Debates of April 29th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 15 be called.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documentation relating to compensation for Canadians who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood products between 1978 and 1986.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I propose that Motion P-15 be transferred for debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly Motion P-15 is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 9 be called.

That an Order of the House do issue for ( a ) copies of all safety evaluations and inspections of NAV CANADA by Transport Canada; ( b ) any safety evaluation reports by NAV CANADA copied to Transport Canada; ( c ) all audits of NAV CANADA by Transport Canada; and ( d ) all minutes of the joint committees of Transport Canada and NAV CANADA on safety.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I propose that Motion P-9 be transferred for debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly Question P-9 is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Costal Fisheries Protection Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill which paves the way for Canadian ratification of the United Nations fisheries agreement. You have given its full title so I will not repeat it but will simply refer to it as the UN fisheries agreement.

The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement certain provisions of the UN agreement. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this United Nations fisheries agreement and what it can accomplish in the cause of conservation of fish stocks for this generation and for future generations.

I begin my remarks by briefly outlining the background of the agreement and what it means to Canadians. I will elaborate on these points in greater detail but I would like to start with the overall picture.

The UN fisheries agreement was concluded in August 1995 at a UN conference arranged to discuss problems of conserving and managing straddling stocks and highly migratory species. The agreement was ready for signing in New York on December 4, 1995.

Straddling stocks migrate for much of their life cycle beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal states and in the high seas where they may be found on either side of the 200-mile limit. Highly migratory species migrate in high seas and in the marine areas of coastal states. Both types of stocks have been overfished in the high seas.

The problems with the straddling stocks occur in several areas of the world: on New Zealand's Challenger plateau, along Argentina's Patagonian shelf, along the coast of Chile and Peru, in the Barents Sea, along the Norwegian coast, in the heart of the Bering Strait, in the Sea of Okhostk and, as the hon. members are well aware, along the Grand Banks of Newfoundland outside Canada's 200-mile fishing limit.

What have been the effects of this unregulated fishing? The Food and Agriculture Organization told the grim story in its 1995 report “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”. I quote from that report:

In 1989 world fish production reached a peak of 100.3 million tonnes. Marine catches subsequently declined as a result of significant overexploitation. About 70% of the world's marine fish stocks are fully to heavily exploited, overexploited, depleted or slowly recovering.

The Food and Agriculture Organization report identifies key causes of this global depletion of fish stocks. One is fishing industry overcapacity and the provision of subsidies to ensure continued operation of vessels. Another cause is the failure to take the precautionary approach to resource management. A third cause the FAO cites is inadequate control of fishing activity, resulting in widespread overfishing contrary to conservation measures.

Overfishing by foreign vessels outside 200 miles has been a major factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines have devastated hundreds of Canadian coastal communities. They have left more than 30,000 fish harvesters and fish plant workers unemployed in our Atlantic Canada region.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allowed coastal states, that is, states which border on the oceans, exclusive rights to control fisheries within 200 nautical miles or 370 kilometres of their shores.

However, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not specify what the states' legal rights and obligations are regarding straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas. The new fisheries agreement fills this gap left in the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Canada played a leading role at the conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, which resulted in the UN fisheries agreement, and in the lengthy negotiations that led to it.

The agreement will come into force once the required 30 states have ratified it. These states will therefore help develop a new legal framework for high sea fisheries. This framework will ensure effective regulatory control and enforcement to protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas.

When it is fully implemented, the United Nations fisheries agreement will provide a significant deterrent to unauthorized fishing of straddling stocks on the high seas. The parties to the agreement will have to comply with management measures made by regional fisheries conservation organizations such as NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

The agreement will give coastal states such as Canada the power to take action outside 200 miles if the flag state is unable to control its vessels. The flag state is a state that licenses the vessel to fish.

Finally the UNFA will also provide for binding and compulsory settlement of fishing disputes among states. The UNFA is good news not only for Canada but for the whole world. Overfishing of these straddling stocks on the high seas deprives coastal states of legitimate catches and threatens the viability of this critical food source for future generations.

