Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of getting my voice back.
I am actually getting to an interesting part, which is the turbot dispute of 1995.
At a special meeting held from January 30 to February 1, 1995, which marked a substantial discord, a majority of the NAFO members agreed on a sharing arrangement for the total allowable catch of turbot, or Greenland halibut as it is also known.
These decisions divided the total allowable catch in this way: Canada, 16,300 tonnes; the European Union, 3,400 tonnes; Russia, 3,200 tonnes; Japan, 2,600 tonnes; and 1,500 tonnes for other NAFO members. However, that was not enough to save the stocks of turbot.
Shortly thereafter the EU lodged an objection and set its own unilateral quota which was five times higher than the allotted quota of NAFO. Therefore, on March 3, 1995 the then minister of fisheries and oceans, my predecessor, the hon. Brian Tobin, now premier of Newfoundland, announced that the Government of Canada had amended its coastal fisheries protection regulations so that Canada could protect Greenland halibut on the Grand Banks from the Spanish and Portuguese vessels of the European Union. Until that date the regulations had applied only to flags of convenience and stateless vessels.
Hon. members know what happened next. Canada took action under the legislation and on March 9, 1995 seized a Spanish fishing vessel, the Estai , and charged its master under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Fisheries' patrol vessels also cut the net of another vessel.
The inspection of the Estai's hold when it was brought into St. John's showed that the vast majority of the product on the vessel was processed from undersized turbot. The net which the master had cut loose and which Canada later recovered had a mesh size of 115 millimetres, but it had a liner with a mesh size of 80 millimetres, which was 50 millimetres smaller than the NAFO requirement of 130 millimetres for Greenland halibut.
Canadians everywhere, in every province, applauded the action and so did the people of other countries. Canada's strong stand in defence of fish stocks struck a sympathetic chord in other fishing communities right around the world. Especially strong support came from communities in other coastal states that had suffered from foreign overfishing.
We had thousands of telephone calls, faxes and messages of support from outside our borders. In fact, some other European Union countries, such as Britain, France, and of course the Irish, started to fly the Canadian flag as a mark of support.
British parliamentarians urged their government to stand with Canada in the dispute and the British government did take a public stand on the need for tougher enforcement of conservation measures.
The British government also blocked several attempts by other members of the European Union to impose trade sanctions on Canada.
By April 15, which was some six weeks after the seizure of the Estai , Canadian and European negotiators reached a new conservation agreement. Under that agreement a new mandatory fishing enforcement regime would govern all Canadian and European Union vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. The agreement included: independent, full time observers to be on board vessels at all times; enhanced surveillance by satellite tracking; increased inspections and quick reporting of infractions; verification of gear and catch records; timely and significant penalties to deter violators; new minimum fishing size limits; and improved dockside monitoring.
In May 1995 Spanish authorities ordered a Spanish vessel to return to a Spanish port after officials of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans retrieved an illegal net suspected of coming from that vessel. That enforcement action gave us reasons for cautious optimism that the agreement with the EU would be effective.
September 1995 marked another important step. At its annual meeting, NAFO adopted the control measures of the agreement concluded between Canada and the European Community as control measures for all contracting parties effective 1996. They were welcomed as the most rigorous series of measures of any fisheries management organization in the world. At this meeting, NAFO decided to continue its moratoriums on dangerously weakened straddling cod and turbot stocks.
In Saint John's, Newfoundland, in October 1995, Canada hosted the very first meeting of North Atlantic fisheries ministers. This meeting brought together representatives of Canada, the European Union, Ireland, Russia, Norway, the Faeroe Islands, and Greenland.
All participants agreed to implement the cautious approach to fisheries management. They agreed to manage resources with respect for ecosystems. They agreed to restore resources in order to attain optimum yields. They agreed to work together in fisheries sciences. Finally, they agreed to ratify the new UN agreement and to encourage others to do the same.
At the September 1996 NAFO meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, Canada won the right to effectively determine the total allowable catch for northern cod, that is, cod in NAFO regulatory area 2J3KL. The total allowable catch will govern the level of catches both inside and outside the Canadian 200 mile limit.
When the fishery in the NAFO regulatory area is resumed, the NAFO decision will limit catches in the NAFO area outside 200 miles to a maximum of 5% of the total allowable catch. This arrangement must be renewed in the year 2005. This measure ensures that no fishery can commence until Canada sets a total allowable catch.
Unregulated catches of northern cod outside of Canada's 200 mile limit were a contributing factor to the serious depletion of this vital stock.
At the 1996 meeting and again in 1997 NAFO confirmed the moratorium on northern cod as it had for most of the other straddling stocks of cod and flounder on the Grand Banks. This is vital to continue the process of rebuilding these resources. When the northern cod stock rebuilds to the point that fishing can again take place safely, the threat to foreign overfishing will no longer be there as it has been in the past.
In September 1995, following the Canada-EU turbot agreement of the previous spring, NAFO, with the aim of eliminating foreign overfishing, adopted new conservation and enforcement measures.
These measures took effect in January 1996, including a two year pilot program for independent, full time observers on board NAFO member vessels, satellite tracking on 35% of a fleet's vessels in the NAFO regulatory area, as well as mandatory dockside inspections and quick reporting and follow up on infractions. These measures were hailed as the toughest measures of any international fisheries management organization in the world.
Since the new conservation and enforcement measures have been put in place there has been a sharp decrease in the number of infringements by NAFO member vessels. This decrease is an obvious sign that the NAFO enforcement regime has become significantly more effective.
NAFO's implementation of new conservation and enforcement measures was the cornerstone in the recovery of Greenland halibut and other flatfish stocks currently under the NAFO moratorium.
