Debates of March 25th, 1999

People With Disabilities

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that our government has truly identified disabled people as a priority.

I was very pleased that we released a document prepared jointly with the provinces, to truly help people with disabilities integrate the labour market.

I want to point out that we have given a high priority to the whole issue of employability. I am pleased to inform the House that this morning I signed a bilateral agreement with the Government of Quebec on the employability of disabled people. The agreement was signed today by Mrs. Marois and myself.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past year Canadian lumber companies have been able to ship value added, rougher headed lumber products which are used in the exterior trim and finish of building projects to the United States without paying U.S. duties.

Last week U.S. customs announced that it was planning to reclassify Canadian exports of rougher headed products and subject them to strict quota limitations, thereby putting thousands of jobs in British Columbia at risk.

Will the government commit today to fight this blatant attempt to break international tariff rules and to ensure market access for these important products and protect B.C. forestry jobs?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we already mentioned moments ago in our answer to a question by another member that we will not accept this American ruling. We will challenge it both from within the dispute mechanism system in the softwood lumber agreement as well as consider taking the case directly to the World Customs Organization in Brussels. We are clearly standing for our industry and will not accept this latest attempt by the United States of America.

Transport

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I got such an intelligent, capable answer from the Minister of Industry in the last question I asked that I am tempted to ask him if he would answer all my transport questions from now on. I want to raise the question about the air traffic control tower in Kelowna. I would like him to confirm. The first answer he gave me was such a good one.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to further qualify the answer if the hon. member was satisfied with it except to say I hope that if changes are to be made, they are done by the time I next fly to Kelowna.

[The Speaker]

That would conclude our question period for today. Have a good break.

Business Of The House

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while most Liberals do not know what day it is, it is Thursday. Therefore the hardworking MPs from the official opposition will be heading home to listen to their constituents for two weeks. Before we go would the government House leader tell the House what the business of the House will be when we come back from the two week break?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, this afternoon we are completing the report stage of Bill C-27, the fisheries bill, pursuant to a special order adopted earlier this day. Tomorrow the House will not sit, pursuant to the same agreement.

When the House returns from the adjournment on April 12, it shall take up the second reading of Bill C-71, the budget bill. April 13 shall be an allotted say. On April 14 we will consider third reading of Bill C-27, the fisheries legislation. Although it is still somewhat early, I expect that the business on April 15 will be Bill C-72, the income tax bill.

I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues in the House for their co-operation during the past number of weeks and to wish everyone the best during the two weeks of adjournment.

Points Of Order

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very succinct.

Standing Order 30(5) says that during Standing Order 31 members other than ministers of the crown may make statements. Then with respect to Statements by Ministers Standing Order 33(1) says a minister of the crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. It goes on to say a member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon.

Mr. Speaker is very familiar with those standing orders. The government has taken to using question period for this, depriving us of being able to respond. The example today was the minister announcing the pay raise for privates in the military. I think that should be corrected.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, like you, I enjoy question period and never have I commented on the quality of the question or the quality of the answer. Virtually all questions, unless members use unparliamentary language and providing they go to the administrative responsibility of one of the ministers of the government, will be allowed.

Today and on other days when hon. members have sought the floor seeking information from ministers, very infrequently have I intervened. If the hon. members from the governing party wish to ask their questions in a certain way, they will be permitted to do so. They will be able to get the answers, hopefully, they are seeking just as the members in the opposition parties would be able to do.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today part III of the estimates was tabled. I realize that there are difficulties with massive distribution of bulky documents. However, I have not been able to obtain a copy of those papers. Members of the media have been provided with copies while the majority of members of the House do not have copies. The media want my reaction and I have been significantly disadvantaged by the House distribution system which has been inadequately served by the government.

I want to bring this situation to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Today there is not a satisfactory arrangement to serve the needs of members of parliament.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know the particulars of the case, I will endeavour to find out. If a sufficient quantity was not made available to the distribution branch, as is normally the case, I will raise it with the minister responsible. If it is a matter of actually delivering them to the office only, the member knows he can pick one up himself. That is a matter of distribution and involves only that.