A word on the history of Canadian involvement. Canada can take great pride and a great deal of credit for this United Nations fisheries agreement. It is important that we understand the tremendous Canadian effort and the Canadian involvement in bringing us to where we are now. By recalling this effort, I also want to show how important it is that Canada continue its international effort. I also want to show how crucial it is that we show an example to the world by the way we manage our own fisheries.

Canada signed the United Nations fisheries agreement along with 26 other states on December 4, 1993. Fifty-nine other states have also signed. Seventeen, among them the United States, Russia, Norway and Iceland, have now ratified the agreement.

The UN fisheries agreement strengthens and supplements the high seas fisheries provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It does so through specific rules designed to ensure the long term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Hon. members are well aware of the depleted state of our straddling Atlantic groundfish stocks. It was not always so. For almost 500 years fishers harvested from a seemingly limitless bounty of cod in the waters of the Grand Banks. From the earliest settlement of Canada, in fact even before, commercial fishing provided the economic base for many in the area in question. Cod and other groundfish stocks were once abundant but by the mid-1960s and in particular by the mid-1980s they declined sharply due to excessive fishing by both foreign and domestic fleets.

I would like to say a few words about the 200 mile limit and NAFO.

In 1977, new developments at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea prompted Canada to declare a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone and to exercise strict control over this zone.

Canada was not the only state to take such action. Other coastal states also declared a 200-mile limit. In most cases, all major ocean resources were within national jurisdiction, but not in Canada.

The Canadian 200-mile zone does not include the Grand Banks southeast of Newfoundland. Approximately 10% of the area known as the nose and tail of the banks is outside the Canadian 200-mile limit. Important groundfish stocks like cod, sole, halibut and perch straddle this limit and have been harvested commercially in international waters outside Canadian jurisdiction.

In 1977, we drew a line in the ocean, but straddling stocks do not see it and do not stay within that line.

In 1979, the responsibility for conservation of fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic outside Canada's 200-mile limit was given to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

NAFO now has 17 contracting parties: Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Estonia, France on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, the European Union, and the United States of America.

NAFO's responsibilities include straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and other fish stocks on the Flemish Cap, a part of Canada's continental shelf which lies outside our 200 mile limit.

In 1982 another breakthrough for conservation occurred when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was signed. Even though that convention did not come into force until 1994, some 12 years later, its fisheries provisions have been considered customary international law. I would like to cite two important articles of that convention.

Article 118 provides that states must co-operate in the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas and use regional organizations such as NAFO to work toward that United Nations goal. Article 119 requires all states to work together to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield.

The creation of NAFO and the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not save our straddling stocks. As is well known, in the mid-1980s the European Community used the objection procedure in the NAFO convention so as not to be bound by the quotas established for NAFO stocks. The European Community catches were far above the quotas set by NAFO.

Then another problem arose. Vessels from states that were not members of NAFO, including Panama, the United States and Korea, began to fish in the NAFO area despite having no quotas.

At that time we began a major Canadian conservation campaign. In 1989 scientific evidence showed that there was a serious decline in fish stocks in areas where overfishing had been prevalent. Canada launched a comprehensive campaign at home and abroad aimed at ending overfishing by foreign vessels in the northwest Atlantic Ocean.

In 1990 Canada hosted the St. John's Conference on High Seas Fishing. There, experts from key coastal states joined together to launch a new initiative to develop more effective rules for high seas fisheries.

In 1991 in another advance for conservation the European Community adopted most NAFO quotas for the following year, 1992.

In May 1991 in Santiago, Chile, another significant step was taken in the quest for effective controls in the high seas fisheries. A meeting of experts was held on high seas conservation around the world. At that meeting three countries, Chile, New Zealand and Canada, developed a text of principles and measures based on the conclusions reached at the St. John's conference. The text of principles and measures became known as the “Santiago text”.

In 1991 NAFO began discussions on improving surveillance and control in the regulatory area and eliminating non-NAFO fishing. Steps were taken by the European Community and other NAFO members to improve surveillance and control and to stop fishing by non-members. A European Community fisheries patrol vessel was assigned to the NAFO regulatory area for seven months of the year.

