Madam Speaker, I am rising this afternoon to speak to the famous Bill C-27 which, I will remind those who have just joined us, is the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
I must begin by admitting that I am somewhat disappointed to have to speak to this bill today, With all the problems there are with the fisheries, I do not think I would have started with this one, if I were the minister.
I will give one example of what is going on in Newfoundland today. The people of Newfoundland are out in the streets protesting to let the government know they have a problem and need financial support under TAGS. In response, the government pulls Bill C-27 out of a hat, to amend the Fisheries Protection Act. However, does that really solve their problem?
I will try to review the situation in the time I have at my disposal today. I will try to trace the history of this bill. I have said that this bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. However, I should also describe its intent. It is intended to implement the agreement to apply the provisions of the UN convention, which came into effect on December 10, 1982.
The subject chosen for discussion today is the conservation and management of groundfish stocks. So there were provisions in the United Nations fisheries agreement, or UNFA.
This bill started with the December 10, 1982 convention on the law of the sea. Between the two, there was the famous Bill C-29, which we voted on in this House and which was the legislation on the protection of the straddling stocks, in which the Bloc Quebecois participated with pride, because protection of the stocks was important.
We were aware we were writing international law with the former Bill C-29, because the other provisions did not exist. There were no treaties or arrangements between countries. In other words, all the member countries fishing in the Atlantic agreed on the principle, but few of them agreed on how to honour it.
Third, after the famous Bill C-29, there was the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA, which has just arrived and which contains provisions drawn from the convention on the law of the sea.
I would first like to say that no one opposes the principle. In general terms, the Bloc will support Bill C-27. We naturally have some reservations about the bill and we will have the opportunity to speak at report stage in the House and in committee before third reading and passing of the bill.
I would mention two reservations today, and some of my colleagues will have an opportunity to speak. The first reservation concerns measures for monitoring and boarding vessels at sea.
If they say they want the means to ensure respect for these principles, what will those means be? What I want to point out, first of all, is the lack of transparency of these so-called measures.
We had the same problem during debate on Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The government decided to establish these measures by order-in-council. In other words, cabinet decided behind closed doors.
It must not be forgotten that the public in Canada and throughout the world will have to live with these measures. If the government wants its legislation to be complied with by the whole world or by all Canadians, it is only fitting that it be debated by the 301 members of the House.
The second aspect of Bill C-27 about which the Bloc Quebecois has reservations is the UNFA management philosophy that the government is trying to introduce in Bill C-27. I know that this is not easy for those listening at home, so I will try to explain.
Not only does the bill contain measures to board and inspect vessels suspected of contravening our Canadian legislation, or NAFO's legislation, but it contains a management philosophy.
I do not wish to contest the management philosophy set out in general terms in this policy, but I have some questions. What is Canada's management policy? What does it have as a management policy?
I was elected in 1993. We already had moratoriums on fishing back then. In the spring of 1994, Mr. Tobin, then fisheries minister, introduced the program known as TAGS, or the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. A strategy implies having an active tool, but is it the case?
At least, Mr. Tobin had the political courage to give a figure. He expected he would have to reduce by 50% the size of the industry, of the catch. Again, at least he gave a figure and, in doing so, he got the debate going.
What has happened to that debate? What has happened since 1994? The Prime Minister was obsessed with reducing the deficit. Because of a lack of funds, the government opposite was penny wise and pound foolish. Indeed, four years and $1.9 billion later—although that money was needed to provide financial support to fishers and plant workers—the government still has no idea, no vision about the future of fisheries. Worse still, I do not think it has even started working on the issue. This is very serious.
The Bloc Quebecois does make criticism, but it is constructive criticism. I want to talk about the most recent report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My colleague from the Reform Party alluded to it earlier.
The report includes unanimous recommendations. One way to define an approach is to first identify the problem. Then, together we can look at the solutions that each one of us puts forward.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—and I have not yet blamed any party in this House—identified one problem, among others. It blamed the federal government—regardless of the party in office—for the poor management of fisheries in Canada and in Canadian waters.
Many members opposite refuse to believe or to hear this.
Why? We did not blame any one party in particular. But what can we do now to try to correct the situation, again thinking in terms of constructive criticism?
After indicating that the problem was poor management by the federal government, the committee recommended, among other measures, that the department review its management procedures and its ways of setting quotas and determining the total allowable catch.
So far, regardless of which party we represent in the House, this issue does not present any real problem. Why do we not discuss it? It is serious because they are preparing to pass a bill that imply the existence of management measures and approaches, whereas Canada has none.
All representatives of the Canadian fishing industry have said, some more crudely than others, “We do not trust the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans any more.” That is the main point.
In the meantime, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are lobbing the ball back and forth in an effort to come up with a way to provide financial support to workers and fishers. Neither has specified any criteria, set up a committee or consulted the public. There are lots of avenues to explore.
I have a lot to say, but I am afraid of running out of time. Time is rushing past.
What are we going to do to get around this? We explain the basis and they come back with the potential result of the work begun—Bill C-27—which is supposed to contain management measures and approaches.
The other point I would like to raise, still in connection with the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries—