Debates of April 30th, 1998

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the House on behalf of the member for Vancouver Island North.

If the train leaves the station and you are not on it, it is particularly difficult to be the tour guide. The train I am talking about carries Canada's interest in fishing on the high seas. It seems that, with the exception of the half hearted introduction of Bill C-27, nobody from Canada is on that train, nor do they have any interest in trying to catch it.

Sixteen years have now gone by and this government has still not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada was very much in favour of this convention from its inception in 1973 until 1982 when it was adopted at the UN. The law of the sea was negotiated with leadership from both Canada and the United States but to date neither country has ratified it.

I have been in this House when the member for Davenport, a member on the Liberal side, a former environment minister in the Trudeau government, asked this government to ratify the law of the sea, and yet it has still not been done. This is one of the government's own members, a longstanding member in this House.

Why is Canada dragging its feet? Perhaps it says something about this government and past Liberal and Conservative governments that a convention so heavily favoured still has not been ratified by Canada.

If it takes 16 years to ratify something with which the government agrees, it is not hard to imagine how difficult it is to move the agenda with this government on issues that are not so straightforward.

The law of the sea is an umbrella agreement that deals with many topics other than fisheries. It deals with the preservation of marine living resources, offshore oil and gas, shipping, maritime boundaries and the resolution of marine disputes, among other issues.

It required the ratification of 60 nations before it could come into effect. This threshold was reached in November 1994 and now, in 1998, over 100 nations have signed on. Sadly, Canada is not one of those members. The United States still has not ratified the law of the sea because it has issues with deep sea mining provisions. What is Canada's excuse?

The subject of the legislation before us today, Bill C-27, which enables the government to ratify UNFA, includes the subject of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. These fish stocks were not considered in detail during the law of the sea discussions but because the law of the sea is an umbrella agreement, it allows for subsidiary agreements like UNFA to expand on topics such as straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Unfortunately Canada now finds itself in the unpleasant situation of looking at the straddling and highly migratory fish stocks agreement, UNFA, which we signed in 1994, and the law of the sea agreement, which we signed in 1982, knowing we have not ratified either one even though we agreed to them when they were introduced. We still agree with them.

Why has the government been so slow to move on both the law of the sea and the UNFA? One reason might be that Canada has a case pending in the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This case arose from the action when Canada unilaterally seized the Spanish trawler Estai back in 1995.

Canada might be concerned that we could be liable for the action taken under former Bill C-29 amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act passed in May 1994 and which allegedly allowed Canada to take this unilateral international action.

However, this argument does not make sense with respect to the law of the sea. It does not make sense because in 1982, when there was no Estai incident, Canada took no actions to ratify the law of the sea. Some experts even say that ratification of the UNFA will not make any difference to the Estai international court case.

However, let us just take the worst case scenario. If Canada were to lose in the international court there might be some small embarrassment to the minister of the day but certainly it would not put Canada in any great jeopardy. In fact, the Estai is still out there fishing today. The Estai is Spanish and Spain ratified the law of the sea in January 1997 and is a signatory to the UNFA.

The real issue may be that Bill C-27 might get blown out of the water. How might this happen? It flows from the ratification of UNFA that signatory states are then subject to all the enforcement provisions. Spain and Canada are both signatory nations. The real concern may therefore be that a loss at the international court could jeopardize Bill C-27 amendments to the Coast Fisheries Protection Act which allowed Canada to take unilateral action outside the 200 mile limit on behalf of straddling stocks. If our actions are held to have been illegal then Bill C-27 would also be illegal.

If that is the real concern then why is this government playing games by pretending all is well and entering into the second reading of this bill if it has no intention of carrying it forward until proceedings at The Hague are adjudicated?

We know that when the Estai case comes up again in the international court in June of this year, Canada will merely be arguing that the ICJ has no jurisdiction to try the case.

We know from the briefing we received from DFO on the bill we are debating today that it is the federal position that once UNFA is ratified the enforcement provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will continue to apply to those vessels that belong to non-signatory nations or flags of convenience.

One thing we know for sure is that during the Estai incident, Canada did demonstrate an interest in pursuing Canada's interests aggressively in the international arena. Other than that singular time, Canada's international posture on fisheries issues is extremely weak.

All evidence demonstrates that we consistently drop the ball into the international arena. In fact, we wonder why Bill C-27 has been drafted so that a new section of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, section 7.01, states that Canada has to get the consent of a signatory state before it can take enforcement action against one of these vessels. Imagine, we have to get consent before we go after it.

I would like to support the intent of Bill C-27. However, I do not agree with the clause in section 7.01 which reads “with the consent of the participating state”. If there are obligations imposed on the states ratifying UNFA to comply with agreed conservation measures then why should a coastal state need the permission of another signatory to enforce those conservation measures?

Is Canada pursuing the best interests of Canadians in the international arena when it comes to Canadian issues? The evidence clearly demonstrates this government continues to drop the ball on these issues.

