Debates of March 25th, 1999

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good one. It is good for the Canadian people. It is good for the Canadian fishing industry. It will be an enforceable act and an act that can do exactly what it chooses. If we remove or change the amendment I just mentioned, it will be more similar to acts that have been passed in other parts of the world to agree with the United Nations agreement on fisheries and oceans. It is a good suggestion that will make the act stronger and better for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The amendment is in order.

For the benefit of some members who were not here earlier today, all of the amendments are deemed to be put. Everything is on the table, but we are speaking to the amendments in groups. So it is quite in order for this amendment to be accepted by the Chair. Resuming debate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short. At this point I want to make a couple of comments on the last two speakers.

I have no choice but to oppose the amendment put forward by the member for St. John's West in that it is not needed. We do not need to ask permission within our 200 mile limit to board and take actions against vessels. The member is certainly wrong on that point, but we do welcome his support and the support of his party on Bill C-27.

With regard to the comments made earlier by the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Bill C-27 does in fact deal with stateless vessels. If the member looks closely, the three government motions are for the purpose of ensuring that Bill C-27 effectively covers stateless vessels.

I will talk on those amendments when we get to that point a little later. We would certainly welcome the member's support in that regard.

My colleagues who spoke earlier outlined in detail why we cannot support Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks with regard to this bill before us which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. I understand the purpose of Bill C-27 is to amend domestic legislation to implement an international agreement on the conservation and long term sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species.

The background of the legislation is interesting. In the first instance the legislation was brought forward in the last parliament by the former fisheries minister, a member from Newfoundland. That was on April 17, 1997. It died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

There is one item among many in the bill that I want to address which causes me some concern. It is the notion that the fisheries enforcement officials are inhibited if they attempt to enforce conservation laws outside Canada's 200 mile limit. The predecessor to this bill, Bill C-96, did not require the express consent of participating states in order for Canadian officials to take enforcement action. In other words, if a foreign vessel was operating in a way that was contrary to Canadian law outside our 200 mile limit, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks for example, Canadian vessels would have been able to take enforcement action under that bill.

That particular part of the legislation was one that Canadians were quite proud of achieving. I would like to give a little history on how that came about.

I was fortunate enough to attend the UN on two instances when the convention on straddling stocks and migratory species was being discussed. At that time one of the concerns Canadians had was that they would not be able to apprehend a vessel which was in violation of Canadian conservation laws if it was outside the 200 mile limit.

Members will recall the shameful incident of the Minister of Fisheries in the previous government, the current premier of Newfoundland, firing upon an unarmed fishing vessel in the north Atlantic. I say shameful because he was not firing on a military vessel but he was firing on an unarmed vessel which was manned by some poor fishermen from Spain, men who were making just a few thousand dollars for five months work in the north Atlantic in very unpleasant conditions, guys just trying to make a living. Because we did not have some good legislation in place that would allow us to take enforcement actions or compel the people on the Estai to abide by our laws, this action was taken. The action was still inappropriate.

The later action of the former fisheries minister in attempting to sever the net from the vessel was just as inappropriate. He put at risk the lives of people not only on the coast guard vessel involved but also on that fishing vessel. Anybody who has any sense of the inherent danger of operating or working on the ocean knows that you do not play around like that man did.

I think it was shameful. I thought it was shameful at the time, and I still do. I do not want to see it happen again. The act will not prevent that kind of action. It simply will not do it because we have given up the right. How did we give it up?

I mentioned that I had been at the UN when this was being discussed. The Canadian negotiators were absolutely delighted with one item. They got U.S. consent to allow U.S. vessels to be boarded if they were in violation of conservation laws off the shore of any country, outside the 200 mile limit of any country.

The Americans were very reluctant to allow that to happen. They could not abide the thought that some foreign nation would be able to board their vessels and enforce some conservation laws, but they did come to the table and they agreed that they would do that. The pressure came from the non-governmental organizations in the United States. It did not come from the legislators, but from the non-governmental organizations which are concerned about conservation matters.

The Canadian delegation felt that they had achieved a great victory when they got this consent from the Americans. Back in Canada those of us in parliament and on the committee as well as those who are interested felt a great victory had been achieved as well. We felt that if a foreign vessel was operating in a manner that was detrimental to the welfare of fish stocks outside Canada's 200 mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, Canadian vessels would have the authority to apprehend. They do not have it now, but they would have had that authority.

We know that Canada is not too proud of its actions at the time of the Estai . We know that Canada knows it was operating outside the law. When the Spanish people took that matter to the World Court at The Hague, Canada refused to square off in the courtroom. Canada said no, it was not going. The court's jurisdiction did not apply because Canada would not agree.

