Debates of April 16th, 1999

Questions On The Order Paper

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all other questions stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I want to assure you and the House that there have been discussions among all the parties. I move:

That no later than the expiry of Government Orders today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of Bill C-27 shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the third time and passed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, before oral question period, I read the preamble of the UN agreement on fisheries. I repeated that it was important to talk about that agreement, since Bill C-27 seeks to implement it.

I would like to go back to a number of points mentioned in the preamble. For example, the preamble refers to “calling for more effective enforcement by flag States, port States and coastal States of the conservation and management measures adopted for such stocks”. The members who are listening to me, and people who are watching us on television realize that this paragraph ties together three major links, namely the flag state, the port state where the landing of fish will occur, and the coastal state in whose waters the fish is caught.

There are other important points to mention. The countries that will ratify this agreement are conscious of the need to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment and minimize the risk of irreversible effects of fishing operations. At this point, the countries agree that rules of law must be established to achieve these goals. A little later on, we will see what it means to establish rules of law to make sure there are no irreversible effects.

The preamble also recognizes “the need for specific assistance, including financial, scientific and technological assistance to developing States”.

It is very important that member states, or those that will sign the agreement, agree to help coastal countries or states that have large bodies of water, but not necessarily the means to manage them. Unfortunately, we do not know how the costs will be shared. Of course, it is clear from the agreement that the signatories are giving themselves two years in which to come up with solutions not necessarily apparent at this stage.

The final, and I think the most important, point in the preamble is “convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security”.

Canada can come up with wonderful ideas, but they must be shared by other countries and put down in writing so that everyone agrees to observe them. This is where it gets interesting.

Now I will relate this to Bill C-27, which tries to make UNFA subject to Canadian law.

I will take article 21, sub-regional and regional cooperation in enforcement, paragraphs (5) and (6).

Paragraph 21(5) of UNFA provides that:

1. (5) Where, following a boarding and inspection, there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel has engaged in any activity contrary to the conservation and management measures referred to in paragraph 1, the inspecting State shall, where appropriate, secure evidence and shall promptly notify the flag State of the alleged violation.

What about the time frame? Paragraph (6) of article 21 provides that:

The flag State shall respond to the notification referred to in paragraph (5) within three working days—

So, if a long weekend is involved, it could be longer. It could even be as long as six days.

—of its receipt, or such other period as may be prescribed in procedures established in accordance with paragraph (2).

This is the spirit of the letter in the UN Fisheries Agreement.

Now, what does Bill C-27 do?

It provides the following change to subsection 16.2(3).

16.2 (3) In addition to the powers referred to in subsection (1), a protection officer may, with the consent of the participating state, exercise any powers referred to in section 16.1. The officer is deemed to have received the consent of the state if the state a ) has not responded within the period prescribed by regulation; or b ) has responded but is not fully investigating the alleged contravention.

I see no time frame in the bill. It is set by regulation. Therefore, I conclude that the governor in council, cabinet, will establish the regulatory measures. Will cabinet follow the spirit and the letter, as described in the UN Agreement on Fisheries? That is the question.

I would now like to turn to the most serious question I have about Bill C-27.

I will say it right off. The Bloc Quebecois supports the UN Fisheries Agreement. It is establishing international law. Naturally, it will not be perfect. However, when we ratify an agreement like that we must honour its spirit and its letter, and so we will have to respect the time frame.

I must refer to Canadian legislation, and this is what the bill does not say, because this will be done through regulations, that the governor in council will decide. However, Bill C-27, the bill to implement the agreement does not amend another bill we passed earlier—Bill C-29. It allows protection officers, with the approval of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Fisheries, to seize and bring the offending vessel to the nearest port, if this occurs in Canadian waters.

Such seizure is effective and immediate. The Canadian legislation makes no reference to five working days. That is where my concerns lie. The Minister of Fisheries has just repeated the same thing he told FAO countries at their March 11 meeting, recommending that the United Nations Fisheries Agreement be ratified and included in its entirety in national legislation world-wide.

I would not want to put any words in the minister's mouth that are not true, but I would like to point out that this seems to be contradictory and could mislead the House. They are claiming that the intention of Bill C-27 is to take the UNFA word for word into Canadian law. This would require us to do away with Bill C-29 and to specify, through regulation, that the time limits will be in keeping with those in UNFA.

