Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
The Government of Canada understands the importance of ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic, in particular, for the benefit of the many Canadians and entire communities whose livelihood and economy depend on these resources.
Given that these fish stocks extend to waters outside of Canada's jurisdiction, we cannot single-handedly and unilaterally ensure their conservation. In this context, international co-operation is necessary for the successful management of these fish stocks.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, better known as NAFO, was formed in 1979. A lot has changed since that time. The face of the fisheries has changed, the players have evolved and the organization was badly in need of tune-up, if not a complete rebuild.
Despite knowing the need for NAFO reform, the previous Liberal government did nothing for 13 years. It was only in 2005, in the dying days of their government, that the Liberals turned their attention to this serious problem. The Liberals did what they do best and held a big, showy, international conference in St. John's to discuss reforms. Canadians should know that while the Liberals are now fearmongering on these NAFO reforms, they were singing a very different tune in 2005.
At the conclusion of the St. John's conference, the member for Halifax West, then fisheries minister, felt very differently. In signing a declaration calling for the reform of NAFO and organizations like it, he proudly stated:
The Government of Canada considers the Conference as a positive step toward stronger international fisheries governance. We will continue to press for further progress to modernize fisheries management on the high seas.
Like so many other issues, the Liberals talked a good game, but did nothing to back up their empty words. It took this government, largely under the strong leadership of the former fisheries minister, Loyola Hearn, to deliver.
Our government pressed for action when Canadians voiced their desire for change in 2006 and NAFO members were forced to agree that it was time to modernize the organization. We know we have been forward looking and we need to give ourselves the modern decision-making tools required to deal with the problems we face. This package of reforms does that and has the broad support of those in the fishing industry today.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has heard from numerous representatives of the Canadian fishing industry who are uniformly behind these changes.
Patrick McGuinness, for example, the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the committee:
—in terms of what we're looking at now, from the Fisheries Council of Canada's point of view we do not see any tangible negatives in the document. But we do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime....Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented.
Also Bruce Chapman, president of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council and the executive director of the Canadian Association for Prawn Producers, told the committee, “In our view, it is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.
Ms. Rosalind Walsh, the executive director of the Northern Fisheries Coalition, took the time to write to the committee to express her organization's support for the good work done by our government, “In summary, the amended NAFO Convention is a positive development for Canada and the Canadian fishing industry, and one that is supported by the Northern Coalition”.
There are more. Earle McCurdy, the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, and hardly a frequent supporter of our government, also supports the convention because it will be good for his members in the processing sector.
In fact, we have yet to hear from anyone currently involved in the fishing industry who is opposed to the progress Canada has made at NAFO. This fact should be very telling.
We have heard some questions recently about whether Canada is effectively protecting its sovereign rights under this amended convention. The answer is very clear. The changes to the convention recognize and respect Canada's sovereignty over its 200 mile limit.
It is worth mentioning that the first paragraph of the amendment notes that coastal states have established exclusive economic zones consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within which they exercise sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing living resources.
Nonetheless, the standing committee took the time to invite leading Canadian experts on the law of the sea and ocean governance to discuss the new amended convention. Both gentlemen agreed that the new convention represented real progress in the international management of the North Atlantic and both dismissed the conspiracy theories floated by the opposition.
Ted McDorman, a professor of law at the University of Victoria, told the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans:
By the standards of other organizations, there's actually been some significant progress made here with the NAFO amendments.
He went further and said:
I've looked mostly at the institutional structural issues, and I see there's a positive rather than negative.
Phillip Saunders, the dean of the law school at Dalhousie University, also came before our committee on that same day and stated:
I... tried to look for something that I would consider to be a deal breaker, and I don't think I found one.
He also told the committee that it was difficult to understand the apprehension of the opposition to article VI, paragraph 10, because the government maintains “complete control”. I will quote him further:
I've tried to work through the scenarios in which it would become a real problem, and I find they mostly require an awful lot of steps to take place before something really bad could happen. Because the Canadian government holds complete control....
He went further and said:
I've also tried to think of a possible usefulness for it that the Canadian side might have wanted. One thing I can see is that Canada did want to push for, as an example, a protected area for fishing habitat that straddled the outer limit. This would provide a way of pressing that point and showing good faith, as we want this area, this habitat, protected outside and we want it protected inside, and we're prepared to make it one measure.
Therefore, far from seeing the negatives in the contentious article VI, paragraph 10, leading Canadian experts actually see potential benefits. Indeed, under article VI, paragraph 10, NAFO measures will not be applied in waters under Canadian jurisdiction unless, and I want to be very specific about this, (a) Canada requests that they apply and (b) Canada votes in favour of such measures.
It is clear that the amended convention does not give NAFO the mandate to take management decisions within waters under Canadian jurisdiction, nor does it give foreign fishing vessels the right to fish in these waters.
Fundamentally, the amended convention provides for a more modern decision-making process that reflects the current challenges faced by NAFO. Canadian industry and provincial governments participated extensively in the negotiations on the amended convention and were supportive throughout the process. The amended NAFO convention explicitly maintains the sovereign right of Canada to take management decisions on fisheries within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. To say otherwise would be incorrect.
We will continue to fight for changes at NAFO that are beneficial for Canada and for those Canadians who depend on the resources in the North Atlantic. These amendments will improve the NAFO convention and Canada's ratification will serve to consolidate our efforts to date to improve oceans and fisheries governance internationally.