We have problems with the Americans. We would like to get the Americans into the court at The Hague and square off with them over the problem of the A/B line in B.C. or over the problem with the salmon, but they will not go. They can always say that as Canada did not go in the case of the Estai , why should the Americans go on this issue when they think they may lose. That is the problem. If we violate international law, it is pretty hard to take the high ground and ask somebody else to abide by it when we will not.

What we needed to do in this bill was to ensure that Canada would have the authority to enforce its conservation laws outside our 200 mile limit when the laws were being broken by a foreign vessel. Without that, this whole thing really is worthless.

In talking about this point and the actions of the premier of Newfoundland up to that point I think Canada was inching slowly toward the notion of not just having control of the seabed on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, but also the water column. That is important to be able to enforce fisheries laws beyond the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail. Up until the Estai incident, we were making some progress in staking our claim to the water column as well as the seabed. That initiative really has died as a result of the Estai incident and we still suffer.

We see that with this bill the government has backed away from an important concession it got from the Americans, an important concession that it won at the UN in my understanding of it, by not insisting in the bill that we would have the authority to arrest foreign vessels which are violating our conservation laws beyond the 200 mile limit.

I do not think this bill is worth the time we are taking to discuss it. This morning the member for Sydney—Victoria commented about what he referred to as a diversion when we were talking about a private member's bill on consecutive sentencing. He said we were taking away from the debate on an important fisheries bill.

This bill is not important because it is not doing the job. It is not doing the job because this government caved in. To whom I do not know. It caved in on the important concession it had won at the UN, that we would have had the ability to force conservation laws outside our 200 mile limit on the straddling stocks and migratory species. We do not have it in this bill. The bill is not worth wasting time on until we do get it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There being no further members rising on debate on the first group, we will proceed now to the second group.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motions in Group No. 1 are deemed moved and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on motions in Group No. 2.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed proposed and seconded.

They have all already been moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that, in the time remaining until the end of the sitting today, which is 5.30 p.m. I believe, the three groups of motions can be debated. I urge all participants to make sure that we can cover all three. This will mean splitting our time at some point.

I will therefore set an example by picking up the pace. The purpose of the motions in Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17—I am trying to put this briefly to give people the idea—is to address the so-called extraterritorial role the Canadian government could assume by slipping certain terms into Bill C-27 that, in my view, are open to interpretation because they are not consistent with the terms already used in the UN fisheries agreement, or UNFA.

The purpose of Bill C-27, let us not forget, is to implement this agreement. It would be very wise to use the terminology found in the agreement as an example to bring other countries around the world to sign that agreement.

At this point, I would like, if I may, to make use of some notes left to me by my colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, when he had to leave to travel with the foreign affairs committee this week. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry worked with the members of the standing committee on fisheries, precisely because an international treaty is involved and he is far more familiar with international jargon than I am.

Here are the notes my colleague wanted me to bring to the attention of the hon. members. Reference is made to changes that ought to be made to Bill C-27 to ensure full conformity with the UNFA. One of these changes would be to replace, in French, the term “délimitation” by “désignation” throughout the bill; clauses 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 would be affected.

This would bring the French more in line with the English version of the text. In French the term “délimiter” confers a kind of power upon Canada to decide what the zones will be, while the fisheries agreement speaks of “désigner”, and in English “designated”. So why not take advantage of this opportunity?

As well as bringing the terminology more in line with the English version of the text, using the word “désignation” would also have reassured Canada's partners, particularly those in the European Union, who are still concerned that Canada may again wish to confer an extraterritorial scope to its Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, in contravention of its new obligations to be assumed when it becomes a party to UNFA.

In order to ensure that the bill does not assume this scope, we also proposed adding a new clause 2.1, to which reference has already been made earlier.

The point of all that is to bring the report into line with the fisheries agreement.

Still on the subject of the bill's conformity with the UNFA, we also proposed that the words “serious reasons” used in the text of the agreement itself replace the words “reasonable grounds”, as we were not convinced that the test of reasonability the government wanted was as exigent as that provided in the treaty being implemented.

The interpretative provision we proposed to add to clause 2.1 could also have promoted the alignment of the concept of reasonable grounds with that of serious reasons, but its rejection by the government does not guarantee it would necessarily be interpreted in this sense.

What should be understood here, and I am pleased other members have already mentioned it, is that the fisheries agreement is inherently good. What the government is trying to do is ensure that it is indeed the United Nations fisheries agreement they want to allow to be Canadianized and to incorporate in our laws. However, they must be very careful. As someone mentioned earlier, only six countries have signed and ratified this agreement.

