House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was atlantic.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will try in the 13 minutes at my disposal to continue my remarks and instruct the members opposite on a potential management philosophy.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
There may not be many of them, but I am sure we can rouse them.
To carry on where I left off, I mentioned yesterday to them that, according to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which tabled a unanimous report, a consensus had to be reached on the fish stocks problem in Canada. The five parties in the House were unanimous in describing the problem as poor federal government management. This is not me speaking, it is what the House standing committee report said, unanimously.
Second, once we agree on the problem, we can start looking for solutions. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, again unanimously, said an independent committee should look at the management methods of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the methods used to determine acceptable catches, that is, just how much fishers can catch.
Up to this point the recipe is fine. We can see the approach. First, we agree on a definition of the problem and, second, on how to find a solution. An independent committee is not something that works along party lines. But why go that route? This is where it gets interesting.
The standing committee is not the only one to say that the public has lost confidence. So does the advisory committee on fishery resources. I am told that it too raised the matter of the fishers' and the general public's loss of confidence in the management of Fisheries and Oceans.
I have a really big question in mind: Who will administer Bill C-27 and who will sign the United Nations Fisheries Agreement? The same gang that is responsible for depletion of the stocks. That makes no sense whatsoever.
They are being offered an opportunity to get that confidence back. First of all, the public and the fishers must be consulted, and agreement reached with them on acceptable means of management and on total catches, as well as how these will be determined.
I repeat, the same recipe that was used in the past is the one being used for the UNFA, and the same gang is still in charge. They need to put their house in order. Confidence must be restored.
I have another approach to suggest to the minister. The Constitution of Canada says that the federal government is responsible for fish catches. When the minister is questioned closely, he says he is responsible for conservation. But what is he saving, the resource, or his people's jobs? This is where it gets a bit disconcerting.
Everybody is mad at them, even the staunchest federalists are saying that this no longer makes any sense. If the minister really wants to think about conservation, let him do so. But what I want to see, as proof of his desire to do so, is fisheries plans, which are one way of preserving the resource, and agreement with the fishers. When we refer to a fisheries plan, we mean one relating to conservation measures.
Why has the crab fishing plan for zone 12 of the Gulf not been released yet? Have the biologists not given their opinion? Yes, they have. Have the fishers and the departmental staff not reached agreement on the Panel on Ice? Yes. What is left in connection with conservation that needs to be studied? Is it not rather the economic questions that are not settled? If it is economic questions that need to be looked at before releasing the fisheries plan, is this not exceeding the mandate? That is another good question.
If he really wants to solve economic problems, I can mention a few that come under his responsibility, TAGS for instance. It is also part of his jurisdiction to solve the AFS problem and to have an overall vision of fisheries. But this has not been resolved yet.
The standing committee agreed unanimously on its recommendations, including Recommendation No. 10. He was asked to extend TAGS with all those who were participating in it from the beginning until the moratoriums are lifted, or as long as no management decision has been taken regarding the size of the industry and its future direction.
In order to decide what this direction should be, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources Development should talk with the provinces. If rationalization is what they are hoping for, how are they going to persuade the provinces to go along with rationalizing their plant workers unless this is tied in with the catch?
Perhaps one approach would be to offer historic quotas. That would be one way of reassuring the provinces about the rationalization plan that they will have to come up with.
Since the minister's constant answer to our questions is that his job is protection, all he has to do is sit tight here in Ottawa and say “My job is to ensure that the number of fish taken is not greater than the number I have authorized”. However, in that case, he should let the provinces, with the quota they are given, share the resource and reach an agreement with workers.
That is what should be done, particularly as there have been some changes since my arrival in Ottawa in 1993. The Minister of Human Resources Development knows very well that, as a result of constructive criticism, there are manpower training agreements with the provinces. Why would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not delegate quotas to his provincial counterparts?
The Minister of Human Resources Development could then say to a province “You will decide how many people you need and we will give you money to retrain the rest. But you will do it as you see fit, in terms of what you have to offer”. Everybody knows that Canada is a big country, but the problems in the Gaspé are not necessarily the same as those in St. John's or Halifax.
This is 1998. I understood this a long time ago, and I would like them to understand it as well. So I am making this suggestion. I would like the minister to tell me how he could do otherwise, and to try to answer the question as to how the provinces can agree to rationalize their fishers if the resource is not tied to the number of workers.
If we go a little further to give the minister and Canadians a chance to solve the issue, other management tools must be put in place. Once the provinces have their quotas and their traditional share, they should set up unloading facilities.
Why? This is always of interest to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As we know, there are fewer fish than there used to be, at least in the case of cod, redfish and turbot. But there are other species of fish. Why are we not able to find a market for the so-called underused species? It is precisely because they are not numerous enough or because we are not used to them. We should get consumers interested in these other species.
Let me give you the example of a fisher who arrived at the port with 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of turbot, which was its main catch, 6,000 pounds of redfish and, because I put him in contact with other markets, 1,000 pounds of monkfish.
The turbot brought in between $6,000 and $7,000, since fishers try to make a trip that will bring in about $10,000. The 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of redfish at 20 cents per pound were worth $1,000. However, the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which used to be thrown back into the water because no one knew this species in the Gaspe Peninsula at the time, found a market at $1 per pound.
The fisher realized that his 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of redfish was taking a lot of room on his boat and was not worth more than the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which he could handle individually when lifting his nets.
If we can concentrate on these 1,000-pound catches of monkfish, skate and other species whose names I do not know or I forget, it will allow us to develop a distribution network that will ensure the survival of our fisheries.
How could a province or region of Canada establish such mechanisms if they do not have the tools? I urge the minister to be very careful to stick to the existing formula. Everyone in the Gaspé, Newfoundland and New Brunswick knows that the resource is migratory, and it does not reach our shores at the same time and in the same quantities. These are things that must be considered.