In 1992 the European Community took stronger steps to control fishing by vessels of its member states. The European Community patrol vessel was to be in the NAFO area for 10 months of the year. The European Community fisheries were closed when NAFO quotas were reached. Canadian surveillance and inspection confirmed that the European Community had complied with the closure and the NAFO fishing rules.

At its 1992 meeting NAFO unanimously accepted a ban on fishing for northern cod outside Canada's 200 mile limit for the following year 1993. NAFO also decided on improvements to the surveillance and control systems, improvements that were to go into effect for the 1993 season. The European Community agreed to all NAFO conservation decisions made at that 1992 NAFO annual meeting.

It was also in 1992 that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was held. During that conference, better known as the UNCED conference or Earth Summit, Canada got global support to organize an intergovernmental conference on high seas fisheries management, including that of straddling and highly migratory stocks.

During the long negotiations that led to Rio's Earth Summit, Canada took the lead in drafting the initial UNCED text on the problems associated with high seas fisheries. That document was eventually incorporated in the chapter on oceans adopted by the UNCED conference. That draft document basically included the Santiago text, to which I just referred.

UNCED participants had to deal with various issues and submit a series of non-binding recommendations. For these reasons, coastal states concluded that UNCED's recommendations should include the holding of a UN conference exclusively on the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Also in 1992 as a result of strong pressure applied by Canada, the republic of Korea agreed to withdraw three of the six vessels it had in the NAFO regulatory area by April 1993 and to phase out the use of Korean crews on third country vessels which were operating in the NAFO area. Korea withdrew its vessels from the NAFO regulatory area at the end of April 1993 and became a contracting party of NAFO in the following year.

As a result of continued diplomatic pressure applied by Canada, Panama also agreed to impose sanctions on Panamanian vessels that violated conservation measures of NAFO. Those actions included fines and removal from the registry.

In May 1994 Canada became the first nation to become party to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's compliance agreement regulating high seas fishing. Parties to that agreement must control high seas fishing by vessels flying their flags to ensure they do not undermine conservation decisions of international or regional fisheries management organizations such as NAFO.

Canada had participated actively in negotiating the FAO agreement. The agreement required acceptance by 25 nations to come into force. So far, 10 acceptances have been received.

It was also in May 1994 that Canada took another powerful step for conservation. Parliament passed new legislation. The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act introduced as Bill C-29 enabled Canada to take action against stateless vessels and vessels flying flags of convenience outside the 200 mile limit.

The law had an immediate impact on all such vessels clearing off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Bill C-29 constitutes an effective deterrent to the return of these flag of convenience fishing vessels to the nose and tail.

One serious conservation issue remained, Greenland halibut or turbot which was not a stock initially managed by NAFO quotas. The Greenland halibut had been fished entirely in Canadian waters until the late 1980s. Then when other major groundfish stocks declined, the Greenland halibut became the object of a large scale foreign fishery outside 200 miles primarily by Spanish vessels. Abetting this development was the fact that more of the Greenland halibut stock had moved out of Canadian waters.

In February 1994, Canadian researchers surveyed Greenland halibut stocks along the Labrador coast and eastern Newfoundland. Their findings were surprising. The biomass had decreased by no less than two-thirds since 1991.

A still greater reduction was detected in the number of large fish. Their findings indicated as well that the population included a higher proportion of young fish, three or four years old. If they were to contribute to increasing the stocks, these had to be left to age and reproduce. Greenland halibut cannot reproduce before they are at least ten years old.

In June 1994, the NAFO Scientific Council re-examined the Greenland halibut situation, and warned that deep-sea fishing levels in all of the sub-zones were in excess of what stocks could sustain.

Canada immediately responded by reducing its domestic quota off Baffin Island, which is in division O of the NAFO charts, by more than half and by terminating a fisheries development program in area 2GH which is the area off the coast of Labrador. Canada also substantially reduced its quotas for divisions 2 and 3 and limited access to harvesters who had fished in those areas.

At its annual meeting in September 1994, NAFO agreed for the first time to establish a total allowable catch for Greenland halibut. That total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes was a significant reduction from annual catches of more than 60,000 tonnes in previous years when NAFO had not set a total allowable catch for the stock.