An example must be set. Insofar as possible, it must be incorporated textually into Canadian law. I think the parliamentary secretary said that we can do it integrally for the moment, since it has not yet become international law. For sure, but I would remind the House we may have a problem.

The aim is to permit the maximum number of countries to sign it. Thirty countries are required for it to become international law. Right now, there are people getting ready to sign, the European Community in particular, and there are 11 countries that I think will sign this agreement. We must show confidence and then urge these people to sign.

How can we do this? By means of the United Nations fisheries agreement. If we do not agree with the agreement, let us use international diplomatic channels to amend and improve and, in certain cases, as the member for St. John's has proposed, put more bite into this agreement, so that straddling fish stocks will be off limits in Canadian waters.

I agree, except that, with the present wording of Bill C-27 making it possible to Canadianize certain passages of the fisheries agreement, I am afraid we are missing the boat. I am concerned that we are scaring off allies who are getting ready to sign this agreement.

Earlier, the member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned the problem raised by the boarding of the Estai .

I personally took part in drafting Bill C-29, which allowed the boarding of vessels fishing our straddling stocks. The Bloc Quebecois worked on Bill C-29 to prevent illegal fishing because it could not be stopped under international law.

Now, with the UN fisheries agreement, we have a proposed framework, but the spirit of the letter included in that agreement is in contradiction with the fact that to implement the agreement by enacting Bill C-27 is to forget that Bill C-29 contradicts this agreement.

I am in favour of the agreement, but I do not agree with how Canada wants to implement it in its own legislation. It is inappropriate and even contradictory.

I wonder what we want to do exactly, particularly since the Canadian government can, without consulting the House, without getting its approval, sign and ratify this agreement on its own, thus promoting its signing by other countries, including the European Community. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, we will come back later in this House to Canadianize the texts of the agreement.

If we really want to implement that agreement, we might drop Bill C-29. I am in favour of having a system based on the rule of law. If we do not agree with such a system, we must notify the proper authorities. As the hon. member for Delta pointed out, we will have to go back to the UN and ask for a clarification.

I realize we were dragging so far behind, internationally, as regards the conservation of fish stocks, that this first step, with the UNFA, is a necessary one.

However, the terminology used in Bill C-27 leads us to believe that Canada does not intend to respect the spirit of the agreement, but to assume the role of a protector, which is good in itself. However, one cannot have it both ways. We will have to choose.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, while I want to deal specifically with Group No. 2, the member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned a couple of points earlier in his general comments. He said he did not think this bill was worthy of discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know where the member comes from in terms of making that point. He has expressed endless times that we need better management plans, that we need to conserve fish stocks. That is what this agreement is all about.

It is a very important international agreement through which Canada has provided leadership to the world in terms of getting to this stage. Now we are at the stage within our country where we need Bill C-27 in order to ratify the UNFA agreement as a whole.

Although the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok seems quite supportive of the bill he kind of inferred that the bill is somewhat about motherhood. It is much more than that. The bill does provide guiding principles of conservation and management which we all in the House want to move forward on. We want to ensure we do a better job of managing the fishery, that stocks are conserved and that it becomes an industry of the future both in this country close to our shore and globally around the world for other countries.

The bill provides strong measures such that we will have an enforcement regime in place. That will be in a number of areas. The bill provides a compulsory binding mechanism for the settlement of disputes. All those points are important. As a country we are showing leadership to the world on the whole area. As I mentioned earlier today in question period, we set the tone of discussions at the FAO, in which we are moving forward, on stock conservation and management measures.

I will speak on the Group No. 2 amendments, Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17, tabled by the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok with regard to the French text of the bill. The concerns raised by these amendments, with respect to the use of the word “délimité” in the French text of Bill C-27, where the English text uses the word “designated”, were raised by the hon. member and his colleague during discussions at the standing committee. We discussed it at quite some length.

The government fully appreciates the strong need for precision and clarity in both official languages. However, after careful consideration by expert legal and linguistic advisers, we have determined that the best term to be used in the circumstances is the term “délimité”, which is currently used in Bill C-27. We are certainly standing with that word because it provides, in our opinion and based on legal and linguistic advice, the best clarity to the bill.

Further to the other motions, the governor in council's authority to make regulations designating areas of the high seas subject to the UNFA regime is not open ended. The designation must be for the implementation of UNFA or other fisheries treaties. Only those areas of the sea regulated by the relevant regional fisheries organizations can and will be designated, neither more nor less.

I would therefore urge the House to vote against the second group of amendments proposed by the member opposite for the reasons I have outlined.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly ask the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans a couple of questions.