For example, there is a growing number of fishermen on the west coast who have determined that there is a better future in fishing outside the 200 mile limit than fishing inside.

They have realized that there is a large biomass to be harvested. They have the opportunity, the expertise and the boats. They have invested in high seas fisheries. They have joined vessel owner associations along with boat owners from other nations.

There is an international fishery in the mid Pacific. Many countries that fish there have a vital interest in highly migratory stocks. Highly migratory stocks are one of those two fish stocks along with straddling stocks which are the subject of UNFA legislation.

There are approximately 100 west coast Canadian fishing vessel owners represented by the Western Fishboat Owners Association, some of whom are Canada's distant water ocean going fishing fleet owners. These boat owners fish primarily for albacore tuna but are also licensed for yellowfin, bluefin and skipjack tuna as well as other species. Some of the members' vessels operate in the north Pacific all the way to the Japanese 200 mile limit, the whole north Pacific. Some operate in both the north and the south Pacific albacore tuna fisheries.

In addition to the Canadian vessel owners who have approximately 20% of the ownership, the majority of membership in the WFOA is American. The Canadian government is not actively representing Canadian interests in this international fishery. However, the United States government is an active participant in what will be the third set of talks coming up in June about the management issues of this high seas fishery.

Previous talks have been held in the Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands. The U.S. state department is there as is the Western Fishboat Owners Association.

Where is the Canadian government in all this? Is our government representing Canadian interests in the Pacific Ocean? Apparently not. Canadian boat owners have been asking where are we, where is our government. The legal counsel for the WFOA is puzzled by our lack of interest. The U.S. state department is certainly pursuing American interests, yet the Canadian department of fisheries is absent. Canada needs to get its act together and quickly.

I ask the minister, if we are going to have representatives from DFO and foreign affairs at the next meeting in Tokyo in June, to make sure Canada's public interest and fishermen's rights are not forgotten in the discussion during the creation of new rules to govern the Pacific international fishery.

Our fishing interests deserve better representation. Our nation deserves better representation and our fishermen deserve better representation. One of the issues which we vigorously championed in the development of the law of the sea and UNFA was the management of highly migratory stocks. This issue is being debated in the Pacific and we are not there.

Canadians are out fishing on the high seas for tuna and other large migratory fish. A portion of these Canadian licensed boats can fish tuna in U.S. waters between the 12 and 200 mile limit in the U.S. as well as international waters but they cannot fish within Canada's 200 mile limit because of restrictions on their Canadian licence. That is a paradox. They can fish in U.S. waters but not in Canadian waters.

American boats have no such restrictions in Canada or the U.S. because of the bilateral tuna treaty and because the U.S. does not prevent American boats from fishing within American waters. We have the bureaucratically driven nonsensical situation where some Canadian tuna boats with DFO licensing are the only boats excluded from fishing in Canadian waters. Only in Canada, you say. Of course this policy continues to be under review by DFO but it does not make any sense. Can we hope for a quick resolution?

For this reason and others it is estimated that 80% of Canadian fish landings from the tuna fleet are in U.S. ports. Unfortunately when Canadian boats do this there is an under reporting of Canadian fish landings. According to the statistics I have seen it looks like Canada does not catch many fish in the north Pacific and none at all in the south Pacific. This is simply not the case. The problem is with the reporting system.

DFO does not keep track of what Canadians catch on the high seas. That is a fact. It will quote statistic but they are totally meaningless because they are not accurate. If a Canadian boat lands its catch in the U.S. there is no mechanism for counting it as Canadian. We are totally reliant on others for the statistics. The majority of Canadian vessel catches are currently recorded as U.S. landings by their national marine service and this bolsters the U.S. catch at the cost of the Canadian catch.

When it looks like Canadian fishermen are not fishing in the Pacific and when the Canadian government does not represent its people at international meetings, then the result will very likely be that Canada will get left out entirely in allocation and conservation decisions. The government should be looking at what the U.S. is doing on the issue because according to our own fishermen, they are doing a good job.

The Canadian government is displaying absolute blindness on this issue. The Pacific resource for tuna and other species is being increasingly exploited. So far there are no conservation concerns and with some species we are only scratching the surface in terms of sustainable harvest. There is a lot out there. There is immense potential and Canada must be a player.

What invariably occurs in these circumstances, and we have only to look at the bluefin tuna in the Atlantic as an example, is that as conservation concerns develop, countries negotiate allocations based on historical catches. This is the key, historical catches. We are rapidly going to arrive at this situation in the Pacific and Canada is simply ill prepared.

Without historical data that Canadians have been catching fish on the high seas, and we do not have that, we will not obtain our allocations. Without the allocations we also become non-players in terms of management and conservation issues. Here we are a major player and we are going to be the Switzerland of fishing because of our DFO and because we have not managed this issue correctly.

There are two things that Canada must do immediately to address this issue. Canada needs to invoke a protocol to establish data collection. Canada must immediately commit to be an active participant in the high level Pacific migratory fish discussions at the next meeting in Tokyo in June. We cannot stand on the station any longer; we have to be on the train.

