Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke spent a lot of time talking about cell phones. We on this side of the House believe in using all available technology in the interest of protecting our fishermen, fishing communities and fishery resources.
I want to deal specifically with the question that the member for St. John's West, a member of the NDP and the member opposite raised about the consent requirement in section 7.01. I will outline it in some detail in the hope that before third reading they will see the good logic in it, understand that there is not a problem as a result of section 7.01, understand that their concerns are being taken care of, and be able to come into the House and support the bill in its totality.
The consent requirement in section 7.01 is there for a legal reason. International law requires that consent of the flag state be obtained in the circumstances described in section 7.01.
Section 7.01 deals with a very narrow situation. It deals with the situation where a foreign vessel is spotted in Canadian waters and there is reason to believe that it has committed a violation in Canadian waters. For some reason Canadian enforcement officials are unable or were unable to follow the vessel in hot pursuit when it escaped from Canadian waters to the high seas.
In such a specific situation international law requires that the flag state's consent be obtained if Canada wants to board the vessel on the high seas, if it is spotted there later. In other words, if there is not a hot pursuit or the pursuit is broken, Canada cannot simply board that vessel on the high seas two days later, for instance, without the flag state's consent. This would be contrary to international law.
The hon. member's proposed amendment would be contrary to the international law as reflected in UNFA. We should understand it is only in that specific instance where that occurs. We certainly want to abide by international law.
I want to deal with the government amendments to the bill as a result of the standing committee's discussion that we think improve it substantially. Bill C-27, in the final analysis, will enable the Government of Canada to implement the agreement. The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act which is necessary before the agreement can be ratified.
Once this is done and Canada has implemented the agreement, we will have an important tool for protecting straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Specifically Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18, which are government motions, are necessary and were decided as a result of the discussions in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
The proposed amendments are to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill. Clause 11, which amends sections 18.01 and 18.02 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, provides for procedural rules applicable to prosecutions and to the collection of fines where the vessel is the defendant as opposed to a person. UNFA contemplates actions against vessels, not against persons.
New sections 18.01 and 18.02 will enable the crown to institute proceedings and collect fines against vessels rather than persons. This is what is sometimes referred to in maritime law as an in rem procedure. These two procedural rules were meant to apply to pursuits and collection of fines from all vessels including vessels that are stateless.
Clause 12 of the bill proposes an amendment to section 18.01 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This amendment provides that whenever an enforcement officer exercises power under this act on the high seas, as described in Bill C-27, the rules provided by criminal law, including those contained in the Criminal Code, apply to the enforcement officer's actions.
A good example of the application of this provision is the protection that the Criminal Code offers to enforcement officers when using reasonable force in the exercise of their duties. It is to protect our officers who are doing work for Canada and for its fisheries.
This section is amended by Bill C-27 to apply to situations where enforcement officers exercise powers in relation to vessels of state party to UNFA or to other relevant fisheries treaties. Stateless vessels should have been covered in this provision, and the government's proposed amendment will ensure that it covers stateless vessels. Therefore I encourage all members of the House to support Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18.
With regard to the other motions in Group No. 4, we will be opposing those particular motions. In the time remaining I will try to get through them.
The first two amendments proposed by the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, provided in Motions Nos. 8 and 12, seek to substitute the term “reasonable grounds” currently used in Bill C-27 for the term “clear grounds” used in UNFA.
Bill C-27 uses the term “reasonable grounds” for good reason. This standard has been tested in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has obtained approval from Canada's highest court. It is equivalent to the standard of clear grounds used in UNFA. I therefore would urge the House to understand this reasoning and to vote against the proposed change submitted by Motions Nos. 8 and 12.
I would now like to comment on the amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 10 and 13 tabled by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which really refer to the point raised earlier on 7.01.
Both motions seek to substitute the consent of the minister for the flag state's consent prior to exercising certain powers. Flag state consent in the situations described in Bill C-27, for example, sections 7.01 and 16.2, is required under international law, which I explained a moment ago. To do otherwise would be contrary to international law and Canada's obligations under the United Nations fisheries agreement.
Finally, I would like to address the one amendment proposed by the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in Motion No. 14 with respect to Canada's obligations under UNFA to implement a three day waiting period before taking any further enforcement action once on board the vessel of a state party to UNFA. Adopting a shorter time period, as proposed by Motion No. 14, would put Canada in breach of its international obligations. We certainly do not want to do that. We want other countries to abide by the agreement and we should ourselves.
The government intends to prescribe the three day period in the regulations to be made under Bill C-27. It would not be practical to specify this period in the bill itself because if this period was shortened we would have to amend, yet again, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The proposed amendment would, therefore, not only be impractical, it would be contrary to the United Nations fisheries agreement. For these reasons I would urge the House to vote against Motion No. 14.
I encourage all members of the House, in order for us to move ahead and continue to provide the leadership that we have been providing with regard to fisheries around the world, to support the government amendments I have talked about, Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18, and reject the others I have mentioned for the reasons outlined.