Previously the member for Delta—South Richmond indicated a concern about UN conversations at meetings or groups that he had been to a few years previously. He raised a couple of very interesting points about the possibility that Canada may have reduced any kind of managerial control over or opportunity to toughen our conservation laws, especially on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

I would like to ask if it is at all possible for the parliamentary secretary to respond to the Reform member's assertions and if he could table any kind of response to the House of Commons so that all of us could review the comments from the department and the government on what the member said.

I wonder how the member got a holiday named after him. I guess he was lucky in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you, all the pages and all of my political colleagues in the House of Commons, as well as the people of Canada, a very happy Easter and a very restful holiday.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify something for the member opposite. He asked me a question that I would love to answer, but under the rules I do not think I can.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary will have an opportunity very shortly because I see no other members rising to speak to Group No. 2. We will proceed to Group No. 3 in just a moment.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 3.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 3 are deemed moved and seconded. Group No. 3 contains Motions Nos. 4 and 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 comprises Motions 4 and 7.

Motion No. 4 is made for concordance purposes. The purpose of Motion No. 7 is to ensure that MPs have a right to review when the minister wishes to enter into other treaties or when the minister or the governor in council wishes to apply something different.

I am not speaking here of restricting the power of the minister, but of allowing us as parliamentarians, since we are asked to participate in the ratification and implementation of the UNFA, to have a say in it subsequently.

Ratification of an international treaty does not require the creation of Canadian legislation. At the very least, out of simple politeness, they could have simply tabled a notice of motion. We would have treated this like a motion, exactly as they did in the case of the motion on distinct society. It was fine to use that approach for distinct society, but not for Bill C-27, while all their legal experts tell us that they could have signed and ratified this agreement without asking us.

Since I have the microphone at this time and we are still on the air, allow me to point out that the purpose of Motion No. 7 is to introduce two new subsections. First, subsection (2) reads as follows:

(2) No regulations shall be made under paragraph 6( e ) or ( f ) unless the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations that are to be made at least 120 days before the regulations are made.

One hundred and twenty days, or four months, is not all that long. It allows the parties time to learn the contents of the regulations, to sound out those who will have to live with application of these regulations, or in other words the fishers, and to get back to the House, to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to make comments. This could not help but improve any regulations the minister would be tempted to make.

Once again, this would allow us, as parliamentarians, to have a say in the matter. We are the ones who are accountable to the public—public servants are accountable to their minister—but we should also be given the opportunity to have a say.

Motion No. 7 proposes to add subsection (3), which reads as follows:

(3) No regulations made under paragraph 6( e ) or ( f ) of this Act shall come into force unless they have been approved by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to fisheries and oceans.

Again, this only makes sense. If the House of Commons says that it needs a standing committee on fisheries to clarify and understand marine-related issues, it would be appropriate for the department and the minister himself to respect the wishes of the House regarding anything that may concern the implementation agreement, and have the issue come back before that committee.

This motion is based on common sense. I will sum things up by saying that parliamentarians must have a look at the issue. This is very important.

I want to go back to the motions we discussed earlier. Since I am the sponsor of the motions included in the first three groups, I was the first one to speak, but I have not yet had the opportunity to comment on remarks made by hon. members.

I did mention that the fisheries agreement could be ratified and signed without the approval of this House. I would like members opposite to realize what we are really trying to do.

We are talking about the way to protect our stocks at the Canadian level—the hon. member from Newfoundland wished we would go further—but we already have Bill C-29 for that. We have the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to protect what is in our waters. As for straddling stocks, we already have Bill C-29, which allowed us to behave the way we did with the Estai . The international community understands that. The important thing is to make the international community understand.

The subtleties of language are very important in international diplomacy. If a word is used in French or English, the people who have to live with the French expression provided by the government are perhaps better qualified to say care should be used in that regard.

I am not claiming to be the best linguist Quebec or the francophone community ever produced. Sometimes I murder my own mother tongue. But God knows I want to try to improve it.

When we ask that care be used in choosing the words, it is because we feel, perhaps with our Latin blood, that it is important for the countries we will be inviting to sign the agreement. I think that is what counts at the moment. We want a UN fisheries agreement.

With this umbrella, we can try to add a little more bite and make sure people understand the same thing, but if to increase the bite we frighten potential signatories, we will miss the boat. So we must choose our words carefully.

The Bloc Quebecois knows a good thing when it sees it. In this case, is that not getting the largest possible number of signatories to the agreement? I think that is the aim. Or does it lie in protecting fish stocks?

The Bloc Quebecois has already helped do this in the absence of international law. We worked with the government to move Bill C-29 through all three stages in a single day. We have shown common sense and co-operation because we believe that our stocks must be protected.

