House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vessels.

Topics

Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also stand.

Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?

Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have two matters. I think the House will give its consent to the withdrawal of government business Nos. 11 and 12, the two motions for debate on special subjects which have now been debated and are therefore finished. To clear the Order Paper, I am asking that they be withdrawn with consent.

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do we have unanimous consent?

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motions Nos. 11 and 12 withdrawn.)

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is agreement among the parties that at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister of Fisheries on Bill C-29, which I understand will be called in a moment as the first item of government business, there will be a 10-minute period of questions and comments.

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is there unanimous consent?

Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

May 11th, 1994 / 3:15 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

moved that Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to address the substance and rationale for Bill C-29. In doing so, may I express on behalf of the government and all the government supporters and as well on behalf of Atlantic Canadians, all those who have traditionally depended upon the resources of the sea for a livelihood and for a reason to be in many of our isolated and rural communities of Atlantic Canada, our thanks and appreciation to all members and to all parties in the House for the rare show of unanimous support to expedite the passage of Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

It is seldom in the life of a Parliament that such a rare show of unanimous support is forthcoming in the pursuit of a cause that is so worthwhile for all Canadians.

For generations fishermen have worked hard to make a living. It is a very tough existence but a good life from the resources of the ocean on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. All of that is threatened today.

We confront a very grim question. The question is will a way of life that has been sustained for 500 years now survive?

Environmental conditions have had a role to play in pushing down fish stocks. There are fewer, in fact historically low levels of young fish on the Grand Banks today. These fish are growing more slowly. They take longer to mature. More are dying because of natural causes. Indeed, we have record low levels of temperature on the east coast, 65-year record low temperatures. Therefore, we have a more natural death of fish stocks.

All of these ecological factors are happening today, but these factors are only one small part of the resource crisis that we face.

Beginning in the mid-1980s there was massive destructive overfishing of cod, flounder and other resources on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks just outside Canada's 200-mile economic zone. The fisheries in this area just outside the 200-mile limit is regulated by an organization called NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The catches set by NAFO are determined as a consequence of the scientific evidence that is gathered from all of the nations that participate in fisheries outside our 200-mile limit. Canadian scientists on Canadian fisheries patrol vessels, Russian scientists, Japanese scientists, European union scientists all collaborate to establish what the proper harvesting levels should be to sustain the resource. NAFO, as an organization, works collaboratively to set quotas and to start harvesting plans in a manner that is sustainable.

During the 1980s Canada fished within the quotas set by NAFO. So did the fleets from most other countries fish within the quotas established by NAFO. We did what we thought was right then in the mid-1980s. We know now that we took in fact too much fish.

I have to say here and now that even as we fished within the assigned quotas as did many others, the European union in the mid-1980s showed no such restraint. The European union as a member of NAFO would participate in establishing global quotas, would be assigned its share of the quota and then would unilaterally establish for itself its own quota and fish according to its own fishing plan.

Canada and many other nations set out to do the right thing. In retrospect it turned out we were not doing the right thing. The European union in the mid-1980s set out to do the wrong thing and regrettably it succeeded.

The heavy overfishing of cod and flounder in the mid-1980s severely depleted those resources. It was in the early 1990s that nature, because of a changed environmental condition on top of the heavy overfishing of the mid-1980s, dealt a second crushing blow. These stocks which were depleted, weakened and overfished are now in a rate of rapid decline.

How many Canadians realize that the once great 2J, 3KL cod stock, an important part of the protein, the food basket of the planet earth, a cod stock that once sustained the great North American fleet, all of the European fleet, the Spanish and Portuguese fleet, the Russian fleet, the Japanese fleet, a stock that fed a good part of the planet, the once great northern cod stock has been decimated and that the spawning biomass of that stock since 1989 has declined by 99 per cent. A scant four or five years later only 1 per cent of the spawning biomass that existed five years ago remains today. This stock is in crisis. This resource that belongs to the planet earth is on its last legs today.

Man has been slow to realize, but we had better realize soon, that we cannot command nature. We can only obey nature. If we do not understand that in the context of fish stocks, we face a terrible consequence for our ignorance. We face the commercial if not the biological extinction of once massive fish stocks.

This could happen to northern cod. It could happen to southern Grand Banks cod, 3NO cod, and it could happen to four endangered species of flounder as well on the Grand Banks.

Canada has stopped fishing all of these endangered stocks, every one of them. Canada has participated with NAFO in putting moratoriums in place, the most recent in February in Brussels, to protect 3NO cod. Prior to that, four moratoriums were put in place to protect flounder. A moratorium was put in place to protect the great northern cod stock that I have just described as having been devastated. There is a moratorium in place to protect American plaice in area 3M on the Flemish Cap.