I would like to point out some gaps in the UN fish agreement, noting that Bill C-27 is merely the enabling legislation that will allow Canada to ratify UNFA whenever it so chooses. UNFA cannot be used with respect to fish other than highly migratory and straddling stocks. It cannot be used to help with the Pacific salmon treaty. This is not a reason not to ratify, but it certainly is a limitation.

Even though salmon do not fall into categories of fish contemplated by UNFA, Canada's international position with respect to international fisheries issues will be enhanced once we ratify.

Another gap in UNFA relates to quotas and to allocations. Although UNFA is a multilateral agreement, ratifying it will not avoid the necessity of entering into separate treaties or subsidiary agreements with foreign nations. The terms of reference in UNFA are very broad and do not address quotas and catches. We know from our experience with the Pacific salmon treaty that these specifics have to be addressed in separate negotiations.

What plan does the minister have to act decisively? This government has been unable to get the United States to agree on smaller catches of salmon on the west coast. The minister states that conservation is his first priority, yet some species of salmon are simply disappearing. What assurances do we have that this government will be any more effective when discussing other species of fish on a multilateral basis with more nations than just the U.S.?

Many people may be surprised to learn that Canada is not in the top 10 list of fishing nations. On the international scene there are powerful interests at work and if we snooze, we lose. We have a rightful place in the world fishery. We also have obligations with respect to conservation and it will not help us if we do not sign on to these international agreements.

In conclusion, if we do not have a presence, we will not have a voice. By its inaction the Canadian government is contributing to Canada's weak position. Now is the time for commitment. Now is the time for action. Hopefully the government will take heed and do the right thing.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the member for Mississauga West who spoke previously for his support for the TAGS program and the support of his caucus for the Newfoundland fishery. He mentioned there were a lot of Newfoundlanders in his riding. I am sure they are enjoying themselves there, but they would prefer to be in the communities where they were born and grew up in.

The past speaker reminded us that we are talking about two oceans when we pass fisheries legislation, and also the fish committee that is in the north, and there are three oceans that this bill impinges upon and that is why it is so necessary to have it. He raised the matter of the Estai . The member for Burin—St. George's was saying why it cost us $100,000 to prosecute in that particular event and why we had to return to Spain the various bonds that were required. That is why we have this bill today. We knew that in an international court we would have lost those cases because the legislation that we have before us today was not in force. We are here today to take care of that and to make sure that a predator or a pirate ship will be prosecuted if it is caught ravaging our stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap.

Even as we debate this bill today, massive fishing power is being deployed on the high seas. Large vessels armed with the latest technology are zeroing in on the world's dwindling fish stocks on the high seas. There are flags of convenience vessels that can and do plunder the oceans of the world. They are getting away with it because they operate in the global commons, that is, they fish the high seas that belong to no one and lie outside the authority of any single state.

The legislation before us today amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. When they are amended, Canada will be in a legal position to implement the UN fisheries agreement. That agreement will provide a needed step to deal with the world's fish pirates.

The Brundtland commission, or more properly, the World Commission on Environment and Development, made the following comment about the global commons. I quote directly from the commission's report written more than 10 years ago, in 1986:

Without agreed, equitable and enforceable rules governing the rights and duties of states in respect of the global commons, the pressure of demands on finite resources will [eventually] destroy their ecological integrity.

In other words, unless we move to stop the plundering, we face destruction of many fish stocks around the world. Time is running out.

That was only one of many similar warnings. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that disastrous social and economic consequences await the worldwide fishing industry unless fleets are reduced in size, subsidies are eliminated, and fishing activity on the high seas is regulated.

The legislation before the House today represents those agreed to equitable and enforceable rules that are needed for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in the global commons.

When we pass this legislation and prepare the necessary regulations, Canada will be in a position to join that handful of nations that have ratified the United Nations fisheries agreement, UNFA. A total of more than 59 have signed the agreement and 17, including the United States and Russia, have ratified it so far. We will build the momentum needed to get the 30 ratifications required for entry into force.

When Canada ratifies the UN fisheries agreement, Canada will underline its commitment to settling fisheries disputes with other nations through negotiation and co-operation.

In 1994 Canada was the first nation to sign the UN Food and Agriculture Compliance Agreement for vessels fishing in the high seas. The agreement committed us to exercising licensing control over any Canadian vessel fishing the high seas.

Canada was the prime mover and is among the strongest supporters of the UN fisheries agreement. That is one reason why we should support this bill, so that we can add Canada's name to the list of those who have agreed to work toward a sustainable harvest of protein from the high seas.

The UN fisheries agreement rests on three pillars. First, the agreement sets out the principles on which conservation and management must be based for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. One of these principles is the precautionary approach. That means when it comes to setting catch limits, net and mesh sizes and so forth we agree with the UN fisheries agreement to err not on the side of high hopes or greed but on the side of caution. Conservation measures on the high seas must be similar to the measures enforced within national waters. That means we cannot have incompatible regimes for straddling or migratory fish inside the 200 mile limit of coastal states and outside the 200 mile limit.