With Bill C-29, Canada has already done its part. The important thing is to get the maximum number of countries on board. The Bloc Quebecois is holding out its hand precisely so that the House will be careful.

I do not know whether I will be allowed to table the document. I will not hold it up right now, but it is here on my desk. It is a press release dated March 11 issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it took part in an FAO forum in Rome. There was a question about this earlier during Oral Question Period.

This press release is very eloquent. The fifth paragraph reads as follows:

In Rome today, Canada called on all nations that have not already done so to ratify and fully implement key international agreements, in particular the UNFA, before the end of 2000. For its part, Canada has already introduced legislation in Parliament with the objective of ratifying UNFA by the end of the year.

The key word in this paragraph is not something I made up. It is the representative of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans addressing all countries of the world in Rome and calling on them to fully implement key international agreements.

When I ask that some provisions of the UNFA, like article 5 of part II, be included as general interpretation and management principles, I am not being mean. I did not write them, they are in the agreement. Now I am told “This is not necessary. DFO already applies these principles in the measures it is taking”, but a measure and legislation are two very different things.

One can change a measure like one changes one's shirt—some people change shirts every day. I have the feeling DFO sometimes changes its mind two to three times a day.

It is important to know that DFO recommends integral measures. I think the minor amendments we put forward to ensure that Canada can get the most people possible to sign the agreement are laudable efforts and I urge all my hon. colleagues to weigh all of this very carefully.

I remind the House that the Bloc supports the UNFA, but has some difficulty accepting the way the government is using Bill C-27 to pick and choose the parts of the agreement that suit it. We could miss the boat here.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok recognizes the elegance of DFO press releases. I am sure those in the DFO headquarters communications branch will be putting that one on the wall because it is something we have not heard that often.

With regard to the remarks just made, we on the government side appreciate the efforts made by the member opposite in terms of trying to debate and discuss and get the best bill forward we can. I clarify that we did listen intently to the discussions held at committee in terms of the concerns coming forward by the Bloc Quebecois on wording. We had it checked out by legal and linguistic experts and it was found that better wording and better clarity rests with the wording we have currently in the bill. We certainly thank the members opposite for their interest and the points they raised in that regard.

Group No. 3 motions, Motions Nos. 4 and 7, propose amendments to Bill C-27 that would require that regulations made pursuant to the bill be reviewed and approved by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I believe Motion No. 4 is consequential to Motion No. 7.

Bill C-27 does amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Its passage is required for Canada to be able to ratify the UN fisheries agreement which we need to protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Existing legislation is for the most part sufficient to allow Canada to implement the UN agreement. There are, however, some gaps.

Bill C-27 is intended to allow Canada to assert the rights and meet the obligations set out in the agreement. Various speakers talked about some of those rights and obligations earlier and I specifically indicated that it does create guiding principles of conservation and management, that it creates an enforcement regime, that we all have to respect and give some authority to our fisheries officers, and creates compulsory binding mechanisms for the settlement of disputes. They are all very important.

The government has worked hard to ensure the bill is fully consistent with the agreement. Once the bill is passed and subordinate regulations are made, Canada will be in a position to ratify the United Nations fisheries agreement.

In general the purpose of regulations is to set out the details, the nuts and bolts, of a legislative regime. This is the intent of the proposed regulation making power found in Bill C-27. This regulation making power allows for the making of regulations that would set out such details as the fishing rules adopted by regional fisheries organizations such as NAFO that vessels of states party to UNFA or to the other treaties implemented pursuant to Bill C-27 must comply with, in the areas of the high seas where these rules apply, and the circumstances and procedures that must be followed to enforce these rules, a very important point.

To have such regulations approved by parliament would be both impractical and inefficient. The member for St. John's West made that very point, that we need to act with haste in terms of people violating these agreements. The fishing rules adopted by regional fisheries organizations are amended every year. These rules provide for such details as the amount of fish that can be caught, where the fish can or cannot be caught, the size of the fish that can be caught, bycatch restrictions, gear restrictions and so on.

Many of these rules are valid for only one year and must be put in regulations quickly so as to be applicable in as short a time as one month.

There is already the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations which has the express role of reviewing government regulations.

I submit the House should not usurp the role of that committee. Having the House review and approve regulations made pursuant to Bill C-27 would be inefficient, impractical and not in the best interests of Canadians in terms of acting quickly.

For those reasons the government cannot accept these two amendments and I urge the House to reject them. Furthermore, I call on all members to continue to give their support to Bill C-27, which will clear the way for the implementation of this valuable and necessary international agreement.

