Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the first two amendments to Bill C-27 which were proposed by the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
The first proposed amendment is to include in Bill C-27 the general principles of article 5 of the United Nations fisheries agreement. The second, as members know, is to add an interpretation clause to the bill.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on a sound piece of legislation that clears the way for the ratification of an essential international agreement. The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement certain provisions of the UN fisheries agreement.
Ratification of this agreement and, more importantly, its full implementation are crucial to the conservation of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. The agreement will not come into force until 30 nations have ratified it. So far 19 nations have done so, but Canada's name is not yet among them.
It is important that we move forward with the passage of Bill C-27. Once Canada has ratified the agreement we will be in a much stronger position to urge others to do the same.
Canadians across the country, and certainly people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, want to see the resources of the sea protected. No one wants to see a repetition of the devastation caused by the collapse of the Atlantic groundfish stocks.
As important as this bill is, the democratic process cannot be hurried. The government has, accordingly, given full consideration to the concerns raised by members of the opposition parties in committee. However, in the case of the first two amendments proposed by the hon. member the government cannot agree.
The first would include in Bill C-27 the general principles of article 5 of the UN fisheries agreement and I would like to first speak to this proposed amendment.
When Canada ratifies the UNFA, which will happen as soon as Bill C-27 is passed and the requisite regulations are made, Canada will be bound by the obligations and the responsibilities provided by that, including the general principles found in article 5 of the UNFA.
Canada pushed for the inclusion of these principles in that agreement during negotiation of the agreement. We used, as a basis for these principles, our Canadian fisheries management policies and practices, and I think that is important to note. Canada, therefore, already has in place scientific and fisheries management policies and practices which implement these principles.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has, for instance, adopted a precautionary approach as a policy objective. I would like to note at this time the obligations for UNFA parties, which include that we adopt measures to ensure long term sustainability of fish stocks, that we ensure the use of best scientific evidence, that we assess the impacts of fishing, that we adopt conservation and management measures, that we minimize pollution, that we take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing, that we take into account the interests of subsistence fishers, that we collect and share data concerning fishing, that we conduct scientific research and, finally, that we implement and enforce conservation and management measures. Many of these obligations are met through DFO's process of developing integrated fisheries management plans for individual fisheries in our land.
Canada will continue to co-operate with other fishing nations and coastal states, as UNFA provides, in order to implement all those principles through decisions taken within regional fisheries organizations to which Canada is a party, such as NAFO and ICCAT.
As hon. members can see, the first proposed amendment is not necessary as the amendment of the principles contained in the UNFA does not require specific authority in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Canada has been and continues to apply these principles through the application of existing and revised fisheries management policies and practices, and we would on this basis urge the House to vote against this first motion.
I understand that I am out of time. I wonder if I would be allowed to come back later to deal with the second amendment.