Also in setting up the conservation regime, we agree to use the best available scientific information. That is an important point. Under this principle, states will not wait for so-called better information to come along before they limit their catch.

We will not be swayed by those who argue that we do not have enough information to set limits accurately. We will not listen to those who say “let us study the problem some more and then decide”. That is an old dodge. It has been used from time immemorial to delay action and maintain the status quo. If we maintain the status quo we will not have to worry about setting limits because there will not be any fish left to conserve.

No one should think I am suggesting that we should stop or cut out our research programs. We should increase them. Indeed the UN fisheries agreement calls for the parties to commit themselves to continued and increased research. That applies especially to the collection of high quality data, for it is on the basis of this information that we set fishing limits.

The second pillar of the UN fisheries agreement is credible enforcement. Unenforced conservation and management measures are not worth the paper they are written on. We will enforce our conservation and management decisions co-operatively along with other parties to the agreement.

The primary responsibility for enforcement will continue to be with the flag state, the nation that, like Canada, licenses and regulates fishing activities. But the agreement enables states concerned about conservation on the high seas to take effective enforcement measures.

The agreement sets out a framework for action against vessels that break the rules by states other than the flag state, but there are clear safeguards against the abuse of these powers.

Canada has no wish to deprive those who fish on the high seas of their right to do so. I am referring to vessels from those countries known as distant water fishing states. We do not want to end their legitimate use of the high seas, but we do insist on an end to the abuse of the high seas by them or anyone else.

Regional and subregional fisheries management organizations will play the major role in conserving and managing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In fact it is groups such as these, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, is one example, that establish the specific measures we must take to conserve and manage fish stocks. NAFO sets measures for the conservation and management of stocks that straddle our 200 mile limit. ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, sets them for highly migratory stocks, specifically swordfish and tuna, that move through the high seas and through the exclusive economic zones of many countries.

The third pillar of the agreement is a commitment to settle disputes peacefully. The UN fisheries agreement provides for a number of methods to settle fisheries disputes. Some of these are non-binding, but if these methods fail to resolve the dispute, there is provision for compulsory and binding procedures. My colleagues will have more to say about these particular provisions.

In the little time left to me I would like to return to the enforcement issue. What will happen under this legislation in those cases where fisheries inspectors know that a serious violation has taken place in the international waters within our 200 mile zone?

First of all, what is a serious violation? Some are listed in the legislation and some are brought in through regulations which incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of regional or subregional fisheries management organizations. The agreement specifies fishing in a closed area or during a closed season, exceeding a quota, fishing without a licence, using prohibited gear, or fishing for a stock under moratorium.

As well, a vessel may commit minor violations that cumulatively can be regarded as a serious disregard for conservation and management measures. Here is what the agreement allows. Canadian officers may board and inspect fishing vessels of any other state to verify compliance with conservation and management measures; that is, any other state whether it is or is not a party to the agreement.

Where there are clear grounds to believe a violation has been committed, the protection officer will notify the flag state which is then expected to take appropriate action against the vessel. If it does not respond or if it does not begin to fulfil its obligations to fully investigate and does not take appropriate action within three days, our officers can search and seize evidence and bring the vessel to port.

Actually, the legislation goes beyond this. We can take action when any fishing vessel from a state that is party to the UN fisheries agreement contravenes conservation measures adopted by a local fisheries management organization and we can do that whether or not the state in question is also a member of the organization. This is a breakthrough in the development of the International Law of the Sea.

Under the United Nations fisheries agreement our protection officers may take charge of a vessel until the flag state fulfils its obligation to investigate fully and promptly and then take follow up action. As it stands now, under NAFO for example, if the flag state cannot be contacted our inspectors must leave the vessel even if they discover a serious violation.

The United Nations fisheries agreement procedure is another significant breakthrough.

Enforcement is vital if we are to properly conserve and manage straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. However, we cannot rely exclusively on these provisions. The real goal of the agreement is to create an atmosphere of mutual trust coupled with effective enforcement to ensure the sustainable exploitation of these many important living resources of the sea.

I would like to conclude by quoting Ambassador Satya Nandan of Fiji. It was Ambassador Nandan who chaired the conference that produced the UN agreement. He said:

In essence, this agreement provides for the conservation and sustainable use of the fish resources of the oceans. In place of conflict, it provides a framework for co-operation.

That is something that Canada has always sought. I urge all hon. members to pass this bill and thus permit Canada to ratify this important agreement.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to give my regards to the hon. member for Egmont, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the last parliament. I understand the hon. member is familiar with the issue, but I would like to see if he will be more progressive than his party, he who had such progressive ideas regarding Bill C-27.