I am not fully informed about Bill C-27 at this time, which is a serious shortcoming as we are at the stage of recruiting other countries to sign this agreement so that it will have the force of international law. I believe that 30 signatories are required. We do not have that number at present. Canada wants to give it a good start by being one of the first signatories.

But what signal is Canada is sending to the rest of the world when it claims to want to recommend signature of the agreement in its entirety, while in its own legislation it is not respecting the spirit and the letter of the UNFA?

This, in my opinion, is sufficient grounds for voting against Bill C-27, but I would again point out—and this is unfortunate—the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of the UNFA.

I will go still further to state that, at report stage—perhaps I did not emphasize this enough—we tabled about a dozen motions on top of what came from the other members, and if I remember correctly, there were some 18 in all. We worked on the motions in four groups.

The Bloc Quebecois motions in fact attempted to have Bill C-27 incorporate, to the greatest extent possible, the spirit and the letter of the UN Fisheries Agreement. Through Motion No. 1, I tried to include in the bill article 5 of UNFA, since Canada was in agreement with it.

Why did the government refuse to Canadianize the general management philosophy? These are very important principles. It is on the strength of these principles that management plans will be developed and our fishers told how Canada wants to manage in the future. If they are not given a vision or general definition, they are still flying blind.

The second motion we presented was designed to ensure that Bill C-27 was worded in such a way that Canadian courts could interpret it according to the letter and the spirit of UNFA. I repeat, if Canada wishes to sign the agreement, the fishery should be structured accordingly.

Worse yet, when 30 countries have signed it, it will have the force of international law. This is one more reason to Canadianize it, to bring it into line with the spirit and the letter of UNFA. Once again, the government has refused to agree to our motion on interpretation.

The second group of motions that I moved, seconded my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, was designed to offset the extraterritorial nature of Bill C-27, according to the spirit and the letter of UNFA.

What do I mean by that? Some will say that it is a question of terminology. International law use the expression zones désignées while Canadian law uses the expression zones délimitées. Why would Canada want to have its terminology differ from that used in the agreement. For some countries that want to sign the agreement, it is as though Canada were leaving a door open to depart from the spirit of the agreement.

The reason for using the expression designated areas is that they have been designated somewhere. It has already been agreed upon and appears in another treaty. In the world sub-regional organization, NAFO, everything is already designated, defined.

As set out in Bill C-27, the fact that Canada can delineate leaves things open to interpretation. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the Minister of Fisheries, but I do wish to indicate my concerns at this stage of the debate. The purpose of implementing this agreement with Bill C-27 is to maximize the number of signatory states. If one is trying to attract people, one must inspire confidence, not create scepticism.

The third group of motions we brought in at report stage concerned parliament's verification rights, and once again this was refused. We were asking that, if there were to be any new treaties, schedules to treaties, the House might be consulted within four months. That is not much, four months.

It is, of course, always the government majority that will get regulations passed. This was a way to get MPs involved in management of the country's assets.

Since this bill and the fisheries agreement and international treaties are so important that the government deemed that this House has a duty to vote on a bill to allow the UN Fisheries Agreement to be Canadianized, to make it part of our own Canadian legislation, I feel that, if there are other changes, Canadian members of parliament ought to have the right to discuss them. But no, they will have none of it.

In this connection, I would remind members that, in international law, in Canadian law, the Canadian government, the governor in council—or cabinet, in other words—may go to the UN on its own, sign and ratify the UNFA without consulting this House. This is according to Canadian law. I can go along with that.

However, I find it unfortunate that they are asking for my agreement to Canadianize certain parts of the UNFA while denying me the right to discuss amendments in the House, while the Canadian government can already do this. I do not understand.

Is this a delaying tactic? Are they trying to convince us that the Canadian government is looking after fisheries, because the UNFA is something that is easily passed in the House? As I say and say again, the hitch is that the agreement is not being respected. The spirit of the UNFA is not being respected, as is the case with Bill C-27. How are we going to get out of it? What is going to happen in all that?