Meanwhile, I intend to ask my own officials to make a copy of the document available to the hon. member immediately.

[The Speaker]

I hope this will satisfy the hon. member. He will have a copy as soon as is feasible.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was some confusion this morning with some as to the interpretation of the special order made earlier this day for the purpose of debate.

I want to clarify that for the benefit of all hon. members by moving the following. There has been consultation among the parties and I think the House would find that this clarifies the situation:

That the special order made earlier this day shall be interpreted as permitting each member to speak separately on each group of amendments as grouped for consideration at report stage of Bill C-27.

In other words, the effect of this would be that once we finish considering a particular group, we could start another group and then a member who has spoken on a previous group could therefore speak again.

That clarification seemed to meet the consent of everyone. Actually most of us had interpreted it as saying that already. Perhaps it was not properly worded to do that.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. House leader have permission to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as clarified?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

While we are all in a good mood, I would ask for the consent of the House to allow members to discuss the four groups during the 10 minutes allocated to them if they wish to do so. I would not object to that.

[The Speaker]

The Chair always gives members the opportunity to say what they want to say during debate, provided of course they stick to the issue at hand.

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington has five and a half minutes remaining.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me as the fisheries critic for the federal NDP to rise in the House to speak about a very important piece of legislation. We do support it although we would like to see accepted a few of the amendments being put forward to make the legislation even stronger.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his expert legal opinion when he offered our committee help. He is a fine member of the Bloc Quebecois. His expertise in helping us draft some of the legislation was greatly appreciated.

There are also three other people I would like to acknowledge publicly who assisted me in deliberations over the bill: Professor Tony Charles of St. Mary's University; Professor Trevor Kenchington from Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia; and Mr. Sam Elsworth of the Sambro fisheries in Nova Scotia who is one of the finest experts when it comes to fisheries management and the international fisheries agreements of Canada.

A former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, once said “The problem with fish is that they swim and that is the problem”. We need international agreements to control, conserve and protect fish stocks so that we can protect not only the thousands of jobs in coastal communities in our country but the millions of jobs in coastal communities around the world.

The member for Vancouver Quadra was correct when he said that the Law of the Sea Convention was enacted in 1982. We are now in 1999 and we have not ratified it. Canada has dragged its heels for 17 years. The reason is that they waited for me to be elected as a member of parliament. Now the legislation is before the House and I greatly appreciate the government and you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing that very simple fact.

Bill C-27, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, was part of an initiative in 1995 when the Estai ship from Spain caught headlines around the world. For the first time in a long time Canada got tough and shot at someone. We did not want to hurt anyone. We just wanted to scare them a bit. The former fisheries minister, the present Premier of Newfoundland, ordered it. He became known as Captain Canada and the hero of Canada. Everyone loved him.

What really happened with the Estai ship? The ship went back to Spain along with all the fish that had been caught. It cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland $110,000 to keep the crew in Newfoundland. I love Newfoundland as much as anyone else.

The eloquent speaker from St. John's will speak on this matter. He would love everyone to go to Newfoundland to visit his province. The only thing is that he will not pay for it. We did. We paid $110,000 through our taxes for the Spanish crew to stay in Newfoundland.

What resulted in the end? We now have Bill C-27, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The parliamentary secretary from the beautiful area of Malpeque, P.E.I., stated quite clearly, although it is not written, that their intention is that Canadian fish caught by Canadian fishermen be processed in Canadian plants. My party and I have been saying that since we got here. As always, a good idea takes a long time before it sinks in. We hope Canadian fish will be caught by Canadian fishermen and women and processed by Canadian workers in Canadian plants.

One of my amendments to the bill will be that fisheries officers, when they realize there is an infraction in our seas, will have to ask permission from the foreign state in order to enact any kind of action.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was incorrect ever so slightly by saying we could not do anything. I know that if officers suspect a wrongdoing, they can board the ship. They have to notify the foreign nation of the action being taken. If I am correct, 72 hours notice is needed for the foreign nation to respond to Canada on exactly what action can or cannot be taken. That is an awfully long time for our peace officers, our coast guard officials or even our military people to be on board a foreign vessel. It is also not clear in the act whether that is 72 hour of business days. What happens on a weekend or a national holiday in the particular country?

