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.