In the light of what I have just said, on the one hand, Canada is saying “Yes, we will pass Bill C-27” in order to please countries that may become allies but, on the one hand, it is retaining its C-29 pistol, which enables it to intervene, board a ship and bring it back to port when it is found to be in the wrong. That is contradictory.

What is Canada really trying to do with all that?

I represent fishers in my riding and I have talked with fishers in other provinces, including Newfoundland. The people agreed with the spirit of Bill C-29, that is, when someone is found to be in error, the ship is boarded and brought to port with reasonable force, naturally, because no one wants loss of life. But now it seems to me, as the Reform member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned as well, that something happened at the UN so that Canada ended up losing the power to legislate and sanction a vessel found taken in error.

The only agreement Canada got, was along these lines “You can investigate, ask questions, take the evidence. However, you must, within five working days, ask the participating government that owns the boat to take police action, establish sanctions, and in this time period, the participating country can itself carry out the sentence or, in the worst case scenario, not”.

If Canada came away with only that, it is perhaps unfortunate, but, I repeat, the Bloc supports the UN fisheries agreement, because we have to start somewhere. In order to protect our resource and enforce all the fine principles set out in the preamble, I think we must join with other participating countries and provide a level playing field. A bit like what we are taught in the Bible, we are to turn the other cheek. This is sort of what the fisheries agreement is asking us to do.

Why do I say “turn the other cheek”? Because we must trust the other signatory country will also enforce the law on its vessel in contravention, and impress on its captain that he is in violation, deserves to be sanctioned and has to live with all the problems that causes.

At this point, we must trust the international community, the diplomatic channels. We must play the game. If Canada agrees to align Canadian law with the spirit and the letter of the fisheries agreement, it will be easier to get other countries to join. Again, once the agreement has come into force internationally—30 states must sign it—even those countries that will not have signed it will be forced to comply with it.

Once that is achieved, Canada can work with the signatory countries to begin to give some teeth to the agreement. Once the UNFA has force of law at the international level, consideration could even be given—and I call for this today—to establishing a special enforcement authority. We have peacekeepers; perhaps we could have a fleet, under the authority of a UN admiral, in charge of co-ordinating the forces of the various coastal states to protect the resource.

In order to achieve what we want in our waters today, what is provided under Bill C-29, we must be prepared to take a small step backward. I agree that this is a step backward, but that is par for the course, as we say.

A final comment on this, if I may. This is where our Canadian fishers end up getting hurt, and this is why I am taking a long time to explain today.

The last time I spoke on this bill, I acted what boarding of a fishing vessel might be like. Take the Estai for example. In that case, the Canadian fisheries officer boarded the ship it and brought it into port.

When we see a ship that, in our opinion, is in violation, what happens then? First, the captain of the Canadian patrol frigate boards the ship. He conducts an investigation and questions those on board. His patrol vessel is clearly identified. The foreign ship's crew has nothing to fear from him, since all he can do is talk to them.

So the captain goes on board, and he asks “What is your country of origin? What was your catch today? May I see your log?” Then he asks to see the fishing gear and the hold, to measure the fish and see whether fish that are too small are being taken, for example. If they caught turbot the size of my hand, for instance, they are in violation.

Under Bill C-29, what would he do? He would read the captain of the offending foreign vessel his rights, then open up his jacket, take out his revolver and hold it at the ready if the captain does not want to co-operate.

Perhaps things will be done a bit more peaceably with the UNFA. The Canadian protection officer will have a new weapon, instead of his revolver. He would have a new tool in his arsenal He would open up his jacket, but instead of taking out his revolver, he would take out his cell phone and call the department of Fisheries of the other country, and say “I am giving you five days notice. We have just picked up one of your people who is in violation”. Canadian fishers are going to find that hard to take, and hard to understand.

I invite them to accept it nonetheless. I am making this prediction: if Canada boards a foreign ship twice in a row, I believe that all the other signatory countries are going to bring pressure to bear, saying “We have no choice. We wanted to do this the honourable way, but some people are not following the rules. We are going to give the fisheries agreement more teeth by giving officers more powers and letting coastal countries catching people red handed apply their laws according to the their own legal code”. That I think is what needs to be done.