I now come to the 1995 turbot dispute. At a special meeting held from January 30 to February 1, 1995—

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unfortunately there is not a quorum in the House for this very important piece of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the hon. member calling for a quorum count?

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

I am calling quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Do we have a quorum?

[An hon. member]

We do not have it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quorum. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Yukon—Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and my colleagues in the Reform Party to speak on Bill C-27. This bill is the enabling legislation that will implement the United Nations fisheries act.

I find it hard to stand here today and speak about this although I do agree with the minister that it is important. However, I had to make my way through groups of protesters from Newfoundland this week whose livelihood has been devastated by the collapse of our fishery and who will see their TAGS benefits expire in a couple of days. What is the minister's response to them? Why are we going to ratify the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA?

This government is asking Canadian fishermen to forget about the fact that it has taken over three years to bring this legislation to the House.

The government is asking fishermen to forget about the fact it promised TAGS benefits to them until May 1999. The government has reneged on this promise and is now about to cut them off in a few months. The government is asking the fishermen to forget about the fact that they have been provided with no real long term solutions. We are going to talk about this at length.

There are no solutions to resolving the crisis that this government has created except throwing money at it and hoping it will go away; $3.4 billion and we are no better off today than we were when this government took office in 1993. This government is asking Canadian fishermen to forget all these facts because today we are debating Bill C-27.

That was quite a technical speech the minister gave and I am not too sure how many viewers, unless they are really involved, understood what was going on. I will try to put this in terms they will understand.

The United Nations fisheries agreement will ensure long term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks such as flounder and turbot. These stocks go back and forth across the 200 mile line off the coast of Newfoundland. I agree completely that we need control of these stocks. We need rules and regulations in place.

I am going to criticize this legislation because it does not do that. This is an issue we heard at length when we were travelling in our committee. Let us go back a little and look at exactly what this legislation does.

I think it is important to point out to all the people listening that it requires 30 signatures, 30 countries to adopt this legislation, to ratify this legislation in their own country before this takes effect. I think there are 16 or 17 countries to date that will have ratified that.

This is really going to do nothing for a long time. We are years away from this ever taking effect.

This actually started way back in 1982, 16 years ago. That was UNCLOS, the UN convention on the law of the sea. When that agreement was negotiated, and ironically it was a Liberal government in power in 1982, the agreement was full of holes. Nothing ever became of it. It was brought back before the UN in 1995 under the UN fisheries agreement in order to plug some of the holes and do something with it.

Brian Tobin was the minister at the time. I am reading from a news release dated August 4, 1995: “Tobin foresees permanent end to foreign overfishing when new UN convention is implemented”. I will read a few paragraphs from the press release because I do not believe that is what is going to happen today.

Canada played a leading role in the conference, which approved new international controls on high seas fishing. Canada's major concern was to end foreign overfishing of cod, flounder and turbot on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The new UN convention provides for binding and compulsory dispute settlement. As well, for the first time, international law will prohibit any unauthorized fishing of straddling stocks, thereby making fishing by flag of convenience vessels illegal. To ensure that vessels abide by the new international rules, the new UN convention authorizes Canada to take action outside 200 miles where the flag state fails to control its vessels.

In fact this is not going to do that. I think the intention was there but our government has watered down this enabling legislation. It will not be able to enforce it.

“This new UN convention, when fully implemented, will protect straddling stocks better than Bill C-29”, Mr. Tobin said.

Bill C-29 was brought in by this government in 1994, the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act, and that was the legislation the Government of Canada used to seize the Estai , to bring that ship back to port, to press charges against the captain and the vessel.

He went on:

“Until the new UN convention is fully implemented, the Government of Canada will stand ready to exercise powers granted to it by Parliament under Bill C-29. These powers will no longer be needed to protect straddling stocks once the new UN convention is fully implemented”.

What he is saying is that we are going to get these new laws by this international agreement and we will not have to rely on the former legislation, the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act.

Let us go to the bill. We can have all the legislation we want but if we cannot enforce it, it is not much good to us. There are two sections that are quite troublesome.

Section 16.2(1) says:

After boarding a fishing vessel of a participating state, a protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that the vessel has contravened section 5.3 shall without delay inform that state.