If we are serious about conservation, and I know all members are, we need to ratify UNFA and get on with the task of rebuilding what is left of our straddling and highly migratory fish stocks before it is too late. As I said earlier today, we are making progress in the House. We made progress a couple of weeks ago at the FAO in Rome and Canada can continue to provide leadership in that regard. With the support of hon. members on this bill it will move us a huge step forward.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

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.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak again but a couple of issues have just risen that I think need clarification.

I know it is not question and answer period but I want to reiterate something. My colleague from St. John's West is correct on what happened in committee. We had agreed on a certain wording of a piece of legislation. Unfortunately it has been changed.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can ask the department for complete clarification one more time and table that response in the House so that not only my colleague from St. John's West but the Bloc, the Reform and we can have a clear answer on what the department sees as a response.

I have another question for the parliamentary secretary. If Bill C-27 passes in the House and passes in the Senate, how quickly will we be able to sign the law of the sea agreement? Will Canada sign it? Will the government do it immediately or will it wait? I think that is a very important question. I know the parliamentary secretary cannot respond right now. If he could agree to table those responses in the House, we would greatly appreciate it on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, have a great Easter, you and your family, and to everyone in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the motions in Group No. 3 are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 4.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 4 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18.

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

Mr. Speaker, after a full day of practice, you are now able to pronounce the name of my constituency almost perfectly. I invite you to visit my beautiful riding this summer. You will love it.

We are now looking at the fourth group. I know that clerks are trying to work miracles to find a connection between motions but I will do my best to quickly find the link.

Motions Nos. 8 and 12 were both introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. Motion No. 8 concerns section 7.01, which would read, and I quote:

7.01(1) If a protection officer has serious reasons to believe that a fishing vessel—

The purpose of this change is to bring the terminology in line with that found in the United Nations fisheries agreement, instead of referring to reasonable grounds. Some will say I am splitting hairs here. This is not my intention but, if we want to make the work of lawyers easier, I believe that in dealing with an international treaty special attention must be paid to terminology and format.

The same goes for Motion No. 12. The Bloc Quebecois proposed these motions in order to bring the terminology used in the bill in line with that found in the agreement.

I will now comment on Motions Nos. 10 and 13 put forward by the Reform Party.

Motion No. 10 also concerns clause 4 and relates to terminology. They replace “with the consent of that state”, that is the flag country of the offending vessel, with “with the consent of the Minister”, which would enable the Minister to decide what he will do. Same thing in Motion No. 13 I believe.

It is very difficult. I will read immediately Motion No. 14, put forward by the NDP member who spoke earlier. With respect to clause 8, he asks through this motion—and this was the subject of his first speech this afternoon—that: a ) has not responded within forty-eight hours after a notification was given to the state under subsection (2); or

It is the 48-hour concept the NDP member would like to change.

I have a big problem when I listen to what Newfoundlanders, NDP members and all other members are saying. Everybody seems to want to protect our fisheries, and that is fine. They are right when they say this agreement on fisheries does not have enough teeth. The point the NDP member is making in Motion No. 14 says a lot. I do not want to create any panic, but I want to show if I may the new weapon the fishery officer will now have to use when he boards and inspects a vessel.

Try to imagine a fishery officer boarding a ship. He will wear a uniform, he will have a handgun on one hip, but what will he have on his other hip, under the regulations? His new weapon is here, a cellular phone. He will need a phone to enforce this agreement.

From now on, he will not be allowed to board and inspect a fishing vessel without first notifying the country of the vessel caught in the act. Gun in hand, he will have to ask “Okay, wait a minute. What is the phone number of your government? I have to call your prime minister to ask for his permission”. That is what we have in this agreement.

In a more serious mode, I am sure members understand the problem I have. I come from a fishing community, and I want to protect our fisheries, like all other members here. This is what we did with Bill C-29, when international law did not cover this.

There was the Estai episode in 1995 and, oddly enough, it is in 1995 that the UN fisheries agreement was drafted, and Canada was actively involved in that agreement. But what do we want to do exactly? Today, the House is not being asked to protect fisheries, but to agree to implement the UN fisheries agreement.

I did not negotiate this agreement. I hear members say that it is not strong enough. Is this the proper forum to discuss it? I do not think so. We will have to go back to Rome with DFO drafters, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, because we are being asked to comply with the agreement in its entirety.

This means the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believes it is the best tool in the world. Now it recommends “the new best tool in the world”, as our Prime Minister would say, to its fishery officers, saying “Now, you must have a phone because that is the way that, at the international level, it was decided to proceed when you want to board and inspect a boat or when you have serious reasons to believe that someone did something illegal with regard to fishing”. But the proper forum to talk about it is at the international level.

If it is really to protect fisheries, and we all agree to say “We are strong and we try to have it our way like this”, let us stick with Bill C-29. However, if Canada is now ready to sign such an agreement, it may mean that Bill C-29 is not enough at the international level.