The objective is to get people to understand the spirit of the agreement, which they do not currently. As members can see, it is a bit contradictory. It is as if Canada in the scenario I have just painted were trying to give its fishery officers two tools at the same time. But no provision is made in C-27, which serves to implement the agreement.

At the moment, the only weapon a fishery officer can carry is a revolver. Under the new legislation, he will have to use his phone first. There are no other interpretations. In this regard, I think that the members of the House will have to be very sensitive to the issue and vote no. When they come to vote on Bill C-27, they will have to make the effort to reread the UN Agreement on Fisheries, especially paragraphs 5 and 6 of article 21. There is a clear reference to three working days. Now, when we look at Canadian law, we see it is immediate.

However, if we want, by voting in favour of Bill C-27, to implement the UN Agreement on Fisheries, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, because our law provides exactly the opposite in Bill C-29.

Before I conclude, I mentioned earlier that we had concerns, my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry and I, about the words used, for example délimité and désigné. We prefer the English choice of designated. We should perhaps use the same words in applying international law.

Under the UN Fisheries Agreement, a Canadian protection officer is allowed to board and inspect where “there are clear grounds for believing”. Bill C-27, which is supposed to implement this agreement, uses the expression “reasonable grounds”. Why has the terminology been changed?

Some will say that I am making a mountain out of a molehill today. I would point out that the purpose of the bill is to implement an international treaty. All other nations will have to live with the same vocabulary. If we are trying to get them to ratify the agreement, why are we changing the vocabulary?

I have already pointed out in my speech that, on three occasions, we have stepped back from this agreement, a bit like Saint Peter when Jesus was arrested: “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice”.

The bill has not yet been passed, the international treaty has not yet been ratified and already, in at least three places in the bill to implement it, Canada is going against the spirit and the letter of the agreement. Worse still, it is going back on its own word. On the one hand, it is telling all nations of the world to incorporate the UN Fisheries Agreement in their legislation. On the other, Canada has stepped back from the bill at least three times.

This is why I will be voting against the bill. It is too bad. I hope that members will understand from what I have said that I am in agreement with the UN Fisheries Agreement, but I cannot allow the House, and in particular the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government members, to pass this bill because it is contrary to UNFA.

In conclusion, I would like to raise a few points. Time is being devoted to a debate of this bill, but I remind the House that the government could have gone to the UN and signed and ratified this agreement without our approval. In any event, if there are other annexes or treaties to sign, it is henceforth denying us the right to amend them.

I would have liked it if, this spring, the government had not put us through the problems we experienced in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last summer. The government likes to find out what is going on elsewhere. It is fond of international treaties.

Canada belongs to an international subregional organization called NAFO. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has a management regime. Every participating country already knows what its allocation will be in the Atlantic.

The rules used to determine the total allowable catches and the mathematical formula that will apply to a particular cod, halibut or shrimp stock are known in advance. Each participating country provides the biological information it has. That information is fed into the computer, the total biomass figure comes out and, the mathematical formula having been determined in advance, there nothing anybody can say about it. Every country at the table knows the percentage allocated to it. I think it is paradise at sea.

Canada is part of that management regime, but it does not apply within its own waters the methods used by NAFO.

Why do I mention that? I do not want take away from Canada its constitutional right to manage fisheries. However, once Quebec has achieved sovereignty—or maybe that will never happen even though that is not what I wish—I think it should come to an agreement with its neighbours, namely New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, since all five of them share the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Why could we not do what NAFO does, which is to allocate a specific share to each jurisdiction and ensure that the method used to determine the total allowable catches is transparent so as to take the politics out of the issuance of fishing licences? This is what every fisher, everyone whose livelihood depends on fishing, wishes for.

Under Canadian legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to decide who gets what. Of course, I do not mean to say that the minister is an ogre. He is doing what he can with what he has, but I would like to give him a hand by suggesting that, in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, we model our management system on NAFO's.

I would add one last criterion, which could make things easier. When we talk about fixing quotas, some people might get scared and say “No, we do not want fixed quotas for Quebec. We do not want fixed quotas for Newfoundland”. Quota is a scary word. Some people will say “That is it for us”. But that is not the point here.