That says that once the protection officer boards that vessel he has to inform the flag state. If we have a Spanish vessel out there in violation, he has to inform Spain.

Section 16.2(2) says:

A protection officer may, with the consent of the participating state, exercise the powers as provided for in section 16.1.

Before he can board this vessel he has to get the consent of the flag state of that vessel. That is arguable. Some will say not but the way the bill is worded it is left open for interpretation.

Let us say he gets permission of the flag state. Then section 7.01(1) comes into play:

A protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a fishing vessel of a participating state found in an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii) has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters may, with the consent of the participating state, take any enforcement action that is consistent with this act.

The frustrating part of this legislation is that if they go outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail or the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks and find a foreign vessel in violation of our laws or in violation of an international agreement, the Government of Canada or the enforcement officers must first go to the flag state of that vessel and get permission to board it. If they get permission to go on board and they find that the vessel is in violation and there are charges which can be laid they have to go back—and this is absolutely true and is in the bill, I read it word for word to the House—to that flag state and ask for permission to press charges against the vessel.

Let us go back to March 1995. I will read a paragraph or two from the book Lament for an Ocean by Michael Harris. It is subtitled “The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery: A True Crime Story”. I will start on page one. This will set the scene for what happened in March 1995 when the old legislation, the Fisheries Protection Act was used to press charges against the Estai . This is the scene our fisheries officers were up against.

It was the other shot that was heard around the world. The 50-calibre machine gun bursts from the Cape Roger , three in all, marked the first time since Confederation that Canada had fired on another country in defence of the national interest. When the order came to open fire, the officers aboard the fisheries patrol vessel were so taken aback, they asked that the command be repeated. The fateful words crackled once more over the ship's radio: an initial burst was to be fired over the bow of the Spanish trawler Estai , the next rounds into her screw 60 seconds later if she refused to stop. After warning the Spanish captain to move his crew forward, Captain Newman Riggs nodded to Bernie Masters, who adjusted the sights on the Cape Roger 's heavy gun and sucked in a deep breath as his finger squeezed the trigger.

This was when a Spanish vessel was illegally fishing straddling stocks off our coast. Our enforcement people went to take control of that vessel. There was a four hour pursuit, a very tense moment. We were engaging in an “act of war”, as the book goes on to tell. We had the right to do so. We had the laws at that time to suggest that we could go out. They boarded the vessel and brought the vessel back to port. They held that vessel until appropriate charges were laid. The captain of that vessel was detained and we are proceeding and prosecuting on that.

If that same incident occurred today, if a foreign flag state vessel was out there fishing illegally, that is the very thing for which this legislation is supposed to be the saviour. I agree that we do need some international agreements. What would happen today is our control boats would go out. Their observations would be that the Estai was fishing illegally. Then they would have to ask our government to get permission from the Spanish government and ask if it would be okay for them to board the vessel.

I agree it is open for debate. There is some inconsistency in the way it is worded. It is arguable. I do not know how long that would take. It took four hours of hot pursuit. The vessel actually cut its nets, dropped them to the bottom of the ocean and tried to run away.

Let us say they got permission to board after they observed what was being done. They knew the vessel was fishing illegally and they wanted to bring the vessel back to port. No sir. They could not do that. They would have to stay onboard and inform the flag state, which was Spain in this case. They would have to get permission first to lay charges. Then the vessel would go back to Spain. We would never see it again. We would never be able to follow it up.

The minister of fisheries at the time stated that this new UN fisheries agreement would be the saviour, that it would give us some teeth. We have taken the teeth out of it. My research has shown that of the 15 countries that have ratified the UN fisheries agreement, not one has clauses like the ones Canada has put into its legislation which take the teeth right out of it. I find it unbelievable.

There are members in this House who travelled with me and the rest of the fisheries committee and who have great interest in this matter. They are listening today. We travelled to Newfoundland and we heard these concerns. They want somebody to stand up and fight for the fishermen out there.

We heard the minister for about 40 minutes today. He told us of all the wonderful things the government has done over the last 10 years. He went over a chronology of all the great things. We heard words like major conservation program and when the stocks recover.