Within Canada we have not only participated in moratoriums to protect straddling stocks, but today as the minister of fisheries I preside over 14 moratoriums within Canadian waters. We have shut down virtually the entire cod fishery, the entire groundfishery of all of Atlantic Canada. We have done all that we can in the name of conservation. We have even denied after 500 years of settlement and existence the right of those who live in the Atlantic region to take simple biblical level technology, a simple hook and line and fish food for a living.

We can do no more than we have done literally in the name of conservation. We submit that those who come from distant water nations to fish off our shores can do no less than what we have imposed upon ourselves.

We proposed a bill to give Canada the capacity, authority and ability not to extend our jurisdiction out beyond 200 miles, not to make a territorial grab, not to expand our economic zone and not to pull unto ourselves more territory or water. That is not Canada's nature. It is not Canada's way. It is not part of our history. It is not part of our culture. We have never been an expansionist power or some kind of imperialistic power.

We propose a measure today to give us the ability to enforce the conservation measures necessary to protect endangered species not just for ourselves but for the world.

Overfishing has occurred on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, overfishing on occasion by Canadian fleets. Let us have the courage, the integrity and the honesty to admit that and stop that overfishing. We have demonstrated in the last months that where a Canadian vessel breaks the rules Canada shall reach out the long arm of its enforcement power and impose proper conservation measures. A month ago we went out 300 miles to arrest the Stephen B , a Canadian tuna boat fishing against ICCAT rules, to protect bluefin tuna, a highly migratory species. We went out 228 miles to arrest the Kristina Logos , a Canadian registered vessel catching 3NO cod. We are not asking the world to accept a standard that we do not impose upon ourselves first.

The vessels overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks can be divided into two rough categories, those that belong to the multilateral organization that I described earlier, NAFO, that fish within NAFO quotas and according to NAFO rules within a NAFO management plan, and those that do not.

A moment go I said that European vessels in the mid-1980s did not abide by NAFO's rules even when a member of NAFO. Even today some European vessels do not comply fully with the rules but by and large the quotas and the management plan set by NAFO are complied with by European union vessels.

While we occasionally have differences, we have the means as a member of NAFO to settle those differences by agreement and within an existing management structure.

May I say there is nothing so unholy, nothing so repulsive, nothing more predatory than the spectacle of tying up Canadian fishermen, tying up Canadian boats, closing down Canadian fish plants, wiping out the very reason for existence of Canadian coastal communities in the name of conservation, and even as that sacrifice is made to restore this resource for future generations, watching a handful of what we call flag of convenience pirate vessels targeting those same endangered species that we Canadians have set aside to be saved to rebuild this fragile resource. I say to the pirates their day has come and we are going to stop that kind of predatory action. We are going to stop that kind of exploitation.

Why? Because we have some desire to be in conflict on the high seas? Not at all. It is contrary to our nature. Because we have some macho desire to flex our muscles on the high seas? Not at all. It is contrary to our nature, to our history.

We hope that we as a House of Commons who have come together to produce this legislation, unanimously proposed, unanimously supported, unanimously implemented, will not have to move against a single vessel. We hope that those who make exploitation, risk capital, their gain, will understand that their best course of action is to pull up gear and leave.

We do not want to confront a single vessel on the high seas. We do not want to arrest a single vessel on the high seas. We do not want to interfere with a single crew, wherever it comes from, whatever flag of convenience it flies on the high seas. But we will confront and we will arrest and we will seize and we will prosecute each and every one if they do not pull up their nets and leave the zone.

Last month Canada arrested a Canadian registered vessel, the Kristina Logos , 228 miles out. The vessel was flying the Panamanian flag, with a crew from Portugal. We towed it into port in St. John's.

Do you know what we found? We found over 100 tons of product aboard that freezer vessel. Do you know what else we found? We found nets with something close to legal mesh size. Of course a legal mesh size would allow a small juvenile or baby fish to escape because it could swim through the mesh. Yet aboard that boat were 100 tons of juvenile cod, juvenile flounder, and juvenile redfish. I was down in the hold of that boat. I want to tell my colleagues that I saw not a single fish of the 100 tons in that hold that was bigger than the palm of my hand. I want you to stop and think about that. Not a single fish aboard that vessel was longer than the palm of my hand.

Those who come from Atlantic Canada know when you are catching those kinds of fish you are slaughtering the species. It is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against an important resource that belongs not to a single nation but to the planet. That is what was found in the hold of that vessel.

You ask yourself, how can they catch such a small fish? It looks more like it belongs in the aquarium at home, not in the hold of a commercial fishing vessel. How is it done? Then fisheries officers uncover what is called a liner. Inside the legal sized fishing gear is put a liner so that everything that swims into that net is being held inside it. Nothing can escape, not juvenile fish, not any species. Everything goes into the hold of the boat.