My amendment of 48 hours simplifies it and makes it much more clear. It does not state whether it is over a weekend or on a business day. I think 48 hours is enough time to give any nation warning of what Canada plans to do when we suspect illegal fishing in our waters.

I am also glad to note that one of the amendments the parliamentary secretary will be bringing forth concerns stateless vessels. We are very concerned about what Spain, Iceland or any other nation has done when it comes into our waters, but what about those with flags of convenience or stateless vessels? I call them pirates. If I had my way I would not have missed the last time; I would have got them. Every time a foreign vessel comes into our water and takes away tonnes of our fish, they destroy the hopes, the lives and the aspirations of hardworking people in the country from coast to coast to coast.

It is sinful and it is a shame that we have become the laughing stock of the world when we sit back and ask what we can do now. These are Canadian resources and they should be controlled by Canadian management policies in agreement with other nations. I realize we just cannot arbitrarily do it when it comes to straddling stocks and stuff.

I will give the government credit. Effective today, it is starting to talk about it and starting to do it. The problem is that it took so long to get around to it. As I have already explained, I am here now and we will get this problem corrected.

I want to say something to the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans from all parties. I keep saying it is the best committee in the House because we try to work as co-operatively as possible. The member from the Gaspé area is a very constructive member of our committee, along with his colleague who also helped with drafting the amendments. They are very good amendments. We will be reviewing them and deciding in the future whether or not we will be supporting them. In essence, from what we have read up to now, we should have no problem supporting the majority of his amendments.

I look forward to a great Newfoundlander speaking about the problems of the fisheries. It should be a very interesting debate. Hopefully we can all learn something from this wonderful individual.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia who always speaks with such great sense and passion about the fishing industry.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this good piece of legislation which all my caucus colleagues and I will be supporting. I am especially delighted to be speaking on behalf of our fisheries critic, the member for Burin—St. George's, who has become a leader on both the fisheries committee and in the House of Commons on all matters relating to fisheries, especially on conservation and protection.

The member for Burin—St. George's cannot be with us today because his father is in the hospital having some surgery. On behalf of all members, we offer our good wishes to Mr. Matthews, Senior, who is in the hospital today. Hopefully he is doing well.

This act is obviously an act that gets a lot of support from all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has extensive industry support from all sectors. It is a piece of legislation primarily designed to add to our enforcement capabilities, to add to our abilities to protect conservation, to protect the fish off the coast of Newfoundland and to protect the jobs of many Atlantic Canadians who depend on the fishery.

The act is not perfect, and probably no piece of legislation ever is, but it is certainly an improvement. Even though it is not perfect we will be supporting it because we know of the tremendous pressures that have been placed on the fish stocks off the coast of Atlantic Canada. They are badly in need of some protection and certainly in need of enforcement of our present laws.

The fish we are talking about in particular are the migratory species especially on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. They include cod, flounder, turbot, tuna and swordfish. Those are the fish we protect, but the people who depend on the fishery are the people we are really trying to protect in this regard. They are mainly Atlantic Canadians, especially Newfoundlanders, who depend upon the fishery. All Canadians are also well served by protecting this tremendous resource which feeds many of the world's people.

Bill C-27 will have the support of our caucus. However, I want to move an amendment. There is a problem with the act. Yes, it is an improvement over the old act, but there is one very serious gaping fault with the act. The amendment I will propose would change that problem. The act has to be made stronger. I will give a very quick history lesson.

In 1966 in Newfoundland waters there were 266,000 metric tons of cod taken. Although my math may not be great, to me that is well in excess of 532 million pounds or more than a half billion pounds of fish in fishing year 1966. In 1977 through an act of the House of Commons we brought in the 200 mile limit. There was euphoria in Newfoundland; there was joy and bliss. We were finally to have within Canada control of our resource. Everyone thought that there would be more jobs in Newfoundland, that there would be more fish resources and that we would have a very vibrant economy based on that fishery.

In a real short history lesson we went from 532 million pounds of cod in 1966 to zero pounds in a little less than 25 years, in 1992, even with a new fisheries management regime in Canada and even with the 200 mile limit.