I suggest that the minister look at the record. I ask him to look at the record of this government with respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the management of the fish. I have never seen such a dismal failure.

There is no confidence from the fishermen. There is no confidence from the people of Newfoundland. I understand that the federal government buildings in Newfoundland have been taken over by frustrated fishermen. I do not blame them. When I went there these fishermen told me that they want to work and pay taxes. They told that to the Liberal government prior to the Tory days, but all we hear from this government is that it took over this mess.

The government does not accept responsibility for what it has not done over the past five years and even before that. Back in the eighties these fishermen were telling that Liberal government that there was something wrong, that the fish were not there, and nobody listened. We have heard this over and over again in committee. We have heard evidence from scientists who were ordered to be silenced.

I have talked about this legislation and that they have to get the consent of the flag state to board the vessel and get the consent of the flag state to lay charges. Imagine that a police officer sees a young person committing a crime. Then he discovers he has to call the young person's parents before he can talk to him. After the police officer talks to the parents, he has to get their permission to arrest the young person. This is the same type of scenario. We have to take control of these straddling stocks and we have not done so. There should be an agreement but we should be putting some teeth into it so we can actually enforce and take control.

I am sure that as this day proceeds the minister or somebody from the government will tell us that they had no option, that these clauses were agreed upon in the agreement negotiated at the UN in 1985. I am sure they will say that they had no other option, that this is what was agreed upon and they had to put this in the enabling legislation.

It is ironic. Bill C-96 died on the Order Paper last April. It was brought before the House about 10 days before the last election. Bill C-96 has exactly the same title as this legislation, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, and it goes on. It is exactly the same. Section 1 is the definition of straddling stocks and in section 2 the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is repealed.

Let us get to the sections I am talking about. This is the same government. This enabling legislation is for that very same agreement.

Looking back, Minister Tobin went out with our navy and 50-calibre guns and took charge. At that time the current Minister of Veterans Affairs was the minister. This is what he put in the enabling legislation:

A protection officer may, subject to subparagraph 6(e)(iii), in respect of any fishing vessel found within Canadian fisheries waters, the NAFO Regulatory Area or an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii),

(a) for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, including any measure incorporated by reference under subparagraph 6(e)(i), board and inspect the vessel.

They are just saying that they can board it. Then it goes on to the placing of arrests:

A protection officer may, subject to any regulations made under subparagraph 6(e)(iii), arrest without warrant any person who the officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence under this Act.

It allows the custody and seizure of vessels, the seizure or delivery into the custody of such person the minister may direct. The minister retains control.

The problem with this enabling legislation is that it has no teeth in it. The government has taken all the teeth out of it. They have to ask for permission. This is absolutely ludicrous. How long is that going to take? Is it really practical?

I would like to support this, but we need to go back to enabling legislation much like what we had a year ago which had some teeth in it. The government could actually do something.

The other frustrating part of this whole agreement is that the minister brought this legislation in for first reading in December. He has been the minister for almost a year. Our fisheries on both coasts are in a state of crisis. The government comes in here and is proud of the situation when there are thousands of people in Newfoundland who have occupied federal offices out of frustration.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has tabled reports. I can read some of the recommendations. I agree that foreign overfishing is a problem. We made nine specific recommendations.

One, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its support for any turbot quotas assigned to foreign nations, and it goes on.

Two, the committee recommended that Canada cease giving permission to Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels and foreign crews to catch fish in Canadian waters. We heard all of these concerns. These are real concerns.

Three, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its support for the redfish quotas given to foreign nations. It goes on and on.

I could read the entire report. I am not sure if the government has read it, because it is not acknowledging it. It is not adopting it.

The government has come in with enabling legislation for an agreement that was negotiated three years ago. The first agreement was back in 1982. I do not know if it is just going to go to sleep and say that it has fixed the problem with fishery.

This is a disgrace. There are so many problems out there, starting with the foreign nations. Some nations have four times the quota on certain species that Canadian fishermen have. An example is tuna. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120 to 125 tonnes go to Japan and Canada's quota is 30 tonnes. One fish is worth $30,000.