First of all, I would like to ask him a question. The Bloc Quebecois has indicated its intention to support the principle of Bill C-27, adding however that we have much to do this spring, and this week in particular, besides debating Bill C-27.

Regarding the rationale for this bill, the government claims it will enable it to implement the agreement, which is not true since it can do so without our consent.

If it takes the time to ask for our consent, then we should be able to take the time to go into the details. I say details because the UNFA is not wishful thinking nor a collection of generalities.

I would like to know if the hon. member plans to put pressure on his minister to ensure, in return for the favour we are doing him this week by discussing Bill C-27, that the Atlantic groundfish strategy is renewed as soon as possible and that work on the crab management plan for zone 12 is progressing so that it can be tabled by the end of the week. Finally, I would like the hon. member to tell me if his government has started giving some thought to what type of fisheries and vision of the future it will put forward.

Does he at least plan to put pressure on his minister to hold consultations in this respect? The hon. member opposite, who is a good man, listed and described the various penalties but I am still waiting for him to talk about policy thrusts. For example, what fishing gear and vessel should be favoured in view of the size of the fish that will be allowed to be caught in the future, since there is a decline in fish stocks, as we know.

I would like to hear the hon. member for Egmont on this point.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I know he stayed in Ottawa to debate this bill. His committee is travelling in the Northwest Territories at the present time and I am sure his presence will be missed. I am sure I would miss him if I was there.

He has a number of questions and I think some of them have already been answered this morning. One of his questions concerns TAGS, about which considerable pressure is coming to bear on the government. We know that the old TAGS was far from perfect. There were a lot of holes in it. We intended to help a lot of people with that $1.9 billion, but many are still in need of assistance.

The reason is because part-way through the process we took money allocated for the buy back program and for training and put it into personal support because of the underestimation of the number of people that would be included in TAGS. The program was running out of money very rapidly, so money was taken out of two vital sectors and used for income support when it probably should have been used to take fishermen out of the program altogether.

The new program must be designed to take people out of the fishery, but also to ensure that there are enough fishermen left to have a sustainable groundfish fishery off the Atlantic coast.

The member also mentioned zone 12 crab. I think he is aware that probably this week the zone 12 management plan for crab will be announced by the minister.

The only way a fishery can be continued in Canada, whether it is on the Pacific, on the north or on the Atlantic coast, and the only way for small fishing villages to survive is to have a sustainable fishing industry. If we continue to overfish, as we have done in the past, we will continue to have the same attitude and pressures that were prevalent when some of our fish plant workers did not get enough work and pressure was put on for them to continue to work so they could collect EI. That created a reliance on the EI system.

This type of thinking has to change. We have to think of the resource first. If there are not enough fish, there are not enough fish. It takes a while. I know we are dealing with families. We are dealing with the ability of individuals to put food on their table, but at the same time if we continue in this way there will come a time when no one will have any weeks in the fish plants in Atlantic Canada. We have to look at managing the resource in a sustainable way so that it will be there not only for the present but for the future.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that we have a situation where too many people are chasing too few fish and relying on this resource to support themselves and their families.

This is not new. We experienced the same thing a few years ago in the forestry industry. The same thing has happened in other natural resource industries.

I think the message which we have to give clearly and unequivocally is that we have to work on the renewal of the resource. We have to diversify our economy so that we do not rely on one source of revenue coming from one natural resource. We have to have a renewal mechanism which will help it to grow.

I want to commend the government on its initiative.

Frankly, whether we like it or not, were it not for the actions of this government I would be surprised if we had an international agreement that deals with fish stocks.

I want to ask my colleague to enlighten us a little on the program established by the provincial governments of Atlantic Canada to diversify their economies so they can deal with some of the difficult situations which the people of Atlantic Canada are facing.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his question and for his concern on this topic.

I think it is vital for any part of Canada not to lose its greatest natural resource, that is, the people who live in those areas, including those on the coast of British Columbia who have been displaced because of the decisions taken regarding salmon stocks. They no longer were able to earn a living for themselves. Therefore, they had to sell their licences and move on to something else.

The most devastating part of the mismanagement of any resource is the displacement and uprooting of people, whether it is on the west coast, in the forestry industry or in Atlantic Canada.

What we should keep in mind above all else is that in order to retain the health of our coastal communities the resource has to be in a healthy state to provide a living and work for people so they can stay there, bring up their families and educate their children so they can contribute to the area when they mature.

The diversification issue is something that Atlantic Canada has been grappling with since Confederation. At Confederation the Atlantic provinces had one of the healthiest, most vibrant economies in the new nation. The economy was very diversified.

Through various actions taken by the national government, especially on tariffs, the free trade that we had with a lot of countries in the Caribbean, in the New England states and in Great Britain was diverted into high tariff policies which made our industries very unsustainable.

In order to build up the country, Atlantic Canada had to get into something new and diversify because it was competing on the north-south axis in a very inequitable manner.

It is only now, since the free trade agreements, that we are in a position to restart our economic engines in Atlantic Canada and to renew our connections with the Caribbean, which we had for centuries, with the eastern United States, which have approximately 175 million people, and with western Europe.