I would like to borrow an approach from French law. In 1992, French law allowed the European Parliament to set relative stabilization criteria between participating Mediterranean states. What does that mean? It means that the fishers or the participating states know how much fish they can catch. If these stabilization criteria are not quotas, what are they?

One job at sea creates five jobs on land. The main problem is that a live fish is federal and a dead fish is provincial. Could the federal and the provincial governments not find a way for the provinces to set stabilization criteria that would ensure that the five jobs on land do not come and go all the time? That would be a step towards harmonization.

I would remind the House that we must downsize. There is not one province willing to downsize and lay-off everybody working in the fisheries without knowing what its relative basis is.

With the consent of the House, I could speak all afternoon, even all weekend long, on this topic.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

I see people are agreeing to it. If the House so wishes, I will keep on talking about the United Nations fisheries agreement. Do I have the consent of the House, Madam Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

At this point I wish to inform the House that there is an error in the English text of the opposition motion on page 17 of today's order paper.

A corrigendum is available from the table. I am sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused the hon. members.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member may have received unanimous consent had he said “until the cows come home” instead of “until the fish come back”.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I am honoured to speak on the bill. In speaking to the hon. member, the spokesperson for our caucus on fisheries and known as a great supporter and defender of the fishing industry and the preservation of the fish stock, we would like to extend our support, but with some reservations.

As members of the committee are very well aware, amendments were put forward to address the specific issues. I will highlight once again the main point of concern that we would like to raise during debate on Bill C-27.

The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. It is Canada's implementation of the United Nations fisheries agreement, a very crucial agreement as it deals with the protection of our fish stocks based on sustainability and co-operation. Also the jurisdiction over waters and the supply of fish is enhanced. It ensures that Canadian fish caught by Canadian fishermen are processed in Canadian plants. That is a major issue.

I would like to raise a point of contention about a specific and crucial point in the bill. It is also an issue of interpretation. The bill is a new tool for enforcing international conservation measures on the high seas. It will allow Canada to operate outside Canadian waters under the auspices of the UNFA, the United Nations Fisheries Agreement.

We certainly are aware that enforcing illegal or unwarranted activities can escalate to international misunderstandings. In dealing with foreign nations let us be very specific and very clear in our communications so as not to jeopardize the integrity, the powers and the safety of our enforcement officers.

Under Bill C-27 a ship suspected of illegally fishing on the high seas could be boarded and searched if the flag state is informed. The protections officer can then exercise additional powers under the UNFA if the flag state has not responded within three days or does not investigate the alleged offence.

The three day period is the contention. It is not defined in the bill itself. Article 21 of the actual United Nations fisheries agreement says that the time period will be prescribed by regulation. During report stage debate the government said that it would implement a three day period in the UNFA through regulations at a future date.

My colleague brought forward a motion that would change the three day notification period to 48 hours. Nobody understands what three days mean. They could mean working days. When our hon. colleague brought forth an amendment, 48 hours was a specific time period which nobody could dispute internationally. It would have permitted Canadian fisheries officers to wait only 48 hours to act instead of three working days.

Unfortunately the amendment was defeated. We would like to bring it to the government's attention. Before the bill receives final royal assent we hope this ratification and clarification could take place.

What do three working days mean? That is our question to the government. There is no definition in any of the agreements or the bill of three working days. Does it mean 72 hours? Does it include weekends and national holidays? If so, if national holidays are recognized in Canada, are they also recognized in the vessel's country of origin? What happens if the boat is boarded on Christmas Eve? When does that three day period actually begin? Is it after Boxing Day or New Years? It is a very contentious issue even under Canadian interpretation.

We do not want to waste the time of fisheries officers who are trying to work out the details on the high seas. We do not want to wait too long before they are allowed further action against a vessel that is fishing illegally. That is why the three working day period should be reduced to two days and defined as 48 hours. This was a major issue raised in the committee process and brought forward in an amendment. We want to raise it with the government today and ask it to take it under advisement.

We also want to draw attention to the environmental status of our ecosystem. We talked about declining fish stocks in the Canadian fisheries industry and the impact it has on our coastal communities and our economy as a whole.

Internationally fish stocks are declining as our population and demand for fish are increasing. As one hon. colleague mentioned, the silent tragedy of human deterioration as a result of agents in our food cycles is also a major concern. Pollutants that affect the ecosystem go into our food cycle including the fish throughout the regions.