This government will not put its people first. The bureaucracy. I have asked the minister in this House if he will move the management of the fishery from Ottawa closer to the resource. Right now there are 1,100 bureaucrats in Ottawa. I am sure there are a lot of good people but I cannot believe that we are managing the fishery from Ottawa.

We have to move the management of the resource out to where the resource is on the coast. That makes sense. That is what the fishing community is asking for. We need to bring the provinces in as partners in trying to get this issue back on track.

I am not suggesting that the government can divest its responsibility but it definitely needs to include the provinces at the table, which it is not doing right now. I would ask the government to look at issues like this one.

When I raised these concerns with the minister, he suggested that I should be aware there are more taxpayers in Ontario than there are in British Columbia. This is not about Ottawa versus B.C. or Ottawa versus St. John's. This is trying to put the interest of the fishery first.

This report was written by 16 members of parliament. The first nine recommendations I am referring to with respect to foreign overfishing were supported by every person on the committee—nine members of the Liberal government including the parliamentary secretary—and we have had no response from the minister. In fact he stood in the House earlier and stated that no fish were given to foreign nations unless Canadian fishermen had first crack at them. We know that is not true. That is absolutely false. We have heard this from fishermen after fishermen when we travelled out there and in committee. It is absolutely wrong.

I find incredibly frustrating what the government is not doing. We need Bill C-27 with some changes, I might add. Enabling legislation the way it is worded now will not amount to a hill of beans. We have to do something about that before we can support the legislation. We have to amend it.

The government has to do a lot more. It promised the TAGS program to all people in Atlantic Canada until May 1999, and it is about to cut them off. In the coming days about 3,000 people are to be cut off. These people were given letters, went to the banks and relied on the program. The government has gone against its word. It has not come through. It is absolutely terrible.

With respect to the agreement let us go off on another vein. All the minister talked about was the Flemish Cap and the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. To a lot of listeners out there there is another straddling stock, although it is not technically a straddling stock, and that is the salmon out in British Columbia.

We know the coho is facing extinction and again the government is doing nothing. The minister has been in power for almost a year and we are no better off today than we were four or five years ago. It is terrible. Fishermen out there are in a crisis situation. They are losing their livelihoods.

Some would argue that we are really talking about the salmon which would fall into that category. They swim in and outside the 200 mile limit. They are highly migratory species. What was negotiated was straddling stocks and highly migratory species. However the legislation is silent with respect to that.

I will go out on a limb. At the time Minister Tobin was negotiating I would suggest his interests were primarily Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. British Columbia was put somewhere on the back burner.

Salmon are considered an andromous species. The act only applies to highly migratory species and straddling stocks. An andromous species is one which begins its life cycle in fresh water, lives in the oceans but returns to fresh water to spawn, for example salmon and trout. The agreement is silent on that.

Why is the minister not in New York or at the UN fighting for British Columbians and for Canada? We are on the eve of another fishing season in British Columbia and absolutely nothing is being done.

We saw the frustrations last time. We have been constantly after the minister not to wait until the night before this fishing season starts but to do something about it now.

The government appointed a new negotiator, the one person it has who stood up and fought for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Fortier. I suggest he resigned out of frustration because he was not getting any backing from the government. He worked very hard. He was the one person that we had who actually fought for the people of British Columbia on the American fishing dispute. He is gone. We have a new negotiator. We are back to square one. Where is the minister on that? I did not hear one word from him on that.

It says in the act that it only applies to highly migratory species and straddling stocks and the definitions are to come under the UN convention. These definitions were arrived at in the conference on straddling stocks.

The UN fisheries agreement does not apply to salmon. Why not? Where is the minister? He has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia. I represent his neighbouring riding and, believe me, the people of his own riding are frustrated. They want action. They want something done and the government is not doing anything.

I ask the minister to start doing something in these other areas. He has an opportunity to look at the interest of the fishery as the committee did. Ten of the sixteen members of the committee spent a week to 10 days travelling throughout Atlantic Canada and spent a little better than a week in British Columbia.