Who is in a better position to take a decision and direct fishers and markets in the morning, than the person closest to the dock, who is in contact with them, someone in Newfoundland who will say “Okay, boys, in the morning I can give you such and such a contract. Everyone who finds that in their nets should bring it in”.
Fishers are well aware that it will be a matter of luck, but the 20% or 25% of fish in their holds will perhaps give them their profit margin in the end. In the Canadian context, this is difficult to do because people always want wall-to-wall clauses.
I would like there to be discussion with the provinces. If I take the example of Newfoundland—and I am sure that my colleague will say the same thing in a few minutes—when Newfoundland entered Confederation, one of the conditions was that their fishing rights would be protected. In talking with representatives from Newfoundland this week, I was surprised to learn that they are not kept informed by the minister. The people in Ottawa know more about the future of the fishery than the public in their own riding, when those are the people who can see the dock from their window.
Changes are in order. I see my time is running out, but at least I was able to suggest a few solutions that are instructive for the members opposite, that let the public know solutions are possible. We must address this whole problem.
I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting for Bill C-27, but with reservations. As it now stands, all the bill does is let the minister sidestep the issue. He is merely giving the illusion that he is doing something about the fisheries and that he will try to find an answer to the problem, when he could have gone to Washington to sign the UN fisheries agreement.
He should start by going down to the docks and trying to sort out the fishing plans with fishers. People are waiting. Next week will be the fourth week the crab fishery has sat idle, and the minister is still rooted to the spot. It is time he took action.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the support of the New Democratic Party for Bill C-27, which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act in order to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, which straddle the 200-mile zone, and are also known as straddling fish stocks.
The bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify the United Nations agreement on the conservation and management of stocks of straddling fish and highly migratory fish.
The agreement was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 at the UN conference in New York. It is important because it will help to limit overfishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and allow the signatories to formulate new provisions for control on the high seas. It will also enable authorities to monitor the signatories' intervention with foreign vessels outside their coastal zones.
Straddling fish are found on both sides of national fishing limits. They also cross them as they migrate, in the case of flounder and turbot.
The highly migratory fish, such as tuna and swordfish, also travel in the high seas and sometimes move through the exclusive economic zone of coastal states.
This bill is important because it will help protect both types of fish stocks, which have been the focus of unregulated overfishing in the high seas. Overfishing is a problem in a number of places around the world, as on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, beyond the Canadian 200-mile limit.
Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200-mile limit was a factor in the decline of straddling stocks of cod, flounder and turbot in the northwest Atlantic. Stock declines have had a very serious impact on the economy of coastal villages in Canada and forced thousands of fishers and plant workers onto unemployment.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994, clearly authorizes coastal states, that is, those that border on the ocean, to have exclusive fisheries management jurisdiction up to 200 miles, or 370.4 kilometres, off their coast.
However, the states' legal rights and obligations with respect to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks are not clear. The agreement fills this gap left in the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The agreement will come into force once 30 states have ratified it or acceded to it. So far, it has been signed by 59 states and ratified by 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway. Canada will be in a position to ratify the agreement once this legislation is passed.
Let us hope that the new legal framework for high sea fisheries will include control measures and effectively protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks against overfishing on high seas. Conservation and management measures would go a long way to ensure the viability of this critical food source for future generations.
This bill is required to protect fish stocks outside the 200 mile zone against overfishing. I wonder why the Canadian government took so long to introduce a bill providing for the ratification of the agreement. I should not be surprised, though, since this government is one that drags its feet, and that has become a habit in the fisheries issue.
Take the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act for instance. I just love that name, it sounds so convincing, just like campaign promises. If I support this recommendation, I do so mainly in the interests of the people of the Atlantic provinces, for it is obvious where the old act led us, into a fisheries crisis, as far as turbot and Atlantic groundfish, and other species, are concerned.
That crisis has cost the government and the industry thousands of dollars. When the cod fishery was shut down, we saw how the Canadian public paid for it in the loss of economic side-benefits. Canada was one of the biggest cod exporters in the world. Today, with the small amount of cod we can find along the coasts, the industry is having trouble getting back into the market. Lacking cod, buyers have opted for other accessible species from anywhere in the world, and not specifically Canada.
This represents a big loss for Canada. The hope that some day this fishery will become accessible and profitable is still both vague and far distant. In my region, it is distressing to see how many boats are tied up at wharves. People's morale is at rock bottom. Their boats end up just rotting away where they are moored. Is this normal? No, especially not in a coastal region such as mine.
We have known prosperity, but now we have fallen into poverty, deep poverty.
The crisis has had many consequences, the worst of which is the human cost, the lives devastated by the fisheries crisis. In a coastal area like mine, fish is the principal resource, and one which provides the local people with seasonal employment.
For the majority of the fish plant workers, cod is what puts their bread on the table. Today, however, they have no more jobs. So, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy was created. The cod fisheries have not opened up again, yet TAGS is to end in August.
What will people do? Ask yourself that question. With no work and no income, the future looks bleak. I wonder why, given that, under the five-year agreement, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy was to end in April of 1999. The government then moved that date up to April 1998.
Again, the government did not keep its promises. In an attempt to appease the public, it changed the date to August 1998. Since the House does not sit in August, we will not be able to rise and to criticize the government for the problems in the Atlantic provinces. In August, 26,000 Newfoundlanders and thousands of people in New Brunswick will be out on the street. In May, 3,000 Newfoundlanders will no longer be eligible for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, nor will half of the New Brunswickers now benefiting from it. This is unacceptable.
We are not asking the government to throw money at the problem. We are saying that it must find a strategy to help people in the Atlantic region. It cannot leave these people high and dry.