Who are these people? The people who own these vessels see them as an opportunity to make profit. These are people who do not have the mentality of fishermen. Fishermen believe you must harvest the sea as a farmer does his land. A farmer knows you must sustain the fields. You must leave them to lie fallow on occasion. You must replant a different product from time to time. You must sustain the power of the fields to produce crops.

The ocean is no different. It cannot be exploited, it must be harvested. You must catch fish in such a way as to leave the young, let them grow older, let them reproduce. You move your effort from fragile stocks on to healthier stocks.

Not these vessels, not these pirates, not these flags of convenience or stateless vessels. No, they do not have the mind of a farmer or a fisherman, they have the mind of a miner. Take the resource. That is understandable in mining, it is not renewable, it is not sustainable. You take the resource, mine it, clean it out and then move on.

That is not acceptable to Canada. That is why Canada as represented by all of its political parties today will act in record time to pass this bill.

Our legislation says: "The bill will enable Canada to take the urgent action necessary to prevent further destruction of straddling stocks and to permit their rebuilding while continuing to seek effective international solutions".

Lest anyone be in doubt, let me affirm once again three fundamental commitments by the Government of Canada. First, Canada is committed to the rule of international law. Second, Canada's goal remains effective international controls over high seas fishing. Third, the Government of Canada will use the powers under this legislation only where other means to protect threatened straddling stocks have failed.

Our commitment to the third principle is no less strong than our commitment to the first two; that is, the rule of law and our desire to seek effective international controls to deal with the problems of high seas fishing.

That is why even as we propose a measure that allows us to go beyond 200 miles and to use the force required to ensure that NAFO conservation rules and other conservation measures are respected, we continue to work at the UN Conference on High Seas Fishing which will undertake its third session in August in New York to seek a permanent solution to the problem of overfishing.

The measures we take today under Bill C-29 are an interim measure, a temporary measure. They are necessary now because if we do not act those fish stocks will disappear, perhaps forever.

The world needs, and Canada needs, not a temporary solution taken by one nation but a permanent solution taken by all nations under the auspices of the UN. That is why Canada has worked hard at the UN both last summer and again this spring and we will do so again in August to get a new convention on high seas fishing.

I say to those people in Atlantic Canada who ask if it is too late, no, it is not too late. We can build this resource. It takes the commitment not of a single province, not of a single region, not of a particular group of people, but the commitment of a nation. I say to those people in Atlantic Canada who believe that their country has abandoned them in this crisis and that Canadians elsewhere in Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba do not know or do not care about this crisis, it is not true.

This is a particularly proud day for me, not as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but as a member of Parliament from Newfoundland. I have been here for 14 years. I stand here today in an emergency debate and look across and see colleagues from every party and from every part of Canada who give the confidence that this measure is supported. The country does care and does have the will to solve this problem.

I would like to acknowledge the work over many years to raise the consciousness of the nation to this crisis of all the Atlantic premiers. Members would understand if I were particularly to acknowledge the work of Premier Wells of Newfoundland. He went across this country to raise the consciousness of the nation about this problem.

Members would understand as well if I said that it takes a Prime Minister with vision, it takes a Prime Minister with courage and it takes a Prime Minister with great integrity to have said during the heat of an election campaign that Canada will act and to have delivered during the calm of the first serious

and sober days of government the ability to act. I thank our Prime Minister.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, the minister has requested that Parliament act expeditiously in passing this bill. I am curious as to when we can expect this act to come into force.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Speaker, if the House gives passage to this measure today-and we have had some discussions with all of the parties and I acknowledge that and thank them for it-then the matter will be referred to the Senate as early as tomorrow.

It is up to the Senate. It is its own creature, of course, its own authority. If it considers this bill as quickly as tomorrow it could pass and be given royal assent tomorrow, which I think would be almost a record passage of any bill before this Parliament. We would publish the regulations within a week and I can tell you we will be enforcing them very soon afterward.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, at this time the minister did not acknowledge that Canada is renegotiating the Pacific salmon treaty with the United States.

I am curious. The minister is taking unilateral action on the east coast with this bill. Is it in any way likely to jeopardize relations with the United States and in particular the negotiations which are ongoing on the salmon treaty between Canada and the United States on the west coast?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I think he has asked a very important and relevant question. I am glad he has raised it and has given me the opportunity to respond.

I had lunch today with a very enjoyable luncheon companion, the American ambassador. I did so for two reasons. First I wanted to have the opportunity to raise a number of outstanding issues, one of which was the issue of the Argentia base in Newfoundland and the American closedown of that base. We wanted to ensure there were reasonable conditions for the American departure there.

The second reason was that I wanted to talk specifically about the bill, what it does and what it does not do, to assure our friends and colleagues south of the border that we have a bill that is targeted at a particular problem which needs to be addressed. I thought there was certainly-I will not comment on the American formal response-some understanding for the plight we face. We had a separate discussion on the whole question of the Pacific salmon treaty.