I challenge the members who spoke to this issue to look at the Environmental Protection Act. One party spoke about the need to look at the health deteriorating agents in food cycles. Another party diminished the pollution related powers we wanted to protect in terms of fighting polluters, the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle. All these principles were encompassed by CEPA and were debated. Many members declined strengthening the bill.

I raise the issue of climate change which affects the migratory patterns of world fish stocks and the depths at which schools of fish can be found. The major issues are ecosystem and environmental protection, pollution prevention for our planet and climate change. Let us take these issues to heart and challenge members of the House and the provincial legislators to make sure we have a viable future for our children and a food supply for the world, especially our nation. Let us protect our Canadian waters and our Canadian law enforcement officers.

We would hate to see a situation where we were forced to shoot across somebody's bow to get somebody's attention in terms of the legalities of the jurisdiction over fish off our shores. Let us look at the speedy passage of Bill C-27 as weak as it is. We would like to strengthen it further, and I think there are processes that will allow for that.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today on behalf of our Conservative caucus to support Bill C-27.

[An hon. member]

And to congratulate the government.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

And congratulate the government for finally doing something which was so obviously right that it should have been done many years ago. It has taken so long to bring the bill before us that both governments, the previous one and the current one, deserve some blame for not doing it earlier. However, it is a bill we are more than happy to support.

Our fisheries critic has spoken to the bill and to its amendments on several occasions. Obviously we are very supportive of any act that adds to our conservation and management skills to control the fisheries resource as best we can. In this case we are talking about the straddling stocks outside and inside the 200 mile limit. We are talking about cod, flounder, turbot, tuna and swordfish.

We need to protect all these fish for the livelihood of all those who depend on them. We need to protect the fisheries resource because it is a tremendous source of protein for the whole world, a world that is often starving and hungry. If that resource is managed properly, if we make sure it is a renewable resource that remains renewable, all the world will be well served. Hence we are very supportive of the bill.

Unfortunately it has taken way too long to get the bill approved by the House of Commons. We hope Canada becomes a signatory to the agreement very quickly. After many years only 59 countries have become signatories to it. There have only been 17 ratifications and we need 30 before the agreement has any international effect. We may have missed an opportunity that we certainly should not have missed.

We on this side of the House congratulate the Liberal government for doing this, but we were surprised that all the amendments put forth by the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore and myself were voted down by the majority of government members. Some of the amendments that were discussed fully in the fisheries committee could have made the act an awful lot better and an awful lot stronger. All amendments should not have been voted down.

One amendment I am sure should not have been voted down by members opposite is my amendment to section 701(1) which would allow for enforcement. Everybody on this side of the House interprets the act as being very weak when it comes to the enforcement side. The principle of the act is good, but it cannot be enforced by our fisheries protection officers, the RCMP and coast guard officials designated under the act to do enforcement. There was a real opportunity to strengthen the act so that it would add to the conservation and protection of our fish resources.

My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the amendment I am talking about. The problem with section 701 is that a foreign fishing vessel caught in Canadian waters illegally cannot be charged right away. Permission of the home state has to be obtained. That might be okay when dealing with the signatories to the agreement.

Canada or the other signatory countries might say that if one of our vessels is caught doing something wrong, the enforcement officers can lay a charge and let the chips fall where they may. However, what happens when the real culprits in international overfishing are pirate ships of countries flying flags of convenience registered in Panama or Belize or someplace else? As the former speaker just mentioned, what happens if someone is caught on a Christmas Eve? How would fisheries officers get permission?

What should a fisheries officer off the coast of Newfoundland do in a situation similar to the Estai ? How could a fishing captain who is breaking the law by using a liner inside of his regular trawls to can catch small fish and destroy a resource be charged? How would the officer get control of the vessel?

If in Newfoundland waters the enforcement officer would call the federal Minister of Fisheries who would then contact the federal Minister for International Affairs who would then try to contact somebody in a place like Panama and get permission to lay a charge on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will simply never happen.

