Mr. Speaker, we agree with the intent of this legislation. It is obviously trying to implement the UN fisheries agreement which was negotiated in 1995 and also the UN convention on the law of the sea of December 1982, some 15 years ago.
There is one very troubling clause, and that is clause 4 which will change section 7.01. This is with respect to enforcement on the high seas for unauthorized fishing vessels in Canadian waters. We have foreign vessels fishing inside of Canadian waters, in a NAFTA regulatory area. I will read it word for word:
If a protection officer believes on reasonable grounds that a fishing vessel of a participating state or of a state party to a treaty or an arrangement described in paragraph 6(f) has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and the officer finds the vessel in an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii) or (f)(ii), the officer may, with the consent of that state, take any enforcement action—
It completely nullifies this entire agreement. It waters down our existing provisions. If we have a foreign vessel fishing in our waters illegally in the NAFTA regulatory area, before we can proceed with enforcement action we must get the consent of the flag state. They will argue that that has to be in there because it is part of the UN fisheries agreement.
Let me go back to the enabling legislation, Bill C-96, which was introduced by the former fisheries minister back in April 1997. He introduced the enabling legislation for the same UN agreement. This is the enforcement section which he intended:
A protection officer may, subject to any regulations made under subparagraph 6(e)(iii), arrest without warrant any person who the officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence under this act.
That is our difficulty. This makes it meaningless. It waters down our position. In fact the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, has written letters to the committee with respect to this very issue. His concern is why we would water down our current position.
We have amendments which would correct that and we would ask the government to look at them. What we are asking under the amendments we put forward is to give the minister the power of consent. In other words, if there is a foreign vessel fishing in our waters in the NAFTA regulatory area, that enforcement could be taken with the minister's consent. We are saying, in these circumstances, let us have a clause that if this exact situation existed enforcement officials would have to contact the department and, with the consent of the minister, they could take enforcement action. Right now they have to go to the flag state.
The member for Vancouver Quadra talked about a very colourful moment. Let me read a paragraph from Michael Harris' book Lament for an Ocean . This takes us back to 1995:
It was the other shot that was heard around the world. The 50-calibre machine-gun burst from the Cape Roger , three in all, marked the first time since Confederation that Canada had fired on another country in defence of the national interest. When the order came to open fire, the officers aboard the fisheries patrol vessel were so taken aback, they asked that the command be repeated. The faithful words crackled once more over the ship's radio: An initial burst was to be fired over the bow of the Spanish trawler Estai , the next rounds into her screw sixty seconds later if she refused to stop.
That was Mr. Tobin who did that. We had illegal fishing. What we ask is that this legislation protect our sovereignty and our interests. The issue we keep coming back to is that we have to get the consent of the flag state. That waters it down.
I have read the provision, word for word. We have to get the consent of the flag state to take enforcement action. What I ask is that we amend that section so that officers on the high seas, with the consent of the minister, can take enforcement action.
That would correct this fundamental flaw in the bill. Again, the intent is worthwhile. But if we correct that fundamental flaw, put that power into the minister's hands in this rare exception, then we could take enforcement measures against foreign vessels.
I want to touch on one other thing. I will be quick because I would like to give a couple of minutes to my friend from Yorkton—Melville.
We have laws for foreign vessels so we can protect our sovereignty, but what is even more troubling is that in British Columbia, in the town of Ucluelet, our government is giving Canadian fish away to foreign nations. Foreign nations are fishing in our waters. This bill does nothing about that issue, even though it was brought up over and over again in an east coast report.
We now have a piece of legislation, an international agreement, with respect to foreign fishing. However, I would encourage our government to really look on both coasts at what foreign nations are doing inside our waters, both on the processing and the fishing side, to ensure that we take action and give fishermen on both coasts priority to this resource. Our fishermen should get first crack. Unemployed fishermen on both coasts do not know how they are going to pay their mortgages or make ends meet, and yet we have foreigners processing our fish and fishing in our waters.
If it is possible, I would like to share the couple of minutes that are left to me with the member for Yorkton—Melville.