With that and with time I think the hopes are great for Atlantic Canada and the future is very bright.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, for getting me involved in the debate on Bill C-27, which is aimed at implementing the United Nations Fisheries Agreement and thus ensuring that Canada can ratify this convention by bringing its internal legislation in line with the convention.

I would, moreover, like to start by mentioning the worthwhile contribution of one of my friends in negotiating that convention. Paul Fauteux, who has been at the Department of External Affairs for some years, was one of the key negotiators for Canada when the convention was being negotiated under the auspices of the UN.

My comments will focus on two matters that need to be raised during the debate at second reading of this bill and could also be the subject of more thorough debate when it is examined in committee. I will also address the international aspects of the bill and the convention it implements.

The first question I wish to raise today in the House is the connection between this bill and the prior bill, C-29, passed in 1995, which also amended the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, authorized Canada to extend its jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile fishing zone, and allowed it to board ships in order to ensure compliance where straddling stocks were concerned.

It must be kept in mind that, at that time, the debate addressed whether or not these new legislative powers were legal according to international law. The Government of Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois was in agreement, considered such measures licit. Consequently, the bill gave the government jurisdiction, power that had not previously been accorded in international treaties, which the United Nations fishing agreement has just rectified.

However, debate continues, because a case is pending before the International Court of Justice, that of the Estai , which raises the question of the compliance of the 1995 legislation with international law in both extraterritorial and penal terms, since this legislation provided for the boarding of vessels, something that will be permitted in future under the treaty adopted by the United Nations.

The question remains, however. What is Canada's attitude to countries that are or are not signatories to the UN fisheries agreement? Will Canada keep its legislation? Will it want to apply legislation to countries that have not sighed the UN fisheries agreement or will it simply ensure that the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by Bill C-26, remains the only law to apply in the matter?

This question is all the more important because it could influence the International Court of Justice's understanding of the matter before it and in the light of the arguments adduced, if it considers it has jurisdiction in the matter.

Another question needs to be asked and answered. Will Canada, which, in 1995, made the bill conditional on its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, want to go another route and remove this condition so that the International Court of Justice could have jurisdiction on these matters, which had been outside its jurisdiction?

In my opinion, these questions warrant reflection and have not, up to now, been thoroughly debated, but should be, and, I hope, will be in committee. This also raises the general issue of the value, under international law, of unilateral legal documents drafted by states. In the past, Canada has at times insisted on drafting such documents, including for the Arctic, on the grounds that while certain unilateral documents may not necessarily comply with international law, they should be drafted to promote changes to it.

There is unquestionably a degree of success here, and we will not criticize a party for drafting unilateral documents that do not necessarily comply with international law, when this is done to ensure that the law will adjust to facts that are real and material.

The second issue of an international nature which I want to raise in this debate has to do with the powers that the governor in council would have to adopt delegated legislation and adapt regulations to implement the provisions of other international fisheries agreements or treaties to which Canada is a party.

I am referring in particular to clause 3(2) of the bill, which amends sections 6( e ) and 6( f ) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It seems that this clause will give the governor in council what is probably an excessive power under common law, to the extent that he can exercise this power without any involvement of the House of Commons, Parliament or parliamentary committees regarding the implementation of international treaties.

We should certainly take a close look at this provision, to ensure that the implementation of international treaties is not even further removed from the control of democratic and parliamentary institutions which, in our opinion, already do not have the powers they should have.

I therefore urge that this provision, and the issue of the role of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally in implementing, and even signing, treaties be examined as part of the debate on this bill.

Other issues can certainly be addressed in committee. I would like to assist my colleague, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, and will be at the committee's disposal to look at ways of improving this implementing legislation so that the UN fisheries agreement is incorporated into domestic law in accordance with the international obligations that will arise from Canada's ratification.

Canada played an important role in negotiating this convention. It is regrettable that only now, in April 1998, is this issue finally being debated in the House of Commons, since the idea of introducing and passing implementing legislation for the purpose of ratifying the UN fisheries agreement had already been mentioned in the February 1996 throne speech.

I would hope, as would my party, that the government will be more diligent in these matters and move much more quickly than in this instance to introduce a bill in the House of Commons for the purpose of implementing international treaties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday on this and I understand some members from the government side were quoting me earlier today. They said I was wrong. We are talking about the two provisions which have been debated at length in the House. I said that an officer or an enforcement person would have to get permission to board a vessel. I went on to say that I agreed that was arguable. My point was that this legislation is vague. One section states they can board and then advise the flag state while the next section states that before they can do that they have to get permission. I wanted to put those comments on record.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, it was questions and comments and not another opportunity to be on record. If the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry wishes to respond, feel free.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going in the same vein and I was speaking on a point. My friend just alluded that this bill has no teeth. This government has argued that it had to follow the UN convention. That is what this legislation is all about.