My amendment was pretty straightforward. All it said was that enforcement officers in our fleets would have exactly the same set of rules and regulations. If they found a Canadian vessel inside Canadian waters breaking the law, the captain could be arrested, the ship seized and taken to port, and the legal process would set in. Why is there a different set of laws in the bill, one that applies to foreign vessels inside Canadian limits and one that applies to the vessels of Canada and other signatories to the agreement inside Canadian waters?

It is a real shortfall in the bill. We proposed an amendment which was agreed to by this side of the House. I believe all members on this side supported the amendment and everybody on the opposite side voted against it. On the one hand the government deserves credit for finally bringing in the bill. On the other hand it certainly could have made it a lot better and could have protected more of the fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador or indeed any part of Canada.

That being said, we will still support the bill because it is badly needed. Anything that conserves and protects our fish resources is obviously something we will support. It is not just the fish resources. I have heard the minister of fisheries say sometimes that his first priority is to protect fish, not fishermen, fisherwomen, or workers, or other people who depend on the fishery. I take a different approach. The first responsibility of the minister of fisheries is to the people he represents. That means he has to conserve and protect fish stocks. As long as it is done on a scientific basis, we are more than happy to support him.

In Newfoundland and Labrador a lot of things are happening that do not preserve and conserve our fish resources. Our fishermen, fisherwomen, plant workers, truckers, suppliers and other support industries have a way of life based upon an inshore fishery in Newfoundland. That inshore fishery is now again at very serious risk, which I raised in committee yesterday when the Newfoundland delegation was here. We have done many things to preserve, conserve and protect our resource, and we are allowing one part of the ecosystem to completely destroy and diminish all other efforts we have taken.

In the case of seals we have a very serious problem. As I said in committee yesterday, sometimes we are destined to repeat history because maybe our memories are bad. We should not be destined to repeat events. In the 1980s when the cod stocks were being seriously depleted there was always the argument that we did not have enough scientific proof to significantly reduce quotas. Every fisherman in Newfoundland could say it was getting harder and harder to make a living, more and more difficult to find fish, and when fish were found they were smaller than they had ever been before.

I was in government in Newfoundland from 1979 to 1989. I know the premier and the other politicians in Newfoundland fought hard to get the federal government to reduce the quotas and to do something about management of our fish stocks. Nobody listened to us or in particular to fishermen.

Now in 1998-99 we have another problem where everybody in Newfoundland, every politician of every political party, every fisherman who lives around the coast of Newfoundland, sees the great predation by seals.

Seals have gone from roughly two million in the mid-1980s to close to seven million now. They eat millions of tonnes of fish per year. In Atlantic cod alone, a stock which the government has tried to preserve, $3 billion in TAGS and income support has been put in place to try to regenerate roe in Newfoundland. That $3 billion is going to be lost because we have not been willing, we have not been brave enough and courageous enough, to take on the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other lobbyists who have their axe to grind and use anything they can to raise significant amounts of money for their organizations.

We read in the news today how the Government of Canada deals with environmental problems. We are afraid for our lives to touch the seal issue. No one wants to touch seals. No one wants to get involved with the seal issue.

In western Canada, on a similar environmental issue, we have a problem with snow geese. There are not many people who make a living on snow geese. In Atlantic Canada this year seals ate 210,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod. That would employ almost everyone who was previously involved in the Atlantic fishery; 210,000 tonnes of cod and one million tonnes of caplin. If protected, that resource could create a significant amount of jobs in Atlantic Canada.

However, it cannot be dealt with. The government says that it cannot justify an increase in the seal quota, the total allowable catch, because it does not have scientific data. In effect, it is a repetition of what happened with the cod stocks in 1980.

We are afraid to listen to fishermen. We are afraid to listen to people who can see evidence on the shoreline on any given day of seal predation. Now we are in the situation where the Government of Canada says that we cannot cull the herd. We cannot do anything.

However, the Canadian program aims to cull snow geese by 1.25 million this year, 1.9 million in 2000 and 2.6 million in 2001. We are almost doubling our cull of snow geese because of an environmental disaster. We are doing it, in a way, to protect the snow geese. If we do not, they will simply eat themselves out of house and home and nature will find a way to bring the numbers down.

I am saying to the minister that when it comes to conservation, protection and enhancement of our fish stocks, we should do what Environment Canada has authorized be done for snow geese. Many more people make a living in Newfoundland based upon the fish resources that we have.

