Mr. Speaker, prior to question period I noted and I reiterate that the first proposed amendment as outlined by the hon. member opposite is not necessary insofar as the implementation of the principles contained in the UNFA do not require specific authority in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
With respect to the second motion proposed by the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the scope of the proposed amendment is much broader than the scope of Bill C-27.
As stated in its title, the purpose of Bill C-27 is solely to deal with the implementation of UNFA and other international fisheries agreements to which Canada is a party. Furthermore, this amendment is unnecessary. This is in effect supported by the fact that the government and governor in council's authority to make regulations in Bill C-27 related to UNFA is restricted to making regulations “for the implementation of UNFA”. Adopting this amendment then would open the whole of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to interpretation in accordance with UNFA, whereas this act covers situations falling outside the scope of UNFA.
The proposed amendment also refers to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada participated actively in the negotiation of the law of the sea convention and members will recall the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke about that and noted that aspect.
Similarly, Canada participated actively in the negotiation of the two treaties concluded in 1994 and 1995 to implement the convention, an agreement dealing with sea bed mining and an agreement dealing with straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.
Canada has also participated actively in the development and work of the institutions contemplated by the convention. I mention in particular the International Marine Organization, the International Sea Bed Authority and the Continental Shelf Commission. I think that is important to note.
The Canadian government is committed to ratifying the convention, I think rightfully so, something all Canadians want. However, the timing of this ratification must be placed in the context of Canada's broader policy regarding high seas fishing.
UNCLOS does not effectively address concerns over high seas fisheries management and therefore we must have an effective international high seas enforcement regime to protect fish stocks which straddle Canada's 200 mile fishing zone in adjacent high seas.
The UNFA was negotiated to fill the gaps left in the convention relating to high seas fisheries management. Canada's immediate priority then is to ratify UNFA, and Bill C-27 will enable us to do so. I think in that sense we need to hurry and move on this expeditiously.
The effective functioning of the high seas enforcement regime under UNFA will pave the way then for Canada to ratify the convention, and while Canada is committed to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the timing of this ratification has yet to be decided. It would therefore be improper in the meantime to bind ourselves to the convention as a whole in such a broad way.
Therefore the government cannot agree to the second proposed amendment as it stands to add an interpretation clause to Bill C-27 and therefore I urge the House to reject it.
Finally and by way of conclusion I want to add my voice to those who have urged the House to move quickly to adopt Bill C-27.
Canada has learned the hard way that unregulated fishing has disastrous consequences wherever it takes place. Overfishing outside our 200 mile limit contributed to the collapse of our groundfish stocks. Collapse of that fishery has damaged many Canadian coastal communities. It is something we all regret happened.
It is time we took the steps needed to ensure this kind of destruction will never happen again off the coast of Atlantic Canada or anywhere in the world. Therefore we need to move expeditiously in this very important area. I urge all members to vote for the bill accordingly.