There is an unpublished report suggesting that Atlantic residents should move. Surprise, surprise, I would never make such a recommendation. We want to stay in the Atlantic region. We have no intention of moving because of anyone. We must sit down together in this House and find solutions for Atlantic residents.
These people are not responsible for the mistake made by senior public servants, according to the report submitted by the parliamentarians who traveled to the Atlantic region. That committee was made up of Liberals, Reformers, Conservatives and New Democrats. They were unanimous in saying that fisheries had not been properly managed in the Atlantic region. Today, the government is turning around and abandoning these people. This is unacceptable.
Two days ago, I talked to fishers in Newfoundland who told me that if the program is eliminated and not replaced by another one, they would take their boats and go back out to sea. They will not have any choice. The situation will not change if the government shirks its responsibilities.
The former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, who was instrumental in the establishment of the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, signed letters with the premiers of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. These premiers are asking the federal government to sit down with them and find a solution for Atlantic fisheries, for the 26,000 people who will be out on the street in August, which is most regrettable.
Again today, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dragging his feet.
The people from our region, the people in New Brunswick, the Gaspé and zone 12, have their boats ready to head out to sea. The fish plants are set to open and employees have run out of EI. Once again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dragging his feet, at the expense of workers and ordinary folk. Today, he wonders why a member rises in the House and is frustrated.
I am expressing the frustration of the Atlantic provinces. I am expressing the frustration of people from my region. I am expressing the frustration of families who have nothing left to eat, nothing left to put on the table. They cannot survive on welfare. It is the lives of these people that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans holds in his hands. He could have announced the fishing plan last week. Once again, it is not just the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' senior officials who are dragging their feet, but the minister himself.
Last week, I rose in the House to ask if he was going to establish a fishing plan for people in my region, and all he could think of to say was that it was coming. How far has the fishing plan got? Has it reached Montreal, Quebec City, Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston? We are sure looking forward to seeing it get as far as Caraquet, I can tell you.
What is the government's role with respect to the present state of the fishery? What has it done wrong? It is true that the government has taken decisions such as the one to create the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the FRCC. When the council was created, the government reassured the industry that it would serve as a consultant to the fishery and an adviser to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Since then, the FRCC is trying to fulfil its mandate through consultations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans receives advice from it, but is in no way implementing or considering it.
What is the point of consulting and not considering the advice and information received? The government is using initiatives such as this one to avoid reality and sidestep its responsibilities because, ultimately, it is accountable to the Canadian public. It should stop looking out for its own interests.
The problems have not gone away. That is why the government has now decided to use words like protection, conservation and processing.
This is why the government should do its job. It should take our fish and create a secondary and tertiary processing industry. It should help businesses to take our resource and develop other products from it for the good of our own people.
This is a truly important industry for our people. We can almost think of everyone on the Acadian peninsula as one people, or those along the Newfoundland coast, where fish could be caught and a secondary and tertiary processing industry developed, to create jobs.
In the Atlantic region, we would like to see those fine words translated into action, since they suit the fisheries industry well. People just want to work, and they see fishing as a way to do so.
What does resource protection mean? At what price, and which country will pay that price? Before providing work for people elsewhere, we should be providing jobs for the people here, for Canadians. Can the government impose quotas on the fishing industry and then say to the foreign fleet “Welcome, just help yourselves”? Meanwhile, our people here are going hungry, and there is not much on their plates they can help themselves to, believe me.
Let us stop for a minute and look at the fisheries situation. What we want is to see it managed, to see the fishery managed for the benefit of the Canadian public.
The crisis with the fisheries was not the only one. There is also the employment insurance crisis. The EI fund has $14 billion in it. Shameful, and yet the government is shirking its responsibilities toward the entire Atlantic region and the problems of the fisheries, which are of its own doing, since it allowed foreigners to come and take our fish, while ignoring the people in our own country.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to be in this House today and hear the member for Acadie—Bathurst, 1997 version, defending the people in his riding this way. I say the 1997 version of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, because, previous to the 1997 version, we had the father of the employment insurance reform, Doug Young, the man responsible for the economic mess people are living in today.
At the time, however, I was very hopeful. I thought that if the Liberal government had chosen this person from Acadie—Bathurst, which was experiencing much the same problems as we were in Gaspé, and if this person agreed to serve as minister, perhaps he had a few cards up his sleeve. Today, we have understood—he had no trump cards. I think that is what the people of Acadie—Bathurst understood and they did some housecleaning.
To get back to the remarks by my colleague from the NDP, I would like him to tell us about what the situation looks like for all the crab fishers, currently waiting, their vessels docked and their traps all piled up. They are ready to go.
What about the plant workers, whose qualification for employment insurance, when they manage to accumulate 14 weeks—it takes a while to—
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important issue we are talking about in the House today. It deals with Atlantic Canada. It deals with fisheries matters in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and we have one government member in the House of Commons today.
Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. member is entitled to his view and I do not disagree, but I must say that it is improper to refer to the absence of members in the House.
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
There is no quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I find it refreshing to see the new member for Acadie—Bathurst taking to heart the interests of the people in his riding. He is fighting mad, if I can put it that way. He wants to get people the tools they need.
I would him to have the opportunity to continue his comments, because I have heard there are other problems in his province arising from Ottawa's slowness and poor management of the fisheries. So, I would like him to continue to inform the House about this.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. It is always nice to get praise in the House. I appreciate his comments.
I explained that there are major problems in the Atlantic provinces. I understand what Newfoundlanders are going through. Just this morning, I received calls from people back home who told me that three fish processing plants would not reopen.
We talked about groundfish, but we should also mention crab, for which quotas are down to 12,000 metric tons. Two years ago, these quotas were set at 20,000 metric tons. Can you imagine the difference in the amount of work when quotas suddenly drop from 20,000 to 12,000 metric tons? It is almost a 50% drop from two years ago. This means that the crab industry alone is already experiencing twice as many problems.
