Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing does indeed have two parts but I will comment only on the second part, that is the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
The bill seeks to give fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel or to attempt to do so, within the limits of the regulations. As my colleague said before, the expression "to disable" a vessel is what is creating a problem here because definitions vary from one dictionary to another.
I checked the Robert dictionary and it says that to disable is to make unable, unfit, ineffective''; hence, to disable a ship means to cause damage that will prevent it from manoeuvering, for example cause damage to the helm, the motor or other essential instruments. The purpose therefore is not to sink the ship but to keep it from causing harm or sailing away. So that we may be sure of the meaning of the term, the bill should include a definition of the worddisable''; that way, there could be no confusion in the interpretation of the act.
A foreign vessel under arrest could then be disabled if it were in flight. If, while inspecting the vessel or interrogating its crew, the protection officer discovered illegal actions, the owners and the captain of the ship could then be forced to face Canadian justice.
We must admit straight off that foreign fishing vessels have been sailing for a long time in what are recognized today as Canadian territorial waters; they did so even before the discovery of Canada.
Therefore, they acquired historic rights which enabled them to obtain a permit to fish within Canada's 200-mile zone, provided they complied with the attendant regulations. Among other things, the regulations spell out the species that can be caught, the allowable size of the catch, where parties can fish, the need to keep a log, and so forth.
Some foreign vessels are occasionally suspected of fishing illegally. The Concordia affair which occurred on December 11, 1989, comes to mind. A US vessel, the Concordia , was fishing illegally in Canada's exclusive economic zone, on George Bank off the shores of Nova Scotia. Detected and photographed by a Canadian Forces Tracker aircraft, the Concordia did not respond to the Tracker's radio transmissions. It also ignored the Canadian Forces destroyer Saguenay , which it even rammed before retreating toward US waters.
Back in Ottawa, as my colleague mentioned, External Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, DND and the Privy Council needed seven and one half hours to consult with one another before giving the Saguenay permission to use force to stop the Concordia . In the meantime, the Concordia had plenty of time to take refuge outside Canadian waters. The owner and captain of the vessel were fined $9,000, considerably less than what they took in as a result of the illegal fishing activities.
It is important for a country to protect its territorial waters. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act now before Parliament gives fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel suspected of carrying out illegal fishing activities.
In speaking to this debate, I want to draw the government's attention to the importance of having regulations that spell out clearly when and how force is to be used to disable a vessel. I realize that regulations to this effect are being drafted, but regulations are not voted on. In my view, it is important that these regulations be tabled in the House prior to the adoption of
this bill on third reading. If this is not possible, then the restrictions that go along with this power should be spelled out clearly in the act.
Fisheries protection officers are being given this new power in an effort to halt illegal fishing by foreign vessels in Canadian waters. In the absence of any extradition provision with regard to fisheries, it is all too easy for a foreign vessel that has committed an offence in Canadian waters to escape scot-free by sailing out of the economic zone, keep its cargo and cash in the profits.
As we have just seen, it is difficult to disable a vessel. So, notwithstanding the necessity to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the government must continue to explore new ways of resolving the problem.
For instance, it could negotiate bilateral arrangements with other countries to arrest on arrival at their home port the captains of vessels suspected of illicit fishing in Canadian waters. It could insist that deterrent penalties be imposed on the owners and captains of vessels contravening the regulations governing their fishing licences. In that regard, it should be pointed out that since 1991, the fine imposed on nationals guilty of illicit fishing is $100,000 in the United States, while in Canada it can be as high as $750,000.
Finally, illegal fishing is not the prerogative of foreign fishing vessels. While pursuing ongoing efforts in the UN to ensure better protection for our resources through arrangements, it would be important that the Canadian government initiate a project to develop a national, if not international, code of ethics, the primary purpose of which would be to make everyone accountable and responsible for the conservation of our fishery resource.
Fisheries management must be decentralized. The industry must assume responsibility for itself and regulate itself in terms of the enforcement measures or penalties to be applied to those who contravene the code of ethics. For example, the fisherman who exceeds his fishing quota one year could see his quota reduced the next year. For illegal fishing, his fishing licence could be withdrawn or suspended for some time.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill from the Minister of Justice. Nevertheless, this bill should include an amendment forbidding the use of force if the lives of the crew of the fleeing vessel are in danger. The door to the use of force which we are opening today must in no case be used to excuse blunders which could be committed by protection officers using the right given to them today.
Canada must show its political will to enforce its 200-mile jurisdiction over its territorial waters. This alone justifies the bill today, although it is regrettable in some respects for moral and social reasons. Unfortunately, it seems that force is still the only language which some people understand, although it is not the most effective way to end illegal fishing practices. The aim of showing the international community that our country is determined to end these practices is quite laudable. However, the use of force is always risky. That is why the Bloc Quebecois's amendment is meant to limit the use of force so as to avoid unfortunate incidents.
I hope that the government will consider this amendment, especially since there is no causal relationship between illegal fishing and the Atlantic fisheries crisis. The government must restructure the fishing industry and develop new commercial practices to promote underused species.
Finally, we cannot stop illegal fishing practices without the other countries' co-operation. Negotiations with the international community should continue because today's amendment to the Fisheries Protection Act in no way solves the real problems of fishermen in Eastern Canada.