Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to follow up on a question that I asked regarding the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization agreement, which has been amended through negotiations involving Canada and the member states of NAFO. It was brought to the House for debate by a concurrence motion on the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
What I first need to say about NAFO is that it is a long-standing organization that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador lost confidence in many years ago. Not only did the people of Newfoundland and Labrador lose confidence in it, but in 2005 there was a unanimous report of the fisheries committee seeking custodial management as an alternative to the very negative experience with NAFO involving overfishing, the breaking of the rules, lack of interest in conservation, and many other problems Canada had in seeking to enforce conservation rules outside of the 200-mile limit and having an expectation that the international community would participate.
The convention was agreed to by the government despite the all-party committee and, in fact, despite all-party support for custodial management, which had no greater champion than Loyola Hearn, who later became the minister of fisheries and oceans in the Conservative government. In the 2006 election, Conservatives promised that they would seek to achieve custodial management. Since then, of course, they have backed off and now support the NAFO amendments.
It has been said by the Prime Minister in the past that there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept. In this case, there was a promise not kept. Instead of supporting custodial management, seeking a regime whereby Canada would enforce the conservation rules in the interests of international law and international obligations for conservation and to make sure that all of the historical rights of other nations were respected while making sure that these laws were going to be enforced, that is not what took place.
We have a situation where backward steps have been taken and we now have a situation where there is no improvement in the enforcement. None of the objectives achieved were identified. It does not provide for effective enforcement. It does not address the objection problem effectively and there are only non-binding solutions.
A number of prominent people, including federal deputy minister Bill Rowat, former provincial deputies Leslie Dean and David Vardy from Newfoundland and Labrador, negotiators for DFO and others have condemned this as a backward step. They do not want it ratified by the government and have in fact filed an objection so that the process can start over again and we can try to seek custodial management, which is what we were promised.
Also, the debate yesterday was shut down by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who I understand is going to speak now, after only two speakers and himself. The members for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor spoke. The parliamentary secretary spoke and the debate was shut down. I was to speak very shortly after that.
There was no chance to speak in Parliament despite a promise by the government that all treaties being entered into would be brought before the House for debate. Instead, it was shut down. Why is that?