I made very clear to the American ambassador, as did the Prime Minister when he spoke to the president a few weeks ago, that the successful conclusion of a salmon plan with our friends, the United States, is urgent and important for Canada.

I can assure the member there is no connection nor was any connection drawn by the American ambassador between the bill and its provisions and the separate question on the Pacific salmon treaty that we are attempting to resolve.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to start with a question and at the same time congratulate the minister for agreeing to answer questions, because I know that on a motion or a bill like this at second reading, ministers do not have to take questions, so I want to praise his courage. At the same time-I will have to repeat it later-we will support this motion.

The minister talked about the harsh decisions recently made by Canada concerning the closure of 14 fish stocks in Canadian waters. I myself favour sustainable harvesting and, when it is no longer sustainable, I agree with the minister that we must take all necessary measures and impose a moratorium.

However, the minister has been in office for nearly six months now and not all stocks are threatened to the same extent. I want to ask the minister this: If some stocks should recover a little more quickly, will we allow at least some exploratory fisheries, so that the new selective gear being produced can be used and several species can be harvested. The Bloc Quebecois even made a few suggestions in this regard.

I would just like the minister to comment on this and remind him that even if the motion to end over-fishing was tabled by the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support this project because it was a good idea. I want to make sure that, if some good questions or ideas come from Quebec, the minister will not hesitate to support them either.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his long involvement and interest in matters having to do with the fishery. The member has had a career in advance of coming into the House dealing with the fishery and fishermen in the province of Quebec.

The member has suggested that wherever possible and wherever stocks warrant we need to have exploratory fisheries, developmental fisheries or test fisheries. I totally agree with the member and would say to him that even in areas where we have a moratorium it is important for us to have some sentinel or test fisheries under way. In addition to the scientific evidence there is no better solid base of information for what is happening than to have an experienced fishing crew in a boat on the water conducting these test fisheries.

I totally concur with his suggestion. It is my intention to have such test fisheries occurring everywhere. The moratorium would continue. The commercial aspect of the fishery would continue. Having a few boats here and there to try to develop underutilized species or test the circumstance with respect to stocks in the moratorium is a sensible suggestion. I tell the member that the intention is to put the scientists and the fishermen shoulder to shoulder in the same boats working together. We have to close the gap of suspicion and mistrust between fishermen and scientists by having them work together.

I want to make another point. I acknowledge with great joy and enthusiasm the quick support of the Bloc Quebecois, just as we have had quick and strong support from the Reform Party.

My friend from Delta is also someone who had experience in the fishery before he came into the House. He was a fishermen for many years and knows the industry well.

I acknowledge the support of the Bloc Quebecois. I acknowledge the instinctive quick reaction to support a sound policy. I tell my hon. colleagues that I look forward, notwithstanding their wishes in other areas, to spending many years working with them in the House in the interest of Canada.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE

Madam Speaker, I too congratulate the minister for introducing the legislation today. It is just one more step in a lot of decisions the minister has been making over the past seven months. There have been more decisions made over the past seven months than have been made over the past seven years.

I congratulate him on his very active efforts on behalf of the people of Atlantic Canada and on behalf of the people of his province. Many of his fellow citizens in Newfoundland are not going to fish for quite a number of years and some will never fish again. For Newfoundlanders I suspect that is a sentence of death. They are giving up and losing an awful lot for the sins we have committed in the past, both ourselves and people from other parts of the world.

I see by the map that the legislation covers the nose and tail of the Grand Bank. Adjacent to it is the Flemish Cap, a very important breeding ground for cod and other groundfish.

Could the minister explain why the legislation stops short of the Flemish Cap and whether he has confidence that NAFO with the agreements he secured a month and a half ago is in a position to police that area?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is a very good question and gives me an opportunity to make a couple of things clear that are perhaps less than clear.

The legislation gives Parliament of Canada the authority to designate any class of vessel for enforcement of conservation measures. The legislation does not categorize whom we would enforce against. The legislation makes clear that any vessel fishing in a manner inconsistent with good, widely acknowledged conservation rules could be subject to action by Canada. We cite as an example the NAFO conservation rules. Any vessel from any nation fishing at variance with good conservation rules could under the authority granted in the legislation be subject to action by Canada. There are no exceptions.

The government and I have said that we will stop foreign overfishing, not foreign fishing forever but improper fishing practices. We have said we will do it by agreement where it is possible to reach agreement and by unilateral action where unilateral action is necessary.

We believe we have the means. We hope we have the will and the measures within the NAFO regime for NAFO to police itself, for NAFO to take the steps required, and for NAFO member states to police their own vessels. We are a member state of NAFO. We believe that Canada can police Canadian vessels. We believe that all other NAFO member states can and should do the same. Our expectation is that they will do the same. If one is a party to an agreement one should want to see that the agreement is lived up to fully.