The same goes for the lobster industry. In past years, quotas were set. In fact, they were not quotas but total allowable catches. Some lobster fishers could catch 20,000 or 25,000 pounds of lobster. Today, they harvest about 6,000 or 7,000 pounds. It is not easy.
This is why I say that the fisheries minister should get involved. In 1997, I issued a challenge to the other side of the House, and I was prepared to get involved. I suggested that the federal government come to our region, with people who could make decisions, and organize a conference with members of Parliament, the federal and provincial fisheries ministers, fishers, and plant workers and owners, to try to come up with ideas and solutions together. We can sit down, discuss intelligently and figure out what we can do for our community.
Whether it is in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, people enjoy going out to eat some nice fish or lobster, but it takes fishers to catch that fish or lobster. It takes plant workers to process it. Lobster and crab taste so good, but it takes people to harvest them.
That is why I say something can be done. I have a number of suggestions regarding, for instance, secondary and tertiary processing. Why take our fish and ship it abroad without first turning it into a finished product? The government keeps saying that it is not its responsibility to create jobs; it is however its responsibility to develop the infrastructure required to do so. I think that together we can succeed.
This is unfortunate for the people in our regions. I have meetings scheduled for the weekend with people in my region to discuss the three fish plants that had to close down and try to find solutions. Hopefully, the answer will not be the one the fisheries minister gave us last week when he said that the fisheries plan would be forthcoming.
Did he check with the people in Montreal, Quebec City, Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston or Bathurst? In any case, he has not hit the Acadian peninsula yet. He should give us our fisheries plan so that we can put our people to work, because they want to work. He should take positive action instead of giving answers that do not make any sense.
Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks made by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
I can tell you that, in these times of economic growth, in the best country in the world, as our Prime Minister often refers to Canada with its modern technology, it is really moving to hear this heartfelt plea to fight poverty and help those who are going hungry. I cannot help but wonder if the problem with this great country is not one of mismanagement.
Given the $14 billion sitting in the employment insurance fund, the $50 billion being paid out in interest charges on the debt accumulated by the Liberals over the years, the $750 million recently invested in submarines that were not good enough for England, and the $30 million recently spent on flags, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he could feed the people in his riding with all this money.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I am sure we could put this money to good use. There is however one point on which I disagree. If I were in office, you can be sure I would not use this money for patronage purposes as the Liberals do in our region and I would not be buying votes as they do on a daily basis. Perhaps that is the problem. They have done so in the past and they still do.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
It is very hard to be nice when you know what is going on, when there is a guy like Doug Young. Our people are suffering and he is getting millions of dollars from the taxpayers. It is pretty hard to be nice to your government. The people of New Brunswick know that. The people of this country should know that it is pretty hard to be nice to your government when there are all these expenses and kids are going to school with no food in their stomachs. It is pretty hard to be nice. It is pretty hard to be nice to that party. Just look what it has been doing to the Atlantic region. It was not without reason that they voted in the NDP in Nova Scotia's last election.
I tell all Canadians today that the government can say it worries or the people can say they worry about the NDP because it spends too much. The NDP has never been in power as a national party in this country. This country is in debt like we have never seen and it is not the NDP that did it.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP for their great speeches. It was nice to see them bring some concern and some passion to the debate. It is obvious they are aware of the fishery problems, the conservation problems and the enforcement problems. They are certainly well versed in the difficulties faced by their constituents in their ridings and in their provinces. Again I commend them both for the speeches they gave this morning.
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-27, a bill relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. We are talking about cod, flounder, turbot, tuna and swordfish. These fish are very important for the livelihoods of Atlantic Canadians, all Canadians and the entire world. We are talking about a renewable resource, a valuable protein source for the entire world. That is why I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill.
I will support any piece of legislation, measure or initiative that improves conservation and improves and enhances the protection of our fishery resources. I will support any measure that provides for more effective enforcement. In my view this legislation does all three. I go on record up front as saying that I do support the initiatives of this legislation. I do support the ratification of the United Nations fishery agreement.
I agree with previous speakers that it is with regret we are so late in getting this legislation to the floor of the House of Commons. We should have dealt with it before because Canada has been a leader in this United Nations fisheries agreement. We have led in promoting it and in getting it to this stage.
Other speakers have alluded to the fact that the agreement has 59 signatories. I believe there have been 17 ratifications and a number of other ratifications are ready to be made. We are at the point where we are almost too late because we need 30 ratifications before the agreement can come into effect.
I hope the government moves this legislation forward very quickly so that before we adjourn for the summer we will have dealt with the bill. It is so important for Atlantic Canada, all Canadians and the world.
It is a very important measure and there are very important conservation principles included in this legislation. There will be an exchange of information, an exchange of science and catch data. These are all very important to the conservation of our fish stocks.
We know the great problems we are experiencing in Atlantic Canada. They have been brought to the forefront of the nation in the last 48 hours by demonstrations in Newfoundland and Labrador and by the disruption of government services. That is very unfortunate.
People may say how is this connected, how does this piece of legislation, in any way, relate to what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Atlantic Canada today. It relates in this way.
The straddling stocks we are talking about, the fish that swim inside and outside our 200 mile economic zone, have been subjected to tremendous harvesting pressure inside and more so outside the 200 mile limit.
Foreigners for years and years have scooped that fish up once it went outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, the Flemish cap, what is referred to as the nursery grounds for juvenile fish. They are nursery grounds, great feeding grounds where these fish feed and grow. They swim in and out.
This legislation is very important but it relates to the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today in that these stocks have been decimated. We cannot point the finger at the foreigners. We have to take some of the blame and some of the responsibility for where we are today with our fish stocks, particularly with our groundfish stocks.