Last April just before the government called the election, it tabled enabling legislation for the same bill, but ironically these same clauses were not there. The minister at the time did put some teeth into it, the very same legislation. I notice some of the members on the opposite side are shaking their heads. I would offer that legislation to them. They are welcome to contact me and I will give them a copy.

This was negotiated in 1995. They brought in the enabling legislation in 1996 and it died on the order paper when the election was called. I remind members that we can put some teeth in the legislation and it is beyond me why the current minister has watered it down so it has no effect. It is supposed to allow our enforcement officials to have the ability to act when foreign nations are fishing illegally and breaking our rules. UN conventions allow them to act.

We all know when the Estai was fishing illegally in 1995 that is what they did under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The new legislation takes all the teeth out of it. They have to get permission from the flag state before they can lay a charge.

[The Speaker]

I hate to interrupt the member in full flight. It does my old heart good. I know that. As it is almost 2 o'clock I wonder if we could proceed to Statements by Members.

Road Transport

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again this week, the Government of Quebec, through its acting premier and transport minister, was afraid to tell the whole truth about truck accidents on Quebec's highways.

It did not publish the complete report on serious and minor injuries sustained in truck accidents, as opposed to those sustained in accidents involving cars and other road vehicles.

Why was there a 32.5% increase in serious injuries to occupants of trucks? Why was there a 16.5% increase in minor injuries to occupants of trucks?

We are calling on the Government of Quebec to tell the whole truth about truck accidents in Quebec, including the real figures, in the next two weeks.

Government Compensation

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Cuba the Prime Minister spoke of the winds of change. Tuesday evening a bitter cold wind cut through the House; innocent blood victims dismissed by the whip. The vote closed the file on lives destroyed before 1986.

Yesterday a frosty wind of change chilled Hong Kong war veterans to their souls. Brutally enslaved by Japan, now dismissed by Canada, Hong Kong veterans too are left without hope. “A dollar a day is more than enough for the victims of slavery by Japan”. That is the minister's chilling retort.

The winds of change come from hearts of ice against the will of most. Who is next on the Liberal deep freeze list of the winds of change?

Michel Lachance

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to salute a super star of the horse racing world.

Michel Lachance was born on a farm, close to the small village of Saint-Augustin, in Quebec. He has won over 8,000 races, and he is the only Quebec horseman to have won more than $100 million in purses, which is a tremendous accomplishment.

I know him personally, since I had the privilege of racing against him. Michel Lachance is also a man of great qualities, who has worked very hard to reach the pinnacle of his profession.

Thank you Michel Lachance for representing your family, your province and your country so well. We wish you all the best in the future.

John Bassett

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the flag over the Peace Tower flies at half mast today in honour of a great Canadian.

John Bassett passed away Monday after a lengthy illness. He left an indelible mark on the Canadian landscape. John Bassett served as major in the Black Watch Regiment during World War II. He was a media pioneer, a sports enthusiast, a businessman and a Tory.

When I was 11 years old John Bassett, who was a friend of the family, gave me my first job bundling inserts for his first newspaper, the daily Sherbrooke Record .

A graduate of Bishop's University in Lennoxville, Quebec, my hometown, John Bassett ran for office for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on two occasions.

He was once a proud owner of interests in both the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Toronto Argonauts. John was a member of the privy council, a companion of the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario.

On the behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I convey my condolences to his wife Isabelle and their family.

The Late Carlo Rossi

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the House paid tribute to Carlo Rossi, a man who played an important role in the riding of Bourassa. Since I was not here, I would now like to pay homage to him.

Our former colleague, Carlo Rossi, died on April 11, after a lengthy illness.

Mr. Rossi was first elected as the member for Bourassa in 1979. He had joined the Montreal urban community's police force in 1948, and was a criminal investigator with the rank of lieutenant from 1971 to 1979. He had a reputation as one of the best negotiators in hostage-taking incidents.

Mr. Rossi was awarded the silver medal by the Queen, and he received the gold medal of the Canadian Bankers Association, in addition to being the recipient of the merit award of the Kiwanis and Rotary clubs.

The former member for Bourassa, who was also vice-president of Carrefour Jeunesse Rosemont, was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979, and re-elected in 1980 and 1984. He was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on March 1, 1982, and became acting whip in 1984.

Carlo Rossi will be remembered as a tireless worker who was very involved in his community. We offer our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

So long, Carlo.

The Late Maurice Tremblay

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean has just lost an eminent physician, Dr. Maurice Tremblay.

This very humane, humble and generous man has left his mark on many. In 1954, after completing his studies in Boston and Paris, the young pediatrician devoted himself body and soul to the care of his young patients, at a time when there were many dangerous childhood diseases, including polio, scarlet fever and meningitis.

He was also very concerned about the children in the Chicoutimi orphanage, and visited it regularly, free of charge.

Along with several colleagues, Dr. Tremblay founded the Institut médical de Chicoutimi, and was also instrumental in the creation of family centres.