We are now seeing a glimmer of hope for a modest recovery of the 3LNO yellowtail flounder stock which had been under a NAFO moratorium for the last three years. At the 1997 annual meeting NAFO agreed to reopen, subject to a number of conditions, the yellowtail fishery. The TAC, the total allowable catch, was set cautiously at 4,000 tonnes, 97.5% of which was to be fished by Canada. Recovery of that stock is good news for Canadian fishers. I hope that this limited opening signals the beginning of recovery for other NAFO managed stocks.
NAFO's observer program, with 100% coverage in a NAFO regulatory area, is a key element in ensuring the conservation and rebuilding of important groundfish stocks in the northwest Atlantic.
At the September 1997 annual meeting in St. John's, NAFO members agreed to extend 100% observer coverage for another year. It has again been extended and NAFO members will consider implementing 100% observer coverage on a permanent basis effective January 1, 1999. This decision, however, is subject to amendments to improve the current scheme which may reduce cost without compromising the effectiveness of current conservation efforts.
I would like to outline how the UN fisheries agreement, once fully implemented, will act as the main tool to protect from overfishing straddling fish stocks in the waters of Atlantic Canada.
The fisheries agreement contains strict provisions regarding regulatory enforcement on the high seas by member states of the organization responsible for the management of regional fisheries or subregional organizations, such as NAFO.
It states that coastal states and states that fish on the high seas must work together to develop measures to ensure the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks by applying a number of general principles.
Those principles include a requirement to adopt measures to ensure the long term sustainability of such stocks, an obligation to apply the precautionary approach to management and a requirement that conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas and those coastal states in their exclusive economic zone for the same stock be compatible.
Once these provisions come into effect Canada will be able to implement conservation and management measures in its 200 mile zone secure in the knowledge that a significant deterrent is in place to ensure the effectiveness of these measures and that they will not be undermined by fishing on the high seas by vessels from states party to the UN fisheries agreement.
In order to ensure that the conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas are respected, the UN fisheries agreement imposes strict obligations on the various parties.
States whose vessels fish on the high seas are required to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that their fishing vessels comply with the regional conservation management measures and that they do not engage in any activity which undermines the effectiveness of such measures.
Furthermore, the flag state is required to take very specific measures for compliance and enforcement, including the immediate investigation of any suspected infraction and the application of effective penalties for breaches of its laws and regulations concerning conservation.
What if parties are unable or unwilling to enforce high seas conservation management measures against vessels flying their flag? In such cases the UN fisheries agreement authorizes an inspecting state to take enforcement action against those vessels.
The agreement provides that in any high seas area covered by a subregional or regional fisheries management organization or arrangement a party that is a member of such organization or a participant in such arrangement may board and inspect fishing vessels flying the flag of another state party to the UN agreement whether or not the latter is a member of the organization or participant in the arrangement. In practice this means that Canada as a NAFO member could board and inspect a vessel of a NAFO or non-NAFO member that is party to the United Nations fishing agreement.
If evidence of an infraction is found, the flag state will be notified and must respond within three working days and either investigate itself or if the evidence so warrants take enforcement action or authorize the inspecting state to investigate.
When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel has committed a serious offence, as defined in the agreement, and that the flag state has failed to act or take the necessary action, after three working days, the inspecting state may take steps, including bringing the vessel to port to pursue the investigation.
In such cases, the inspecting state shall advise the flag state of the name of the port where the vessel must go and forward the findings of any subsequent investigation.
At any time, the flag state may decide to take steps to meet its obligations under the agreement. If and when it does so, Canada, as the inspecting state, must return the vessel to the flag state, along with any information available concerning the conduct and conclusions of the investigation.
For Canada this means these provisions will permit Canadian enforcement action in the NAFO regulatory area against vessels flying the flags of states parties to the United Nations fisheries agreement whether or not they are also members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
The UN fisheries agreement also makes provision for compulsory and binding dispute settlements concerning the interpretation or application of the UNFA itself. At Canada's initiative the UN fisheries agreement provides for compulsory and binding settlement in any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of subregional, regional or global fisheries agreements related to straddling stocks or highly migratory fish stocks such as the NAFO convention.
This provision establishes a mechanism that could be used to settle future disputes arising out of the future use of the NAFO objection procedure unless NAFO adopts its own dispute settlement procedure in the meantime.
If a dispute is not settled by the state parties concerned by means of their own choice the UN fisheries agreement mandates recourse to the provisions set out in part 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea whether or not the state parties concerned are also parties to that convention. Where a state, party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has chosen a compulsory or binding settlement procedure under that convention that will also apply to dispute settlements under the UN fisheries agreement.
Under both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN fisheries agreement state parties may choose at the time of signature ratification or accession or thereafter from among the international court of justice, the international tribunal for the law of the sea and either general or special arbitration.
The amendments before us will enable Canada to ratify the fisheries agreement. The amendments will enable Canada to implement new high seas enforcement provisions. They will enable Canada to authorize foreign state enforcement authorities to take enforcement steps against Canadian vessels suspected of committing a violation outside our waters.
The bill when adopted will repeal the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act definition of straddling stocks which refers to fishing occurring in Canadian waters and adjacent areas. Why? Because the United Nations fisheries agreement straddling stocks can occur anywhere in the world.
The bill also creates new offences to enable Canadian enforcement authorities to take action against the vessels of participating states. It will provide regulation authority under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to include implementation of the UN fisheries agreement.
I think there are many good reasons for us to ratify this agreement. It is a further step in the development of the protection of our fish stocks on the east coast, stocks which straddle both the Canadian area and the international area.
I believe this agreement should meet with the approval of all members of the House and I urge them all to support this bill.