It was very discouraging and disconcerting yesterday in question period to hear the Prime Minister try to blame this crisis on the previous Conservative government, the previous Tory administration.
This problem has been building for at least 30 years, the same number of years the Prime Minister so often boasts about in this House that he has been a member of parliament. It is about the same length of time. The Prime Minister has been in more administrations and in more cabinets and in more government departments, I would say, than any other member of this House, certainly sitting today. Therefore he must take some of this responsibility through the Trudeau years and the Turner years and now through his own administration.
The Mulroney administration and the Clark administration must take some of the responsibility as well because they made management decisions that were not in the best interests of our groundfish stocks and this very renewable resource worth billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada per year.
We brought this very rich, renewable resource into Confederation and we have very little left today. When we brought this resource into Confederation, who became the custodian of the resource? It was the Government of Canada. The government was to look out for, protect, control and manage this resource for the benefit of Atlantic Canadians and indeed for all Canadians. It has not done a very good job.
Successive federal governments have not done a very good job at managing as the custodians of our resources. That is why we find ourselves in the position we are in today.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans decides the number of vessels that fish off our shores. It determines the size of the vessels that fish off our shores. It determines and approves the harvesting technologies that these vessels use. It determines the fish quotas, the total allowable catches, how much fish is caught and when it is caught. All those are decisions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of our national government.
The provincial governments of Atlantic Canada have no jurisdiction or control. The fishermen have no jurisdiction or control. The unions have no jurisdiction or control. The Government of Canada has total control over our fish resources and management of those very valuable resources.
We have been let down big time by bad decision after bad decision. That is why we have the very volatile situation in Atlantic Canada today. People do not know where they are going to turn. Their futures are very uncertain.
Some days the federal government tells them they should move to some other province in Canada to find work. Others suggest they go on welfare. These are proud, hardworking people. It is not a very pleasant thought when you have worked 25 or 30 years in an industry, working 12 months a year, and someone tells you to pack up your bags and move out or go in the welfare line. Unless the government comes up with an acceptable plan and program for those people that is exactly what they are facing.
I have had people call me who are 55, 56 years of age and ask me “What are we going to do? We own our home here. We are not well trained. We are not well educated. All we have done all our lives is work in the fishery. What advice can you give us?” It is a difficult question. Where are they going to find work? If they do find work how much will they be paid? At least they own their homes where they are now and they want to continue to live and work there.
That is the dilemma these thousands of people we have talked about in the last number of weeks find themselves in. This is a crisis that has been caused by mismanagement by the federal government, mismanagement of their resource, the people's resource, a common resource, a very valuable renewable resource that has been totally and grossly mismanaged by the Government of Canada, not by any other government in Canada.
The government has to admit its responsibility. It has been very devastating to those people and that is why we see what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Those people want an answer. They want a future. More and more of them are willing to accept early retirement. More fishermen are willing to sell their licences and get out of the industry, but that will not take care of all of them.
Thousands have already gone and become better educated and better trained and found employment in other professions. Thousands have left the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are communities with no young people left. When you go to these communities all you find are people who are in their mid fifties and sixties, basically retirement people. What are we leaving behind to continue with our rural way of life and the social fabric of those communities?
People do not understand this. It is very disturbing when you come to the House of Commons representing more of those people than any other member, which I do. I have more TAGS clients in the riding of Burin—St. George's than any other riding in this country.
I come here day after day and I try to bring the message to the federal government. I see so few members here who even want to listen or participate in this important debate, particularly those from Ontario, those who are most resisting any help to those people, the 99 or 100 who are so opposed to helping the people of Atlantic Canada, who resist in caucus week after week and heckle MPs from Atlantic Canada who get up and promote the cause of their people. That is what is happening.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
The member can say not true all he likes. I know full well it is true. He can have his chance when he stands in his place in debate. He can stand in his place and give his side of the story and we will see then what he supports for the people of Atlantic Canada.
There have been some concerns raised about Bill C-27, particularly about the procedures of boarding and what happens after our enforcement officers board a vessel. There are those who still think and are saying publicly that we must have approval of the flag state before we board a vessel.
I have been briefed by officials from foreign affairs and DFO and I comfortable and accept that this is not the case. Our enforcement officers can board those vessels if they see fit and when they desire. If they find a violation then quite naturally out of courtesy they have to notify the flag state, the state from which the vessel hails. That is only common courtesy. Then there is a three day period in which the flag state has to respond. The flag state can respond in a number of ways. It can try to contact another patrol vessel in the area, a NAFO patrol vessel, send it to the ship and then the Canadian people will move off and the NAFO vessel will take over. If the flag state does not respond in three days and that lack of response is concurrence with what has happened, then the Canadian authorities can take that vessel to port.
As a member of parliament and a person very concerned with this type of legislation because of all the implications for the people I represent, I feel the legislation is a move in the right direction. It will enable us to better enforce the high seas. It will enable us to better detect violations on the high seas and it will enable us to deal with those situations which for years have gone on undetected in a lot of cases but which when detected nothing has happened to the violators.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the Estai affair which got so much attention in this country just a few years ago. We used force on the high sees and fired a shot across the bow of the Estai and brought the vessel to St. John's, Newfoundland. We found juvenile turbot caught by a liner in a net of the Estai . It was an international incident.
What is ironic is that after all the kerfuffle and the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in that arrest, using our military vessels and our coast guard vessels, putting the crew of the Estai up in the Hotel Newfoundland, an approximate cost of $100,000, the end result was that the Estai was given back to the Spanish, the fish were given back to the Spanish, including the juvenile turbot, and the half a million dollar court bond that was posted by the Estai was given back to the company.
It cost $100,000 of taxpayer money to wine and dine the Spaniards in the Hotel Newfoundland and the costs that were incurred in the enforcement and the actual arrest of the vessel. We all remember Captain Canada. That was the end result of the Estai affair.