We have to find allies. People have to understand that fisheries need to be protected. Foreign countries must streamline their fisheries as we did on the east coast and on the west coast too. If we want to stop our stocks from being depleted, we have to ask people not to help themselves to our food locker. But we also have to understand that people need time. A way to increase public awareness through international diplomacy is to implement a fisheries agreement.

According to what I have heard here today, the proposed agreement would not be enough. If people really want strong tools, this agreement will not be enough. I would expect that when the House returns on the Tuesday following the Easter break, all the parties in the House will not agree to let Canada sign the agreement, because we really want stronger tools.

The main point here, that tool in question, is a telephone given to fisheries officers, who have to contact the foreign countries involved and give them three days to respond. It is as if the telephone service in these countries did not allow them to respond any faster.

If we want to live in an international law environment, and I think we must educate people about this, we may have to set aside our desire to get tough internationally and try this mediation, have the agreement ratified; once covered by this agreement, we could then try to find some way of incorporating into it the stronger measures requested by the hon. members, but if we want firm measures now, this agreement should not be ratified.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with an international law system. We will support the United Nations fisheries agreement, but we do not agree with Bill C-27, which I believe completely misses the mark and fails to respect the spirit and the letter of the agreement. By trying to keep two pots on the boil, Canada might miss the boat.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke spent a lot of time talking about cell phones. We on this side of the House believe in using all available technology in the interest of protecting our fishermen, fishing communities and fishery resources.

I want to deal specifically with the question that the member for St. John's West, a member of the NDP and the member opposite raised about the consent requirement in section 7.01. I will outline it in some detail in the hope that before third reading they will see the good logic in it, understand that there is not a problem as a result of section 7.01, understand that their concerns are being taken care of, and be able to come into the House and support the bill in its totality.

The consent requirement in section 7.01 is there for a legal reason. International law requires that consent of the flag state be obtained in the circumstances described in section 7.01.

Section 7.01 deals with a very narrow situation. It deals with the situation where a foreign vessel is spotted in Canadian waters and there is reason to believe that it has committed a violation in Canadian waters. For some reason Canadian enforcement officials are unable or were unable to follow the vessel in hot pursuit when it escaped from Canadian waters to the high seas.

In such a specific situation international law requires that the flag state's consent be obtained if Canada wants to board the vessel on the high seas, if it is spotted there later. In other words, if there is not a hot pursuit or the pursuit is broken, Canada cannot simply board that vessel on the high seas two days later, for instance, without the flag state's consent. This would be contrary to international law.

The hon. member's proposed amendment would be contrary to the international law as reflected in UNFA. We should understand it is only in that specific instance where that occurs. We certainly want to abide by international law.

I want to deal with the government amendments to the bill as a result of the standing committee's discussion that we think improve it substantially. Bill C-27, in the final analysis, will enable the Government of Canada to implement the agreement. The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act which is necessary before the agreement can be ratified.

Once this is done and Canada has implemented the agreement, we will have an important tool for protecting straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Specifically Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18, which are government motions, are necessary and were decided as a result of the discussions in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The proposed amendments are to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill. Clause 11, which amends sections 18.01 and 18.02 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, provides for procedural rules applicable to prosecutions and to the collection of fines where the vessel is the defendant as opposed to a person. UNFA contemplates actions against vessels, not against persons.

New sections 18.01 and 18.02 will enable the crown to institute proceedings and collect fines against vessels rather than persons. This is what is sometimes referred to in maritime law as an in rem procedure. These two procedural rules were meant to apply to pursuits and collection of fines from all vessels including vessels that are stateless.

Clause 12 of the bill proposes an amendment to section 18.01 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This amendment provides that whenever an enforcement officer exercises power under this act on the high seas, as described in Bill C-27, the rules provided by criminal law, including those contained in the Criminal Code, apply to the enforcement officer's actions.

A good example of the application of this provision is the protection that the Criminal Code offers to enforcement officers when using reasonable force in the exercise of their duties. It is to protect our officers who are doing work for Canada and for its fisheries.

This section is amended by Bill C-27 to apply to situations where enforcement officers exercise powers in relation to vessels of state party to UNFA or to other relevant fisheries treaties. Stateless vessels should have been covered in this provision, and the government's proposed amendment will ensure that it covers stateless vessels. Therefore I encourage all members of the House to support Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18.

With regard to the other motions in Group No. 4, we will be opposing those particular motions. In the time remaining I will try to get through them.

The first two amendments proposed by the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, provided in Motions Nos. 8 and 12, seek to substitute the term “reasonable grounds” currently used in Bill C-27 for the term “clear grounds” used in UNFA.

