Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his continuing interest in this matter.
I support wholeheartedly any measure that would improve the viability and the conservation of fish stocks inside and outside the 200 mile limit.
However, I believe that even with custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish cap, we will not solve the overfishing problem. I am not the only one to think so.
Custodial management, whether the initiative is unilateral or results from negotiations, would be problematic and difficult to enforce and many believe that it would even be contrary to the interests of Canada.
Any unilateral initiative in that direction would run into strong opposition from countries who fish outside the Canadian 200 mile limit. The international community would consider it to be contrary to customary law and it could bring about some serious judicial, political and even military consequences.
Furthermore, this proposal would be costly. Canada would have to pay for new scientific activities, monitoring and law enforcement operations in a much larger area of the ocean.
We would also have to look at the possibility that some countries would ignore the extension of Canada's jurisdiction or oppose it. We would have to spend considerable amounts of money to defend ourselves before international courts in the event of prosecutions by other countries.
It would be just as difficult to have custodial management in the context of negotiations, which is the second possibility for putting such a policy and such a management in place. Once again, the international community would strongly oppose it.
Custodial management would hurt Canada's interests on another important level. This initiative would greatly diminish Canada's influence on the international level, as well as its ability to bring about positive changes within international organizations such as NAFO.
Whether opposition members like it or not, Canada shares the oceans with other countries. We must effectively promote conservation and sustainable management of oceans. Custodial management would considerably diminish our ability to voice our concerns, that is the concerns of our Canadian fishers, and to improve the way our stocks are managed. Canada must remain at the decision making table if it wants to ensure a bright future for the fishing community.
This does not necessarily mean that fish management in high seas must not be improved. However, the work done in the recent by DFO and the hon. minister gives me hope that we can improve the situation.
For example, in 2002, the department put forward Canada's position at meetings with NAFO countries. Canada closed its ports to fishing vessels from the Feroe Islands and Estonia, because they did not abide by the regulations. We also announced a new approach to banning offending vessels that fish in the NAFO regulated area from accessing our ports.
In February of this year, experts gathered at a round table to analyze various options for improving conservation and management of straddling fish stocks. In June, the minister reported to his North Atlantic counterparts on Canada's grave concerns about non-compliance with regulations and on the need to unite their efforts in order to find solutions.
Finally, this September, Canada made important progress at the NAFO meeting in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
Outcomes of this meeting included the drafting of a long term conservation and restocking plan for the Greenland halibut, adoption of a pilot project on compliance and increased conservation measures and enforcement of NAFO regulations.
And that is not all. This year, Canada has embarked upon a series of bilateral consultations with most of our NAFO partners, insisting on the urgent need for vessels to comply with NAFO rules, and encourage governments to take action against those who do not obey.
In addition, Canada continues to collaborate closely with other countries to achieve ratification of the United Nations Fish Agreement, the UNFA. When it is ratified, this agreement will become a precious tool to compel fishing countries to comply with very rigorous standards of conservation and respect for regulations.
In the longer term, the DFO is redefining its strategic orientation in order to make important changes and give Canada the means to influence NAFO's orientation in the years to come. A working group of advisers from the provinces and industry has been established to analyze options and define the strategic orientation.
These measures show clearly that the Government of Canada takes this issue very seriously. They also show that we are able to work—and work well—with our partners at home and abroad to make substantial improvements in the management of open ocean fish stocks.
Establishing a custodial management strategy in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is not a realistic solution and will not serve the best interests of Canada nor the best interests of our fishers.
Canada has every reason to improve the situation through collaboration and concerted efforts with its international partners.
That is why I cannot support the hon. member's bill, although I congratulate him on his efforts.