Mr. Speaker, I want to go back on these Group No. 3 amendments to section 7, enforcement and the heart of the act.
If this act will be an enforcement act rather than a diplomatic act then section 7 seriously needs to be amended. I will read it again as it stands now. It talks about a foreign vessel in Canadian waters committing an apparent offence: “The enforcement officer may, with the consent of that foreign state, take any enforcement action that is consistent with this act”.
I amended that to say that the officer “shall take any enforcement action that is consistent with this act”. It actually gives some power to the enforcement officer. I am very disappointed that the government seems unwilling to listen to logic in this section.
I will give an example. What other enforcement agency in the Canadian system has to ask permission of the foreign state of citizenship of a person who has committed a crime? If a Panamanian citizen kills a Canadian citizen, does the RCMP have to call the president of Panama, the minister of external affairs from Panama and ask them if it can lay a charge of first degree murder against the person? Obviously it is too silly to talk about. I do not mind picking on Panama because it really is in fisheries the pirate country in the world.
If a person from Panama came to Newfoundland and took up partridge hunting, which I dearly love in the fall, and he wanted to shoot partridge in February or March, does the Newfoundland wildlife officer actually have to call and say he cannot lay a charge against this person from Panama until he gets permission from somebody?
If a customs officer finds a person from Panama with a trunk full of cocaine, does he have to call the minister of international trade from Panama to get permission to lay a charge? Obviously not. It is too silly to talk about.
The amendment our caucus is suggesting in section 7(1) is to provide for the enforcement.
The parliamentary secretary might say he does not agree with this but it is funny that he did unanimously agree with it when he was a member of the fisheries committee, when it had some leadership under the member for Gander—Grand Falls. The fisheries committee agreed to change that section of the act to put in that the enforcement officer shall take whatever action is consistent.
Of course we also know the parliamentary secretary came in the House and would not concur or agree with the fisheries committee report which he had also agreed with at committee. That is how Liberals do things.
The parliamentary secretary and all the Liberals and everybody on the fisheries committee realized that section of the act was very weak and a change was required. They made in the committee exactly the same recommendation I am making, that the enforcement officer shall take any action consistent with the act.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell his caucus that this is not a diplomatic act we are talking about here. We are talking about an enforcement and conservation act that is crucial to the way of life of many persons in Atlantic Canada, especially Newfoundlanders.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to reconsider the Liberal position on this and to really put some teeth in this so it really does become an enforcement act rather than a diplomatic act.