Right now that committee is travelling through other parts of the country where there are fishery concerns. They are listening to the people. They are listening to fishermen. They are listening to provincial representatives from the legislative assemblies of those provinces. They are listening to the fisheries ministers of those provincial legislatures.

However there was nobody from the government's department on the Atlantic trip. They did come on the Pacific trip. They did not come to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada. They did not come to listen to the people of Newfoundland. This is an absolute disgrace.

Some would way I am digressing from Bill C-27, but the minister spoke on this wonderful bill saying that it would solve the problem. First, it has no teeth. Second, it needs approximately 14 countries to ratify it before it takes effect. Is that the best the government can do for the last three years and this minister for the last year? Is that the best he can do?

I would be embarrassed if I had to come into the House and say that is all I have done in the last year as minister of fisheries and oceans. Why is he not fighting for Canada with the United States on the Alaskan fishing dispute? We have heard his comments on newscasts down there that he may have to cut Canadian quotas in half in the name of conservation if the Alaskans continue. That is what he is telling the Americans when he goes there.

We need somebody who can stand up and fight for fishermen. The government should be here announcing that it will not go back on its word, that it will honour its commitment to continue to pay recipients of TAGS until May 1999 who are now overtaking federal offices in Newfoundland out of frustration.

I have met with these fishermen. They have said to me “We read in your report that you were against TAGS”. I explained to them that we should be giving them TAGS until May 1999. That is what my colleagues and I believe. The government has to honour its commitment. Fishermen want to go to work. That is what they have been telling us. They do not want truckloads of money. They want to go to work.

We need to move the management of the resource out to the coast. We have to instil confidence in DFO. We have to get rid of the politicization. We have to get rid of the corruption. We have to get rid of some of the regulations in the sealing industry which prohibit the export of seal products. These are all things the people of Newfoundland want to do. We have to get rid of foreign quotas and make sure that our Canadian fishermen have access to the quotas first.

I have heard arguments from the department saying that it is not economically feasible for our guys to do that and that it will be given to Cuba because it would cost our fishermen 21 cents per pound to catch them and they can only sell them for 19 cents.

Why are we not investing in the infrastructure? Why are we not finding some way to put these guys back to work? Why are we not looking at the fishery of the future, identifying what species are there and ensuring that our people have access to them? Then we could look at what we could do to make sure the industry will be sustainable and viable in the years to come?

What do we have? Bill C-27 is what we have. It is pretty impressive for the minister, is it not, to bring in enabling legislation on something that was negotiated three years ago after being in the House for a year as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

If the government and the minister do not get off their butts and do something they will have a crisis, a revolt in Newfoundland. They will have a revolt in British Columbia. These people are frustrated beyond imagination and what they are doing in Newfoundland is evidence of that. They are very frustrated. There is no confidence in the government.

I have written a note on my speech on the positive side and I am not sure I have found a positive side in the last 10 or 15 minutes. On the positive side of coming to parliament has been being able to work with the fisheries committee, to sit down with 16 members from five political parties, to leave our political baggage outside the door, to try to bring forward witnesses and to make recommendations for the benefit of the fishery.

It is interesting to note there are eight members of the government on that committee. There has been a few exceptions but generally that is what we try to do. Sixteen members of parliament from five political parties are in agreement. We know how hard it is to get 16 members of parliament from the same party to agree. We have witnessed that in last few days. It is difficult to get 16 members of parliament from five political parties to agree.

We did that in the east coast report, and the government is not even looking at it. There are good recommendations in there that look at foreign overfishing. There are suggestions in there about moving resources from Ottawa to the fishery. The minister is just brushing it off.

I ask the government to take a hard look at the report. There needs to be some more work done on Bill C-27 so that it will have the teeth it needs for our enforcement officers to actually do something with it. We need international agreements. I am in full support of that. However we have to go a long way before we solve the fishing crisis. This is not a drop in the bucket.

I ask the minister to listen to what I have said. It is time he started acting instead of giving us smoke and mirrors.

Business Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have been consultations with regard to the notice of motion in my name with reference to the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I understand that there would be unanimous consent for an order that this motion be deemed to have been put and a division thereon demanded and deferred to Tuesday, May 5, 1998, at the expiry of the time for the consideration of Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)