What we do not have is the capacity to make an agreement with flag of convenience vessels or with stateless vessels because they belong to no organization.

In answering the member's question let me say that the areas outlined on the map are NAFO regulatory areas. They cover straddling stocks and stocks regulated by NAFO. The area that is not outlined on the map, including the Flemish Cap, is not part of the straddling stocks that affect Canada. That is why we have not claimed any territory beyond those affected or covered by our own straddling stocks.

As I said, this is not an extension of jurisdiction; this is a conservation regime that we are introducing today.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Fisheries mentioned, the Official Opposition does support the bill. However, we would like to add a few words and say ourselves that we do support the minister's legislation.

This bill will allow the Governor in Council-for me in French it means the cabinet-to make regulations concerning straddling stocks, the classes of foreign fishing vessels to which the prohibition will apply, and the conservation and management measures with which these vessels must comply.

These measures have also been formulated by Canada in the context of NAFO, and I think they were supported by the majority. Indeed, they did receive the support of a majority of members. I guess you cannot go against common sense, and I think that Canada is well-advised to put its Coast Guard and its national defence system, if necessary, at NAFO's disposal for surveillance and monitoring purposes over that organization's fishing area.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois supports this government initiative. As I also mentioned yesterday at a press conference, after the Minister of Fisheries made his speech, I believe this is a good compromise between diplomacy and enforcement or other monitoring measures. This legislation will empower the minister to use force but, at the same time -as we will see later on in Committee of the Whole-, we will ask the minister and the cabinet to make sure that this retaliatory tool will be used with discretion. To that end, the Attorney General will have to give his consent and authorize the arrest of fishing vessels.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois believes that international agreements negotiated in the context of NAFO must be respected. Canada will now be able to take action and arrest those fishing vessels flying a flag of convenience, which are commonly called stateless vessels. According to the law of the sea-Madam Speaker, I always have a hard time with that law-a vessel which does not fly a flag is a pirate vessel. Canada will be able to arrest these vessels, even outside its territorial waters, but inside the waters which are part of NAFO's regulatory area.

In the bill under consideration, we have the improved version of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act which was amended in the House by Bill C-8. The Bloc Quebecois, at the time this bill, which is now a law, was passed, unless the other Chamber or the other place, as one should say, has not yet disposed of it, said it was concerned about the expressions regarding measures that might be taken "to disable -a vessel" and the use of "the force that is necessary." Very soon, in Committee of the Whole, I will ask whether the Cabinet is now prepared to tell us the definition of these words, even if the Minister assures us in advance that this Act will be applied with great discrimination.

I would also like to add that Bill C-29 is also a means for the Bloc Quebecois to show its desire to be a positive element in Canada. We in the Bloc Quebecois know the points on which we disagree with Canadians, but our position here will let Canadians know the points on which we can agree. And this the Minister also pointed out a little while ago.

In this regard, I was given an opportunity to speak a little about sovereignty. Even the journalists asked me the question: What political gain is there for the Bloc Quebecois in these measures? There is no political gain. It is out of maturity, as people, that we say yes to measures that must be taken at the international level to protect the world heritage. And in the context of sovereignty, since I had begun to speak of it, the Bloc Quebecois has made some suggestions. And when Quebec becomes sovereign, we too will be a member state able to take part in NAFO. Consequently, we would like to reassure the Minister of Fisheries that a sovereign Quebec will also comply with NAFO's management rules. It is in this sense that the Bloc Quebecois is expressing its support today in the House of Commons.

As I or the Minister said, it is rare for all the parties to agree so quickly on a bill. The Minister said yesterday that it was a way for all Canadians to speak in a single voice, but as I said a moment ago, even if Quebec were sovereign, Quebec and Canada would also have spoken in a single voice in the issue at hand.

Why did the Bloc Quebecois accede so quickly to the Minister's request? We did so because we are also aware of the fact that Canada has exhausted all of the diplomatic avenues at its disposal. As the Minister said, I worked in the fisheries sector for a number of years, and I know that action was taken. Many successive deputy ministers took action. There were even ambassadors who are now sitting in this House who were involved in these activities. We therefore saw what was coming.

We are pleased once again to see that the government has managed to achieve an honourable compromise in this matter. I will try to go faster because, in any event, we have made our agreement known. I will just try to go over the points in order to be very sure of the rationale behind them.

Here is another important point that I would like to raise. We realize that, while increasing the size of the area to be monitored beyond the 200-mile limit, we will still cover an area slightly smaller than the area managed by NAFO. This may require increasing marine or air surveillance. When we increase this kind of thing, it may mean increased costs as well. As these decisions are made, I would expect the minister to suggest to Cabinet that they use the tools they have, including National Defence and the Coast Guard, and at the same time try to minimize costs by using these resources efficiently. We must not forget that foreign overfishing is only one of the reasons why fish stocks have gone down. The minister also mentioned climatic conditions as a contributing factor.