Very often during the 25 year period from 1966 to 1990 or so we lost a lot of fish because the fishery was not managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Often the fisheries industry was managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs for trade purposes, the department of external affairs or foreign trade, and a lot of our fish were bargained away and given away.

In particular, with the few short moments I have today I want to move an amendment to subsection 7.01(1). This is the most important part of the act. It gives strength to our enforcement officers.

It reads, as the previous member mentioned:

If a protection officer believes on reasonable grounds that a fishing vessel of a participating state...has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and the officer finds the vessel in an area of the sea designated...the officer may, with the consent of the state, take any enforcement action that is consistent with this act.

In other words, when the enforcement officer finds something that he thinks is seriously wrong, a new set of laws takes place for that and only that act within Canada.

Basically what it says is that if the enforcement officer thinks this person, this vessel or this captain has committed a crime in Canadian waters, the officer must call the home country and get permission to lay a charge. Maybe then the officer will be allowed to lay the charge. Therefore I move:

That section 7.01(1) be amended by removing the words “may with the consent of that state” and “any” and inserting the word “shall” before the word “take”.

In effect I am saying that the enforcement officer, not that he may, not that he might, not that there might be some minister of fisheries as proposed by the member from British Columbia, shall take action consistent with the act.

That will give the enforcement officer at sea exactly the same provisions as RCMP officers and wildlife officers and in effect the same provisions that enforcement officer has in our offshore to lay a charge against a Canadian vessel. He does not have to call the minister of external affairs, the Prime Minister of Canada or the Minister of Justice of Canada to lay a charge against a Canadian vessel. If it is a foreign vessel in Canadian waters, why in the name of God would we want the enforcement officer to somehow call some foreign country to get permission?

Just imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine if this law were in place in Greenland and a Canadian vessel was found overfishing or was suspected of overfishing in Greenland waters. Greenland's external affairs department would call external affairs in Canada who would get in touch with the minister of fisheries. A cabinet meeting would probably have to be called in Canada to get the permission of the minister. If it involved a Newfoundland vessel, the premier of Newfoundland would talk to the federal minister of fisheries and ask the minister not to lay this charge. How in the name of God even in a country as organized, disciplined and democratic as Canada, would you get permission of the state government of the vessel committing the crime?

If we look at it in the absurd, most of these pirate fishing vessels are registered in Panama. Imagine some poor fisheries officer off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland who comes upon a Panamanian vessel. This is what happened with the Estai and others. They are probably from Spain, Portugal or some other country but are registered in Panama. That would be the state we would have to deal with.

Imagine the poor old fisheries officer trying to get hold of Foreign Affairs Canada to get permission from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to call Panama's minister of foreign affairs to get permission to lay a charge off the coast of Newfoundland. It simply would never happen. It could not happen. It would take so long the evidence would be all gone. As a result we would never get a charge laid.

My amendment, which I hope will be supported by all members of this House of Commons, simply says that if a foreigner commits a crime or is suspected of committing a crime in Canadian fishing waters, then he will be treated like any other foreigner who commits any other crime in Canadian jurisdiction. He lives by Canadian law, that a charge be laid by the enforcement officer.

This is so absurd. It reminds me of a police officer in Canada finding a juvenile delinquent breaking into a shopping mall and having to call the delinquent's mom first to see if he can lay a charge.

These fishing vessels off the coast of Newfoundland have devastated our stocks. They have taken us from 532 million pounds of fish in 1966 to no pounds in 1992. We have gradually been bringing it up in the last few years. That protection and enforcement is crucial to the fishing industry and its people in Newfoundland and all of Atlantic Canada.

This amendment is very simple. It gives the enforcement officer the right to enforce a law that is consistent whether you are a Canadian or a foreigner. We are talking about foreigners breaking the law in Canadian waters. From the point of view of Newfoundland and on behalf of my colleague from Burin—St. George's I want to say that if we are going to have a successful fishery in Newfoundland that employs a lot of people, then we certainly need this law changed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member for St. John's West would permit me to interrupt, would you be kind enough to give the amendment to the page so we can bring it forward before your time expires.