House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was problem.

Topics

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Justice Gomery himself said that his terms of reference were more than sufficient, that he had all the authority he required in order to shed light on the entire sponsorship program and to determine who was at fault.

I would suggest, as I did to the Conservative member for Peterborough, that he should actually read the report. I do understand that it is long and it does have a lot of long, difficult words, but members of the Conservative Party might have an interest in actually reading the report.

Another fact is that the Prime Minister's Office and the sitting Prime Minister has refused to date to publicly issue all of the supporting documents that will show what exactly was done with the correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber to him.

It is a fact that under the Liberal government, more documents were released by PCO and PMO than--

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute so in quick response to the latter part of my hon. colleague's dissertation, the reason that the sitting Prime Minister of Canada has not done anything in terms of releasing anything, he never saw any letters from Mr. Schreiber.

As the Prime Minister himself said, it is incredulous to believe that anyone, even though I know the members opposite have a lot of difficult times understanding things like ethics, would think that a person like Mr. Schreiber, who is facing extradition proceedings and has been for the last eight years due to charges of fraud, forgery and tax evasion, would actually send a letter to the Prime Minister that would be read by the Prime Minister.

With respect to the Gomery commission, I know people who have read it and they are called the Canadian public. That is the reason that the party opposite is no longer on this side of the House because people understood what the Gomery commission said and that is why those members will forever be banished to opposition.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to follow up on a performance like that, but I will begin by saying that I want to bring up the issue of the recent NAFO convention that took place in Lisbon, Portugal. I think it is of grave concern not only to me but also to others across the country and certainly for the Atlantic coast given the situation that it is under and given the previous commitments by the government.

Let me focus for a moment on the incorporation of an effective enforcement mechanism because it did not depend solely on the flag state action to provide for removal from the fishery of vessels that break the NAFO conservation rules. The model for such a mechanism already appeared in the United Nations fish agreement of 1995.

I have one question only. Would the minister explain to the House the specifics in the new proposed NAFO convention that strengthens the United Nations fish agreement? If he could touch upon that it would be greatly appreciated.

There is another thing that is of concern to many. It is something that we have not seen before in this type of convention in years gone past, at least since the late 1970s since it was devised. I want to zero in on one particular element of this particular convention and it is article VI, paragraph 10. I ask this as a point of interest because there does not seem to be a clear answer from the media reports that we are getting.

It allows NAFO to intrude on Canadian sovereignty, if requested by Canada, to monitor any actions taken by Canada in its management and conservation of a stock or group of stocks with respect to fishing activities conducted within the area under its national jurisdiction. This would include the catch and quota regulations, including the foreign quotas that would apply inside Canadian waters up to and including the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Public statements were made by the minister, going back to August 11 in The Telegram, in St. John's, where he said, “Canada will only accept a NAFO convention that clearly defines that the regulatory authority of NAFO is only on the high seas.”

It begs the question, why has Canada agreed to allow NAFO inside Canada's EEZ, inside the 200 miles, and what set of circumstances does the minister see that he would feel it necessary to request NAFO inside the 200 miles, and if he has no intention of inviting them in, why is this clause in the convention?

We have two questions at hand. The first one deals with the agreement of 1995 and just how much teeth the government plans to put into that when it comes to flag state nations, but the other issue which really baffles me is the situation where under what circumstance would the minister invite other members of NAFO inside our 200 mile exclusive zone?

7:20 p.m.

St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador

Conservative

Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure talk to my hon. friend. I have been fairly worried about him lately when I see him wandering around his riding, campaigning with a Conservative provincial member and the next day I see him going around, hand in hand, with an NDP member who is on a journey of obstruction. I am really beginning to worry about him. I am glad to see he is here tonight focused on his work.

The hon. gentleman, as I told him when he raised the question in the House, has been concentrating too much on issues outside his realm of responsibility. He has to stop listening to people who are not involved in the process, people who have their own opinions on what should be done or what was done. If we look at the results of what was done years ago, we paid a very heavy price.

A few years ago, when I was in opposition, when I was the critic and when I was a member of the standing committee, we set out to change NAFO and to give some teeth to the organization so we would have control over the fish, not only within our 200 mile limit but on the continental shelf.

The hon. gentleman questioned the fact that we had committed to custodial management and he said that we did not do it. We went to NAFO last year, not with the people with whom he has been speaking, but with representatives of industry, who I suggest he talk to, and with the commissioners to NAFO, one of them being the head of the biggest union in the country, the person responsible for every fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador or, I would say, 98% of them.

Maybe the member should talk to those people. Maybe he should talk to the many representatives of industry who were affected and ask them what they did at NAFO. They gave NAFO teeth whereby we Canadians could ensure we managed what happened on the nose and tail by having our surveillance out there, boats out there ensuring that our fishermen could catch their own and that the others live by the same rules. These boats, under the jurisdiction of the former government, were tied up to the wharf in St. John's with not enough fuel to go to sea.

On top of that, not only did we do it last year but we went back this year, as I told my hon. friend, and we solidified the changes in the convention.

In relation to custodial management, let me quote what custodial management is. It is trying to get the same kind of management system or regime in place outside the 200 mile limit as we have inside. I think for most of us who have weighed in on the custodial management argument over the years, this is basically what we are pursuing. We are pursuing the same type of management regime outside as inside.

If we could get all contracting partners of NAFO to fish under the same system, especially one that was acceptable to Canada, then we pretty much would be where we wanted to go. That is, word for word, exactly where we are. Does my colleague know who said that? It was said by the member for Burin, Burgeo, St. George's.

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, actually that is the member for Random—Burin—St. George's. If one does not venture outside of the Avalon Peninsula, one probably would not know that.

I would like the minister to stick to the issue. If he wants to go into rhetoric, that is fine. Whatever he chooses to do is up to him. However, to compile the rhetoric of the years. He is a member who while in opposition called NAFO everything but effective. He mused openly about the fact that it should be gotten rid of.

What I do not understand is this and I will illustrate this with a story. During the last election campaign, my father received a flyer on his doorstep from the Conservative Party of Canada, which stated that it would extend the 200 mile zone under--

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, what was committed was that we would stop foreign overfishing and we did it in spades.

Let me get back to the member's earlier question because it was a legitimate one. He asked if Canada had relinquished any sovereignty. Absolutely not. What we have done is strengthened our presence on the world stage. Maybe he should read more of the document, not the clauses outlined by his friends.

Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of Contracting Parties under the 1982 Convention [UNCLOS] or the 1995 Agreement [UNFA]. This Convention shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with the 1982 Convention and the 1995 Agreement.

Our sovereignty is guaranteed by UNCLOS. Why would we invite someone in, maybe to do science which is extremely important--

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:29 p.m.)