We must make sure that we have enough money left to initiate what I would call an industrial diversification strategy. The minister said that we must rebuild fish stocks, and I agree, but in fact, we are going to give nature a chance to do the job.

A while ago, I made a few suggestions to the minister, and I think there are still some areas where the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party can work together. We will have to consider this new approach to fisheries. Using the best selective fishing devices to catch the stocks we want to catch also means setting up land-based infrastructures to receive the catch.

If we look at the history of fisheries, first it was salt fish because there was no other way to preserve fish. With the advent of refrigeration, we started to produce frozen blocks, but now the market seems to be saturated. Considering the absence of fish from Canada, I would have expected an increase in the price of fish in the United States, our main customer, but I did not notice any increase in prices, which means there have been substitutions.

There are other countries that sell other kinds of fish, even cod, and they have moved into our markets. This means that when we start fishing again, we will have to be very creative and look to market niches such as fresh fish. These are things we can do now, because we have the requisite transportation infrastructures. We have airports in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, so that we can reach our markets very quickly.

I will leave a list of suggestions for the minister and his deputy ministers, and I think we should use these five years to make a start with these strategies because the $1.9 billion that is now on the table to support the fisheries strategy is mainly income support for the fishermen, in my opinion. On this score, we have some differences of opinion with the Liberals because when we in Quebec speak of manpower training, we would prefer that this area come under provincial jurisdiction.

If the minister wants us to agree somewhat more on this issue as well, perhaps he could transfer the fisheries envelope directly to the Quebec Department of Fisheries, as this would allow us to adapt programs to the way things are done in Quebec. Exchanges of technology and know-how could be made between Canada and Quebec. It could be amusing to have a little competition in this area. I apologize for injecting a touch of humour into the proceedings, but sometimes it makes a bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow.

One final comment about the $1.9 billion envelope. I mentioned being opened to ideas, but we do have some concerns at the present time. Perhaps I did not explain clearly a while ago the reason why we are not receptive right now to the idea of putting in place dockside reception infrastructures. Until now, vessels were specialized factory freezer-trawlers. What we need to do is set up markets at the unloading points in order to make use as quickly as possible of species classified as underutilized. They are underutilized because the volume caught is marginal. Now that cod and flounder stocks have declined, monk fish and skate tails will be very important. I wanted to re-emphasize this point to make certain that the government listens to this idea, because we need to develop strategies geared to the industrial sector concept. This is one such example.

In conclusion-

I will say in my own voice because I want all Canadians to hear me that the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill. We want to be sure that all foreign vessels that want to overfish will be stopped. It does not matter if Canada has to fight under international law because we have a good reason to make that kind of case if some countries want to fight against us.

I am not the minister but the speech I made is an encouragement and if he does not do his job in the future, I will check.

For the benefit of my francophone friends, let me repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion because it considers the foreign fishing now taking place to be outrageous. The minister mentioned it and the deputy ministers painted a picture of the situation for me this week. We are no longer talking about the haphazard catching of small fish. We are now dealing with deliberate attempts to catch small fish. When we speak of small fish the size of the minister's hand-we could have a minister with large hands, but that is not the case-this means that fish too small to reproduce are being caught. We can no longer tolerate this situation.

Speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I support this bill and applaud the fact that it will be passed very quickly.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I understand the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has switched his presentation time with the member for Delta.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

Madam Speaker, yes. First of all I would like to express my appreciation to the member for Delta for allowing me to speak first. I have a plane to catch shortly and I want to say a very few brief words on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.

First of all as the fisheries and oceans critic for the New Democratic Party I would like to inform the government that our caucus does support Bill C-29. I would also like to say that we do not just support the bill, we would also like to commend the government on the legislation tabled yesterday in the House of Commons. I would like to offer my personal congratulations to the minister for his very impassioned plea and his very articulate speech this afternoon in support of this bill and in defence of Canada and its responsibility to protect this very important national and renewable resource.

It is high time that the fragile straddling stocks, those species which swim inside and outside the 200-mile limit in the nose and tail area of the Grand Banks, are protected from foreign vessel overfishing.

The previous government under Brian Mulroney allowed this situation to go on for far too long without acting in the best interests of the fishery and the best interests of Canada. I am very pleased to see the Liberal government taking action to protect these endangered stocks which have been very significantly depleted over the years, in particular from so-called flag of convenience plundering. It is our hope the bill will ultimately help the fishery as well as the depleted stocks.