That being said, I believe that some of our amendments, especially on enforcement, should have been approved, but Liberal members chose not to accept them. However, members on this side of the House and we in the Conservative caucus will support Bill C-27. If nothing else, it is an improvement to what we now have. On behalf of our caucus I give our support to this bill.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the Progressive Conservative member's comments. I take it from his conclusion that he would recommend that his party vote in favour of Bill C-27.

As I mentioned in my speech, I believe the bill is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations fishing agreement.

The first question I would like to put to the hon. member is the following. Is he more comfortable with the existing Canadian law system, as set in Bill C-29, which makes it possible to seize vessels caught in the act and slap penalties on them? If this is the case, it means he does not agree with the content of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. The agreement says that a country should act in a diplomatic way and give three days to fishing boats caught in violation.

This is the reason why I emphasised, in my speech, the need of diplomacy. We need to get as many countries as possible on side, to get 30 signatories, which is the minimum number required for the agreement to become binding internationally.

Once we reach that level internationally, signatory countries can find a way to give teeth to the agreement. For now, we cannot choose between them.

I want to be sure that the hon. member has understood, and I would like him to comment on NAFO's management policy, which already establishes percentages applicable to participating countries. This could allow a settlement of some disputes between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Quebec.

I also remind the House that NAFO's rules for establishing total allowable catches are transparent and known to all. Everyone provides information, while at present in the Canadian system officials and biologists at Fisheries and Oceans are the only ones who have the information and communicate it to the minister. We are forced to live with the decisions.

I would like to ask the hon. member two questions. Does he prefer to live only under Canadian legislation, Bill C-29? This would be the result if we vote for Bill C-27. And what does he think of allowing Canada to administer things the way NAFO does?

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

We also are not in perfect unity with the government on this bill. All of the amendments made by the member, which were done with a lot of concurrence on the fisheries committee, were excellent amendments which could have made the bill stronger.

However, we have come to the conclusion in the Conservative caucus that it is better to support this bill and have it ratified so that it becomes more of an international agreement with the other countries which are signatories to it, to at least go that far. I suspect what will happen is that we will be back here in a couple of years, which often happens with this government, making amendments to Bill C-27 when the government finds that the enforcement mechanisms will not work.

Government members will come to the House one day with a great show of pride and patriotism to bring amendments, the amendments which the member suggested and the amendments which I suggested, and will be back here to make this bill stronger and make it do what we want it to do.

We in Newfoundland have always been very concerned and alarmed that when it comes to NAFO Canada is much too soft. We accept too many violations with respect to some of the things that happen on those vessels. This is just not strong enough to do what we want to do in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed in all of Atlantic Canada.

Yes, we would like a much stronger bill, but we have decided to support this bill because at least it goes in the right direction.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his speech the total allowable catch for the seal herd this year. Over 200,000 animals are to be culled from that herd, out of a total population on the east coast of about 6.4 million seals.

I would like the hon. member to comment on two things. First, the government and the minister involved have certainly ignored the lives and well-being of Atlantic Canadians. There is no question about that. However, there is also a greater travesty. The government has also ignored the conservation measures needed to ensure a healthy seal herd.

If we have a burgeoning seal population which has already surpassed—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments of the hon. member are not relevant to the bill we are dealing with.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, obviously the reason we are supporting the bill on this side of the House is because it conserves and protects our fish stocks. The nature and level of those fish stocks are obviously very pertinent to this debate and therefore the member's question is certainly in order.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for South Shore may continue with his question and comment.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

I was encompassing the seals in the total fish stocks. I realize the difference between mammals and fish. I am not sure thatmembers opposite do.

However, I want to look at the holistic picture. The question for the hon. member is put quite simply. We are not only ignoring the personal value, the very real value, and the hardship it causes Nova Scotians, Labradorians, New Brunswickers, Quebecers, Magdalen Islanders and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are also ignoring the very real responsibility that we have for conservation of the seal herd.

The seal herd will continue to overpopulate, to overreach the food resource and will suffer some type of a crippling and dramatic decline in population, probably long term starvation and disease. What are the hon. member's thoughts on that?