Bill C-27 uses the term “reasonable grounds” for good reason. This standard has been tested in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has obtained approval from Canada's highest court. It is equivalent to the standard of clear grounds used in UNFA. I therefore would urge the House to understand this reasoning and to vote against the proposed change submitted by Motions Nos. 8 and 12.

I would now like to comment on the amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 10 and 13 tabled by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which really refer to the point raised earlier on 7.01.

Both motions seek to substitute the consent of the minister for the flag state's consent prior to exercising certain powers. Flag state consent in the situations described in Bill C-27, for example, sections 7.01 and 16.2, is required under international law, which I explained a moment ago. To do otherwise would be contrary to international law and Canada's obligations under the United Nations fisheries agreement.

Finally, I would like to address the one amendment proposed by the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in Motion No. 14 with respect to Canada's obligations under UNFA to implement a three day waiting period before taking any further enforcement action once on board the vessel of a state party to UNFA. Adopting a shorter time period, as proposed by Motion No. 14, would put Canada in breach of its international obligations. We certainly do not want to do that. We want other countries to abide by the agreement and we should ourselves.

The government intends to prescribe the three day period in the regulations to be made under Bill C-27. It would not be practical to specify this period in the bill itself because if this period was shortened we would have to amend, yet again, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The proposed amendment would, therefore, not only be impractical, it would be contrary to the United Nations fisheries agreement. For these reasons I would urge the House to vote against Motion No. 14.

I encourage all members of the House, in order for us to move ahead and continue to provide the leadership that we have been providing with regard to fisheries around the world, to support the government amendments I have talked about, Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18, and reject the others I have mentioned for the reasons outlined.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to be put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the motions at report stage of the bill now before the House are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. so that we could proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary has asked for unanimous consent that the House see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. Is their unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill and to discuss an issue that is important to many Canadians, the human rights issue in Canada. Although I am not convinced it is the proper way to address the issue, it at least raises the issue of human rights. Often a discussion of it and the debate that surrounds this kind of important issue helps to not only educate members of parliament, but also to make sure that we put it on the front burner instead of the back burner here in the House.

I am disappointed that this bill originated in the Senate. As usual, anything that comes from the Senate is a little tainted in the sense that it did not come from elected representatives, those chosen by the electorate. Those people are chosen by prime ministers, and that is unfortunate. We might say that the party with convictions is over there. Unfortunately, the Senate is not the place to originate bills. Bills should come from the House of Commons, from both government and opposition benches.

Bill S-11 has good intentions. The bill is intended to add social condition as one of the designations in the charter of rights that cannot be discriminated against. I believe that the intention of the bill was to make sure that poor people are not discriminated against. That is what it amounts to.

While a lot of legislators may feel they are looking after the poor by adding social condition as one of the listed items in the charter, I do not believe this technical listing is going to add another red cent or look after the needs of the poor at all, if that is the intention. I do not believe it will change the personal situation of the hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people who have the greatest needs in this country.

It almost makes a mockery of the real solutions to helping poor people by easing the conscience of legislators who say “Maybe if we just put this into the legislation then the poor people will go away and we will not have to worry about the situations that are causing the poverty and the distress for families and so on”. That is almost worse than nothing. Then it means that instead of putting together taxation laws and actions and creating a society that gives poor people the greatest opportunities, we somehow ease our conscience by putting a word in the charter. I do not believe that will help people in the long run.

I believe the Liberals have actually hurt the poor over the past years. With their pay more, get less budgets they have gutted health care without providing an alternative for most people. They have hiked taxes to the tune of billions of dollars. They now take $39 billion to $40 billion more out of the economy than they did a few years ago. There is the usual waste in government. We have been talking in the House over the last while about the decline in the standard of living, the decline in productivity and the decline in opportunities for Canadians, as well as the tax discrimination against single income families.

Often some of the poorest families in the land are the single income families and this government has chosen not to address that taxation discrimination. It found itself before the United Nations in a rather embarrassing situation trying to justify why its tax laws discriminate against single income families.

Poverty is not just a children's issue, it is not just a single income family issue, but it certainly does affect entire families. People are not poor in isolation. Often they are poor due to a whole set of circumstances.

Lowering taxes is one way to help those who are poor. That is not just putting words in the charter, that will actually help people. If we allowed them to increase their personal deductions, a proposal put forward by the Reform Party, we would actually put more money in their pockets, which would allow them to make the decisions that would help them out of the poverty trap.

Our proposals to end bracket creep and reduce taxes by some $26 billion over the next three years would help poor people the most. They would take poor people off the tax rolls altogether. That is what should happen.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley.