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.