The legislation in my view will certainly improve on those kinds of situations. By merely signing on to the agreement, the people and the countries involved in the agreement are going to concur and subject themselves to boarding and enforcement, even in NAFO regulatory areas where before they would come in and not be subjected to any kind of enforcement. Because they are a part of the agreement, when they fish in NAFO areas they will now be subject to NAFO regulations, a very important step forward.
I want to go back again to the situation we face in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada today. I plead with the Government of Canada to move quickly in responding to the needs of those thousands of Atlantic Canadians. There is a big economic and social problem in Atlantic Canada and it has been caused by the downturn in our groundfish industry.
The fishery in Atlantic is by no ways dead. The export value of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador last year was $550 million, quite significant. What has happened is that people have diversified into other species. What we once called underutilized species are no longer underutilized. There are no fish inside our 200 mile limit today that are underutilized. They are all very valuable, resources we have to value add to and create more employment and more value for our people.
I plead with the Government of Canada to deal with the very serious crisis because it is a crisis, as I have said before, that has been caused by years and years of bad management decisions. Fish given to foreigners is totally a decision of the Government of Canada. The number of vessels that fish any one particular stock of fish is decided by the Government of Canada. The size of the vessels is decided by the Government of Canada. The harvesting technology, whether it is a gill net, a cod trap or a stern trawler, is approved and concurred in by the Government of Canada. The amount of fish that has been allowed to be harvested over all these years on an annual basis has been decided by the Government of Canada.
All of those decisions have been decisions of successive governments of Canada. They have contributed to and caused this very serious problem. This government has to accept its responsibility to Atlantic Canadians.
Fish stocks have not regenerated as quickly as we thought they would. Some of the southern stocks are showing signs of improvement, but northern cod definitely is not. It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to look out for those people whose lives have been ruined. It is going to take another five or ten years for this situation to improve and for fish stocks to regenerate.
People's lives have been ruined because successive governments have decimated their fish stocks. Those governments were the custodian of the fish stocks. It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to look after these people until the stocks regenerate and they have a future working in the industry. In most cases it is the only job these people ever had. I plead with the government to do that.
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend previous members on their speeches in support of this particular piece of legislation.
I would remind the member for St. John's East that when this government came to power in 1993 the now premier of Newfoundland was fisheries minister. He went to cabinet to find out what plans had been made to continue the support for the Conservative compensation plan and he found there was not a nickel. There was absolutely no plan to do anything with the people who were coming off the Conservative compensation package. That government, during the time of the most massive cuts in the history of this country, found $1.9 billion to put toward the TAGS program in support of the liability which the federal government had to the people of Newfoundland and indeed Atlantic Canada.
There is blame to go around. There is a lot of blame to go around. We can spread it as thick as we want to. However, the fact is that TAGS is running out.
In deference to my colleagues from Ontario, if the hon. member had been at Liberal caucus meetings—and perhaps some day he might be—he would have heard the report of the Ontario caucus. The number two concern in that report was for the government to address as quickly as possible the problems with TAGS in Newfoundland.
I think the hon. member owes the members of parliament from Ontario an apology for the accusations he made that they are doing everything they can not to help the fishermen from Newfoundland who are suffering because of the groundfish collapse.
It is okay to pass the blame. We will take the blame and past governments will take the blame. John Crosbie stated in his book that when he was the minister of fisheries his problems occurred when he was dealing with the provincial premiers. The provincial premiers put on the pressure. The unions put on pressure to keep the quota as high as possible for the people in order to get qualified for work during the fishing season.
With that I would ask the member for Burin—St. George's to address the comments he made to the members of parliament from Ontario who, indeed, support, in every way possible, the government moving on a new TAGS. The old TAGS, as I am sure he will agree, was far from perfect. The new TAGS must address the shortcomings of the old program.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and his questions.
Just let me say that before TAGS there was NCARP which was brought in by John Crosbie, the same man who had the unenviable task of imposing a moratorium on northern cod stocks in Atlantic Canada. It was a very difficult decision, but he did what he had to do.
TAGS was not perfect. One of the big problems that we experienced with TAGS was the underestimation by HRDC even after NCARP had expired. There was a couple of years of NCARP and then TAGS was brought in. However HRDC underestimated the number of people who would be eligible for TAGS income benefits by 50%. It then took money out of the early retirement and licence buy out components to put into income support because that was what was needed to put bread and butter on the table for thousands of Atlantic Canadians.
The bungling and mistakes with TAGS goes back to the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. It underestimated, after all of this crisis and those years of involvement with NCARP, the number of people who would be involved.
There are some success stories with TAGS. There are hundreds and hundreds of success stories of people who went on to other professions and to post-secondary institutions to become better educated, better trained, who found new jobs. These are the stories that are not told often enough.
With respect to the Ontario caucus, I am very pleased to hear that it is supporting a new program for Atlantic Canadians. I welcome the support of those members and I thank them.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, you see how practical it is that my riding's name lists four RCMs; now, everyone in Canada will know the names of the RCMs around the Gaspé peninsula.
I too would like to congratulate the member for Burin—St. George's. Clearly this is someone who really looks out for the people in his riding and who has a deep interest in the fisheries sector.
I worked with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and I must say that I was impressed with the way we worked together, with the fact that we came up with points on which nobody toed the party line. I am also impressed that a group of Conservative, New Democratic and Liberal parliamentarians from Newfoundland has come to get its views across to the various caucuses here in the House. I know that my colleague has met with them.
Bill C-27 contains certain management measures. Having worked with me on the standing committee, the member for Burin—St. George's knows that there are serious problems. We agreed that the main one is the poor management by the federal government, irrespective of the parties.