I have spoken with fishermen and other contacts in the eastern provinces. The general consensus is that people are very pleased to see this long overdue legislation. There is some concern however about whether the legislation goes far enough since there are foreign vessels fishing off the 200-mile limit under flags such as Spain and Portugal and not just flags of convenience.

My question to the minister during the course of the review would be will the government be able to deal with these vessels as well? My sense is that these sorts of restrictions will be imposed on members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The minister has affirmed that this legislation will address this very important question to those people in Atlantic Canada.

Also I hope the government will back up this legislation with the resources necessary to enforce it, in particular by having enough personnel and equipment to monitor the situation on a regular full time basis.

Having just met with members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union from the west coast of Canada, I am aware of the history of government mismanagement of the fisheries resource on the west coast by the previous government as well.

Besides concerns regarding stock management there is a burning concern, and I would even say a raging debate, regarding the Department of Fisheries and Oceans licensing policy as witnessed recently in the roe herring fishery. Corporate boat owners, or armchair fishermen as they are called, are being allowed to rent their licences to active fishermen who pay exorbitant prices to lease the licence for a specific fishery.

The Government of Canada has not officially recognized these rental practices but at the local level DFO officials sanction them. This is a very serious situation in licensing which is destructive to the fishery industry, not to mention the loss in revenue to the government from licensing.

The point is that I hope the government will not just stop here with Bill C-29. It is our hope in the New Democratic Party that the government will learn from this situation on the east coast and will not leave the situation on the west coast to deteriorate to the point at which it is beyond help.

We as New Democrats hope that the lesson in this terrible condition on the east coast will ensure that the west coast fishery is protected for future generations of Canadians. In summary, the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons supports this bill. We will facilitate its quick passage in this House.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the co-operation we have received from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a variety of issues concerning the fisheries. He has been most helpful and we do appreciate it. That being said, our job is not to be a cheerleader for the minister; rather our job here is to point out what we feel are shortcomings in government legislation, if there be any. That is what we are about to do.

We clearly agree in principle with this bill and will support it. Taking action on foreign fishing is long overdue. We suggest that if this action had been taken 10 years ago we might not have had the tragedy we have on our hands now.

The bill was tabled in the House yesterday morning; I was only briefed on it late yesterday afternoon. We want to support this bill because we believe it imperative that action be taken. However it is difficult to do so entirely when we have not had time to fully investigate the consequences of the bill.

The minister has said the bill must be passed quickly because it is an emergency situation. This has been an emergency situation for years. The government did not just compose the bill last night. We could have presented constructive criticism which might have made the bill a better one if we had been brought into the process at an earlier date.

The function of Parliament is to debate issues so that the best possible solution is developed. We question whether the best possible solution has been reached with this bill. We sincerely hope this bill will achieve the desired results but we are not confident it will. This is a serious move the government is making and there will be no turning back.

In a news release yesterday DFO stated: "in February 1994 NAFO reviewed the 3NO cod stock at Canada's request. It imposed an international moratorium on this stock". The news release went on to say: "Fishing activities by vessels that carry flags of convenience and by several stateless vessels are conducted without regard for international conservation controls. Such vessels are targeting fish stocks now subject to NAFO and Canadian moratoria".

To ensure the international moratoria was adhered to, Canada, along with the European Community, Japan and Russia participated in a high level joint demarche to non-NAFO states fishing in the NAFO area requesting them to stop fishing.

This action had been agreed to by the participants of the September 1993 NAFO annual meeting. Meetings took place in Panama and Honduras in February with both governments and the principal suppliers of the so-called flags of convenience undertaking to address the problem on a priority basis.

The violators had agreed to act. Rather than acting unilaterally, would Canada have been better off to go back to NAFO and obtain its support for police action to enforce the conservation measures which NAFO had agreed to? We ask this because we cannot help but wonder what the consequences of enacting this legislation will be, in that we will be acting unilaterally.

Will this bill be supported by the international community? Will this bill set a precedent and therefore give licence to countries that may not be as reasonable as Canada to extend their own jurisdiction into international waters? Is giving this licence in the best interests of Canada? Will this bill be viewed by the U.S. as being in its best interests? We are curious as to what the U.S. view is of this bill. If the U.S. has a negative view, as I suggested, will it have any effect on the current negotiations under way on the west coast salmon treaty? I am concerned that the government has not fully thought through this bill and the possible consequences.

The joint news release issued yesterday by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the ongoing process to strengthen the high seas fisheries conservation is currently focused on two recent major developments.

One is the compliance agreement approved in November 1993 by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. This agreement requires that its parties control their vessels to prevent any activity that undermines conservation measures established by regional fisheries conservation organizations such as NAFO.

The other major development cited in the news release is the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks which has been under way since 1993. It is aimed at developing new global rules to prevent high seas overfishing of the stocks concerned. It is scheduled to enter its final negotiating session in August of this year.