I speak for all the patients and friends of Dr. Tremblay in offering my most sincere condolences to the family in their great loss.

Canadian Cancer Society

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

Mr. Speaker, this year the Canadian Cancer Society celebrates its 60th anniversary and April is also cancer campaign month.

I call on all Canadians to answer the knock at their door and donate generously to a worthy cause. The cancer society is an organization which is dedicated to ending the pain and suffering of an illness that has touched the life of each and every Canadian in one way or another.

I also call on this government to end its two tier approach to funding of cancer research in Canada. Although the incidence and fatality rates for prostate cancer and breast cancer among Canadian men and women are virtually identical, the federal government will give the National Cancer Institute over $4 million for breast cancer research but it will not give them it red cent to help find a cure for prostate cancer.

Like hepatitis C, this is yet another example of a Liberal government which puts power and politics ahead of people and principles.

During cancer awareness month let Canadians be aware that this federal government will not cough up a dime to help find a cure for disease which will—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.

Umugenzi For Refugees.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring to your attention an organization that provides invaluable experiences for refugees in my riding called Umugenzi for Refugees. Umugenzi when translated from Burundi means friends of refugees.

When refugees arrive in Toronto after fleeing war and persecution in their homeland they are faced with an overwhelming challenge to adjust to their new surroundings. Umugenzi for Refugees is a non-profit organization that provides role models, community contacts, volunteer work experiences and skills to new Canadians as they begin their new lives in Toronto.

Three years ago members of Umugenzi for Refugees launched the Rukundo project to provide volunteer opportunities for new Canadians. Rukundo when translated means helping someone in need.

The Rukundo project connects its participants with an agency in the community that will provide them with training and experience in their chosen field. It has reached some 400 seniors, 200 people living with mental illnesses and 500 refugees.

I wish to thank Umugenzi for Refugees for all its hard work with refugees in Toronto and its contribution to the vibrant multicultural society of our city.

Canadian Naval Reserve

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 75th anniversary of the naval reserve in Canada. Located in 24 cities, the naval reserve is made up of individuals who have chosen to dedicate a few hours every week and a few weeks every year in the interest of serving their country.

These part time military volunteers represent more than one-third of the navy's total strength. HMCS Carleton located in my riding of Ottawa Centre is the second largest naval reserve in Canada and includes 264 volunteers who perform extraordinary deeds in difficult situations.

Naval reserves from across Canada are always ready to help in emergencies, like with the floods in the Saguenay and Manitoba and recently during the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.

I would like to thank these dedicated men and women of the naval reserve for their commitment to helping others and for their service to this country. They have demonstrated what it truly means to be Canadian.

Justice

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week one of Canada's leading crime fighters became the latest victim of the infamous Young Offenders Act.

Bob Runciman resigned as Ontario solicitor general on Monday because his government quoted the mother of a young offender in its throne speech, thanking Premier Mike Harris' boot camp initiative for “giving us back our son”.

Bob Runciman is a man of unimpeachable integrity who has distinguished himself through his tireless campaign for law and order and his determination to put young offenders back on the right track.

It is a bizarre irony that the same Liberal Young Offenders Act which allows many young criminals to go unpunished has marked the reputation of an honourable man such as Bob Runciman.

If any minister should resign over the debacle of the Young Offenders Act it should be the federal Minister of Justice for her failure to introduce amendments which would reintroduce justice into the concept of the youth justice system.

Israel

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is Israel's 50th birthday, Hag Sameach.

Euphoria greeted the UN vote declaring the state of Israel. Finally, out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the rebirth of the Jewish homeland arose. It is this century's success story. This land of great diversity reflects differing cultures and languages and has reclaimed green pastures from desert land, lifted rocks, terraced land, utilized every drop of water, learned and developed new technologies to once again make this desert bloom.

The vision, the end goal, is to ensure that the fundamental principles of justice, fairness and equality that have been the pillars of this people would find life and reality in this new emerging democracy. And yet within this diversity of land and people we find extreme contrasts and challenges. As the state of Israel matures, its people will learn to live in peace and prosperity with its many neighbours.

The people of Israel will achieve this goal. Am Yisrael Chai.

Human Rights

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 26, 1998 Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi was murdered. His crime was to release a report on human rights abuse under a former military regime.

Guatemala participated in the summit of the Americas where the Prime Minister of Canada indicated that leaders of 34 democratically elected governments in the hemisphere committed themselves to respect human rights everywhere in the Americas.

But unfettered globalization is bringing the clashes between trade and human rights to the centre of international activities. Sadly our country is taking the position that trade is ahead of democratic development and human rights.

We wish to alert this government that its foreign policy of constructive engagement is not fostering human rights with our trading partners but is bringing the social values of repressive regimes into our own country as expressed by the autocratic attitude of the Prime Minister and evidenced by the attack on University of British Columbia students during APEC.

The citizens of this country are demanding that our deeper obligations are to promote and defend international human rights, not to support the abusers.