The member for Egmont, on Prince Edward Island, referred just now to John Crosbie, who said that decisions were difficult because the provinces and unions put pressure on them to maintain the TAC, the total allowable catch.
The question I want to ask my colleague is as follows. Does he still mean to recommend, even to the people from his province, that the department's management methods and the methods for setting the TAC be reviewed and does he still mean to encourage the provinces to take part in this exercise?
In in the standing committee's report, we urged the government to have this review done by an independent committee. If we want to restore confidence, that is where we should start. Once again, Bill C-27 is a red herring, but if an independent committee were struck, at least we would be able to get down to some serious talk.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his compliments.
I think the hon. member is referring to the FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, but I am not sure. When he talks about management decisions and quotas, I think he must be referring to the FRCC which on an annual basis makes recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There was some concern raised in the standing committee, and by people who appeared before the standing committee, which held 15 public meetings and heard from 5,000 to 6,000 people. Concerns were raised about the independence of the FRCC. People thought it was not far enough removed from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
They felt that it should be totally removed from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that it should be more independent. There was a feeling that it was being influenced by people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I do not know if that is what the hon. member is referring to or not. I had difficulty understanding the question.
In the setting of quotas, with harvesting practices and management practices, we have to consult more and more with those involved in the fishing industry. For too many years we went through the process of saying that we were consulting, but we really did not listen. That is why we have this big mess today. We did not consult enough and listen to those directly involved in the industry.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to some of the comments, but also to put on the record my personal feelings and, I believe, the feelings of the vast majority of my constituents and the feelings of the Ontario caucus.
As the member for Egmont pointed out, I do not know where the member for Burin—St. George's gets his information, but the Ontario caucus is solidly behind the efforts and the concerns in looking for an opportunity to provide assistance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, all of Atlantic Canada.
This is an issue that really defines the country of Canada. I say that because we are a country that wants to share from sea to sea to sea all the benefits, windfalls and financial strengths. We want to share all the good things about Canada with one another.
There are many examples of what I often refer to as gate-equalization. In 1949 when Newfoundland joined Confederation there was a pact. There was a reason for doing it. The hon. Joey Smallwood spoke about the strength in unifying and joining Canada, becoming part of this great nation, and the benefits that would be attributed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The member for Burin—St. George's made some excellent points. It is interesting that the member for Acadie—Bathurst as well as the previous speaker spoke in support of the bill, and yet the games continue to be played. Why do we not get on with it? The opposition members insist on calling quorum. For what purpose? To delay the passage of the bill? They know full well, and the people at home know, that members do not sit all day in this chamber. They are in committee. They are in meetings. They are in their offices. They are phoning their constituents. Furthermore, it is against the rules in this place for people to make reference to members being absent.
I understand that members opposite have a strategy. They are upset. They like to win certain votes and they have not won, so they have developed a strategy to be disruptive. Frankly, that is not going to solve this problem, as the member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Conservative want to do.
There is support. Strong support. Many of us, myself included, are urging members of cabinet to come up with a solution. I believe that the solution should not just be the son of TAGS. The solution has to be sustainable growth. The solution has to be new opportunities for Atlantic Canada. Why would a guy from central Ontario, Mississauga West, even care about this kind of issue? I can tell members that I honestly believe my constituents care.
When I was in the Ontario legislature I had the opportunity to travel to Newfoundland on a couple of occasions. One of the best experiences my wife and I have ever had was after our public accounts committee had finished its meetings in St. John's, we rented a car and we drove through the Avalon Peninsula. We did the bed and breakfast routine and we got to know the people of the Avalon Peninsula.
Kitty Sullivan's Kitchen is a very famous stop down the coast of the Avalon. We stayed overnight. We talked with Kitty Sullivan about her past, about her husband's life as a fisherman. He had passed away and her two sons were carrying on the family tradition. She has flaming red hair. With tears in her green eyes she talked about growing up in that spectacular part of the world.
I do not know what it was but it created an affinity. Maybe it is my Irish roots. They say on a clear day from Kitty Sullivan's Kitchen you can actually see Ireland. I do not know, maybe you can. It was not a clear day. As we all know, there are not a lot of clear days in that part of the world, but it is a wonderful part of the world.
It is an absolute human tragedy, what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador with the fisheries. Other members have said there is enough blame to go around. Obviously there is. We have to accept our share.
We are the government and we have to come up with a plan. I believe we will. I believe that this government cares about what happens there, but as I said, just making it a son of TAGS is not the solution. There has to be a long term plan.
People in Newfoundland are demonstrating right now. On tax day they have taken over the Revenue Canada building. They know how to make a point in that part of the world. They are making a point. It is a valid point and a real concern.
I want members to know that this member from Ontario cares about what happens in Atlantic Canada. As a national government we have a responsibility to make sure that we look out for Canadians right across this land.
We went around the bottom of the peninsula and up to the top to beautiful communities, Heart's Desire, Heart's Delight, Heart's Content. They are absolutely amazing places. Canadians should go and see Newfoundland and Labrador.
In fact, I was scheduled in the March break to go with the member for Labrador on a snowmobile trip in Labrador. Unfortunately he took ill. He is back with us now, but he took very seriously ill and we had to postpone the trip.
The reason he asked me to join him was that I had spoken out on an issue that was very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the lobby campaign headed up by the International Fund for Animal Welfare against the seal hunt which was trying to close down the seal hunt.
Aside from the fact that in a community like mine in Mississauga there are a lot of transplants from Newfoundland and Labrador, I spoke up because of what I saw as misleading information, a lobby campaign funded by American money, a lobby campaign designed to mislead the Canadian public. I received probably 400 phone calls all of them computer generated into my voice mail. That kind of trickery, that kind of deceit, no matter what part of Canada we are from, no matter what party we represent, is not something we should be willing to tolerate.