What the news release fails to mention is the lead role Canada played in negotiating the FAO agreement. It fails to mention the lead role Canada played in the decision to convene the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. It also does not mention the lead role Canada is continuing to play to bring these critical and important negotiations to a meaningful conclusion this summer.

Will this unilateral action on Canada's part jeopardize these developments? Will this unilateral action encourage other nations to throw caution to the wind and exert territorial jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit?

What assurance can the minister give Canadians that the proposed legislation will be supported by the international community? The implementation of Bill C-29 is dependent on co-operation and support of the international community. Without that, it is no more than a whistle in the wind.

At the same time that the minister threatens action against foreign vessels outside the 200-mile limit, we question the level of enforcement within Canadian waters. Perhaps no action better exemplifies the government's real intentions and priorities than the actions it has taken in the last few months to conserve stocks within our own 200-mile limit.

I am thinking of yesterday's hearing of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in which we heard from fisheries observers who had been thrown out of work by the government. These observers are our first line of defence against overfishing within Canadian waters. Without experienced observers we have no way of knowing whether vessels within our waters are dumping undersized fish intentionally, catching the last few remaining juvenile cod in our waters or accidentally catching a second species that may already be overfished.

Talk about catching pirates makes good headlines. But why did the government undermine the only program with ears, eyes and teeth to conserve our fish stocks, the observer program?

In February the government selected a firm to take over the observer program effective April 1. By the end of March it was clear to the government that the company was not able to provide the experienced certified observers, but it went ahead anyway.

The tender process had been organized such that the winning contractor would be required to use certified observers who had extensive experience in the offshore on foreign vessels. The tender required the contractor to submit a list of 30 experienced observers on April 1 and a final 20 on April 30. The winning company, Biorex, was not required to comply with these tender requirements to produce experienced observers and the results are already being felt.

The silver hake fishery is now open. The minister has authorized Cuban and other foreign vessels to undertake this fishery in our waters. Yesterday the committee heard that we have Cuban vessels in Canadian waters manned by inexperienced observers, observers who have never been involved in the silver hake fishery before but more important, who have never undertaken work on foreign vessels in an often hostile environment.

If an airport control tower were staffed by inexperienced controllers, we would know very quickly the sad results. The seas however are silent. We do not know if the Cuban vessels are taking a cod bycatch or dumping unwanted species at sea. We do know that their careless actions have led to the destruction of fish gear of Nova Scotia fishermen.

Problems have already arisen with vessels from Nova Scotia in 3-O, an area adjacent to the tail of the bank, an area specifically covered by Bill C-29. Just last week there were reports of Scotia Fundy vessels in 3-O without observers. Newfoundland vessels in the same area manned by observers were directed to leave the area because their cod bycatch was over 11 per cent, which is over twice the allowable limit.

The same reports indicated that vessels without observers appeared to have dumped their catch of undersized redfish overboard. Neighbouring ships reported sailing through three or four miles of waters covered by dead juvenile redfish.

Is it that Biorex cannot find enough observers to provide adequate coverage for Scotia Fundy vessels or is it that DFO does not consider it a priority to have observers on vessels in 3-0 where cod bycatch is often twice the allowable limit?

In an unrelated case the court in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia levied fines against two Scotia Fundy skippers in the last few weeks. The captains had dumped their cod bycatch of some 22,000 kilograms while fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There were no observers aboard the vessels.

I believe if the minister tabled in this House the coverage records and the number of days at sea over the past four years for the observer program, the records would show a declining number of sea days by observers and inadequate coverage.

This is the nuts and bolts of our conservation effort. It does not make headlines like stories of promised action against pirates by our naval frigates, but it is the story of our government and how it has failed to conserve our fish stocks.

Observers did not use expensive equipment or cost a great deal of money, but they were effective. I ask the minister to strengthen and protect a program that he knows works, a little program that works effectively to protect our dwindling groundfish stocks.

Officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Department of Foreign Affairs have been careful to point out that Canada was not extending its jurisdiction with Bill C-29 but merely extending the protection to an endangered fishery. Despite this unilateral action Canada is still committed to bilateral and multilateral negotiations on managing fish stocks in international waters.

While Reform members agree in principle with the government's action, we are concerned that through a unilateral action Canada's role in the delicate ongoing multilateral negotiations through the UN and NAFO may have already been adversely affected. Also we are concerned about the implications of this action on the delicate negotiations currently under way to establish a new Pacific coast salmon treaty with the United States. Obviously the government's actions change Canada's negotiating framework in these different sets of negotiations.

While we give the government our support on this critical conservation issue, we would have preferred a multilateral approach to this uncertain unilateral action.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to the next stage of consideration of this bill.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is there unanimous consent?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)

(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.)

On clause 5-