair, the spirit of the objection procedure in the amended convention — and the dispute resolution mechanism — as I said before, is to force the organization to try to address the issue. That does not exist right now.
We have not had many objections in recent years. There have been two. One was from Denmark on behalf of Faroe Islands and Greenland, which relates to the shrimp. The other one is from Iceland: They object to the management regime that is effort-based and they prefer a TAC. It is an objection that is fairly light in the sense that we do not fundamentally disagree with that. They set a quota on the basis of a management measure that addresses that issues in a way with which most other parties are satisfied.
Therefore, because it forces the commission to address that issue with the same parties around the table that will probably have met three months ago, and having to come to a conclusion, it forces the parties to discuss that. Not many parties would like to go to a panel and receive a binding decision because there is uncertainty around that. Forcing the commission to review the issue, study the issue and try to find a solution is really very much in the spirit of the current objection procedure.
The Chair: Yes, but is there a sanction? The situation before was that quotas were set and certain states were able to object to those quotas, set their own quotas and fish. In many cases, they exceeded their own quotas, and no sanctions existed.
Now, you have a dispute resolution mechanism. However, what if they do not abide by the dispute resolution mechanism any better than they did in the past? Do sanctions exist now if states refuse to abide by the decision of the dispute resolution mechanism?
Mr. Beaupré: A party could take that particular party that would not abide by the decisions of the commission to an international court. That could happen, for example, under UNFA.
The Chair: They could still continue to fish, though.
Mr. Beaupré: They would continue to fish for a while. I think, in the international court, an interim decision would be made that would be binding. That would be given while the case is addressed by the court.
The Chair: I must say that I am still unclear. I know Senator Patterson tried to make it clear. Personally speaking, I am not clear on this.
Senator Dallaire: It brings me as far down into the weeds as knowing what the rules of engagement are for boarding some of these ships and stopping them dead in their tacks when they go beyond what has been agreed to in the forums.
Do we see that actually being done and those ships being brought to our shores? Do we have the capacity to do that?
Mr. Beaupré: Right now, senator, we have at least two, sometimes three, patrolling vessels on the water in the NAFO Regulatory Area. My colleague also said that we have airplanes doing surveillance. At any time, we can board a vessel in the NAFO area and check on whatever they have been fishing.
Rules within NAFO — both in the current convention and in the amended one — which are consistent with UNFA, regulate how the inspections can take place. If there are infringements, there are obligations for the parties, depending on the severity of the infringement.
In many cases, in recent years, we have boarded vessels. We have given major infractions to the NAFO regulatory measures. We have worked with the parties involved, whether it is EU or other parties. In most cases in the last number of years, those vessels were called back to port in their country of origin, though they can choose another port if they want. Even our inspectors have been invited to observe.
Senator Dallaire: You are repeating what was said before. If a dispute were going on for five or six or seven months, and if we are of our opinion, why do we not just haul those ships into our ports and hold them until the dispute is resolved and stop them from fishing?
Mr. Beaupré: I do not think we can do that. We have to play by the rules of the commission.
Senator Dallaire: I am also looking at the UN rules, and it seems to me that you have the capacity to do that, the way it is articulated in the document that I read.
Mr. Beaupré: In the UN fisheries agreement, you can board a vessel. Once you board a vessel, you have to notify the party and the flag state, and the flag state has 72 hours to address the issue. If they do not, then you can bring the vessel back to port in Canada. Presumably they would address the issue within 72 hours.
Senator Dallaire: I address the issue with a big gun under these contexts. We are talking about an economic reference point. Things get tough. We are all nice because we are trying to work out a situation. As stocks and the industry come back, as other demands appear, there is a requirement to go beyond that. The United Nations Security Council has the capacity to call in capabilities. I feel that a piece missing there.
I return to my point. You are saying that you have two ships on station. Do we need six ships to do the job right when serious fishing comes back online? Are you actually being funded to meet that requirement, or is that still a significant delta for you?
Mr. Balfour: At this point in time, and as we project out our requirements, we are adequately funded to meet our requirements to have an effective, proportional presence in the NAFO Regulatory Area.
I have to say too that I was thinking back to a previous time. We do have an armed boarding capability. A number of years ago, we did stop a Spanish vessel on the high seas for overfishing. We seized the vessel and brought it in to port. It ultimately was reviewed by Canadian courts, and it was determined that we did not have the authority under international law to take the action that we did. That is why we are really putting our emphasis through NAFO and elsewhere to manage in a cooperative manner.
Senator Raine: Could you just elaborate a little more? That is the ultimate challenge, when you actually do an armed boarding and take them into your harbour or port. You say that we are not allowed to do that?
Mr. Balfour: Again, I am not an international law expert, but it is a question of having to act within the frame of the authority of international law.
Senator Raine: Presumably they were outside our 200-mile limit. If they were inside our 200-mile limit, we could do it.
Mr. Balfour: That is entirely another matter. We can do whatever we require there.
Senator Raine: I have another question about the timing of what we are doing right now. The spirit of the convention is actually being followed today because everyone is agreeing that we have to go to ecosystem-based, sustainable fishing. Therefore, if the spirit of the convention is being followed right now, why are we in a rush to actually ratify the convention? Thus far, only Norway has ratified it. Perhaps we should take our time, especially as we have the provinces and Nunavut as partners. It behooves us to have everyone agreeing with what we are doing. Otherwise, we will cause a great deal of angst inside our own country.
Mr. Balfour: That is the reason for this process. It is to ensure that there is transparency and an opportunity for review and discussion of the proposed amendments to the convention before Canada decides to file a ratification. The process will likely take a number of years for sufficient numbers of NAFO members to have ratified and filed a ratification for the new convention to come into force. We do not expect this to occur next week. We are endeavouring to work within the spirit and intent of the new convention and to act now. We should not be awaiting it. The reason for this process is to enable a good and fulsome discussion of the proposed amendments.
The Chair: Senators, I do not think we will resolve this tonight. We need to spend more time at this. We need to invite more witnesses. We need to deliberate among ourselves more. The process will go on, but we should terminate it for this evening. We thank our guests for coming.
(The committee adjourned.)