I spoke out. I wrote a letter to the editor saying that I was astounded. I did it in anger because I was fed up with the misinformation. We talk about the damage to the cod, the damage to the fisheries. Premier Tobin was quoted today. He said in a speech last night at a fundraiser “You know, the seals don't eat at McDonald's or Burger King; they eat fish. They eat a lot of fish”.
There is a seal hunt with five million seals in the herd. There can be no doubt when we have a quota set at 283,000 seals to be harvested out of a herd of five million, seals have to be part of the problem. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand. I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in a couple of newspapers. I will read part of it:
I take strong exception to any group that spreads lies and misinformation to the Canadian people to further its own, somewhat myopic view of the world. The seal hunt is highly regulated and anyone who breaks the law, and I admit there will naturally be some who do, will be charged and dealt with under the full extent of the law. Other law-abiding citizens, who rely on these animals for food, survival and jobs, should be allowed to work at their trade without harassment.
I believe my constituents would agree with that sentiment.
One of the members mentioned in the House that nothing came of the Estai affair. I want to correct the record on a few things.
One of the speakers yesterday made remarks, which I will get to in a moment. Frankly he should know better because the area he represents is Saanich—Gulf Islands. He represents the other end of the country from Newfoundland but definitely represents an area where there is concern about overfishing and everything that goes with that.
The member for Burin—St. George's said that nothing came of the Estai affair. He ridiculed Premier Tobin, called “Captain Canada” by people around the world for his crusade.
I am in the middle of reading the Michael Harris book Lament for an Ocean . It is an interesting book. It details at some length the events which took place when Brian Tobin, then the minister of fisheries for the national government, stood up to the overfishing trawlers from Spain. It details the courage. The book details what went on in cabinet in getting the support which allowed Mr. Tobin to actually use force.
I understand that the member for Burin—St. George's is an opposition politician. I understand he is not of the same party provincially or nationally as Mr. Tobin, but let us give some credit where it is due. He claims nothing came as a result of that effort. The fact is we became an internationally respected nation willing to stand up for the protection of the fishery, willing to stand up to foreign ships taking baby fish in very tiny nets and adding to the destruction of the fish stock. We did stand up and we should be proud of that.
It is most unfortunate that a member in this place from Newfoundland would actually stand up and denigrate those efforts. Did they solve all the problems? Obviously not. This bill will not solve all the problems either but it will go a long way toward putting in place the enforcement mechanism the Canadian Coast Guard needs to be able to board trawlers where it is suspected there have been violations.
I want to correct the record from a debate yesterday by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will quote what he said from the Evening Telegram : “During debate in the House of Commons Wednesday, Saanich—Gulf Islands MP”—I will not name him since I cannot—said Bill C-27 that implements the provisions on straddling stocks is actually more restrictive than current measures in Canadian and international law”.
An official with the department has corrected him in this article. I want to do so on the record in this place. The official said: “There is nothing in the bill that limits our right to board vessels. The powers that are in it are the same powers that are in the agreement. We are only giving ourselves the powers the UN agreement says we can do”.
Bill C-27 is the legislation Canada needs to implement the United Nations agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Some members mentioned that this agreement could apply to salmon. That was another issue put forward yesterday. I do not have a problem with opposition members disagreeing with the government. All I hear is opposition members saying that they support this bill but then they put forward statements that are simply not correct, and they need to be corrected.
Some have said that this could apply to salmon. The intent of this agreement was to strengthen sections of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, that apply to straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks. As an anadromous species, salmon is not covered by these definitions. These people know that, so why would they put out information that they know is false? I guess they are just desperately looking for something negative to say about the government even though they support the bill.
Canada cannot unilaterally change internationally negotiated agreements and add stocks that were not covered by the agreement. As Bill C-27 is an implementation bill, it can only reflect what is in the UNFA.
Some members, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, have also raised concerns about the procedural requirements in Bill C-27 for boarding vessels. I will set the facts straight. The member should know better than to make those comments in this place.
Under Bill C-27 Canadian enforcement officers can board and inspect vessels of states party to the UNFA agreement without first obtaining consent of any foreign state. If a violation to the fishing measures is found, the enforcement officers must notify the flag state. As some members have said, the flag state then has three days to respond to such a notice. During that time period, the enforcement officers remain onboard the ship. They may search and seize, secure, conduct an investigation to obtain any evidence they may need to prove the accusation of a violation.
After the flag state has been notified and given 72 hours, there are three possible scenarios. The member opposite knows it and should have said it.
First, the flag state may respond by consenting to Canada taking additional enforcement action against the vessel. This could include, as occurred in the case of the Estai , bringing the vessel to port to continue the investigation.
Second, if the flag state responds with appropriate measures to investigate and take enforcement action, then the enforcement officer would turn over that vessel to the flag state for further action. If they agree with the allegations or charges, then it only makes sense. The member for Burin—St. George's complained about the cost of putting up the Spanish sailors in Hotel Newfoundland. The second option means that we would not have to do that.
Third, if the flag state does not respond within the three day period, the enforcement officers could take the vessel to port and continue their investigations. We have seen that happen. Canada has the hard-nosed attitude to deal with this. This bill now gives us the teeth to deal with problems on the high seas.
All these procedures apply only to vessels from states that are party to the UNFA and are listed under the CFPA regulations. I want that on the record. For vessels from states that are not party to this agreement, the current provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will continue to be applied. It is very important to remind this House that Bill C-27 must be read with this together. It does not stand on its own.
With the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, this bill is not replacing what we already have. It is an additional tool that Canada can use to stop foreign overfishing of straddling and highly migratory stocks on the high seas.
While I appreciate that there is tremendous passion in their concern for constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would hope opposition members would stop playing games, support this bill and let us get on with the solution.