House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hst.

Topics

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:05 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

It is very important for us. It is very important for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as for Quebeckers. It is a question of sovereignty. It is important not only for the east coast of Quebec, the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Maritimes; it is important for the entire country. It is very important for Canada, for all of us.

Therefore, I want to ask him about the situation the Conservatives have put themselves in by bringing this forward in the House, to vet this particular agreement or these particular amendments.

Yet the result of this may prove to be very little; much ado about nothing, unfortunately. The will of the House, we hope, will dictate that this agreement is not good for Canadian sovereignty. Yet the charade by the government has been to put this into the House of Commons despite what happens.

We have been through this now for two and a half years and we finally have a vote here in the House of Commons.

I want to congratulate my colleagues, as I have done for my colleague from the Bloc. Félicitations, indeed. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, for bringing it here.

That being said, with the result of this particular vote, does the hon. member feel that the Conservatives have let down not only the côte est du Québec et Terre-Neuve aussi, but also this particular House and its will to do what is right for sovereignty in this country, not just for the fishermen but for this country and its sovereignty?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:05 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and comments. I will add some myself for the people of Quebec. We did not see any grand gestures by Premier Jean Charest or even the minister responsible for fisheries when it comes to this file, but not because no one is interested.

As I was saying earlier, I represent a riding in Quebec and even though I might not represent the entire province of Quebec, when I appear before members of the committee or when I speak here, I am speaking on behalf of Quebeckers. What we have on the table is far from satisfactory and it may harm the fishing industry and Quebec fishers.

What is the Conservative government's interest in pressing the matter? It is simple common sense. How can a Conservative government renounce a former Conservative minister who says that what he did was well done, that the result is good and we have to ratify it? I believe that this is purely a matter of solidarity, but solidarity also has to rest on principles. We do not stand in solidarity for just anything. If we did, we would accept the new version just because people tell us it was relatively well done.

I recognize that a lot of work has been done, but it is time to go back to the drawing board.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:05 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

My colleague has referred to industry in Quebec. I know he has an interest in standing up for the fishing industry, and certainly in his own province. I know he is interested in these issues when they come before committee.

I am curious to know what he thinks the motivation of industry representatives from the province most affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, would be if they supported these amendments. What would be their motivation for coming before committee?

The member is giving the impression that it is just the ones who went and negotiated this and that they have some obligation to support this because they negotiated it. Let me just remind him of some of the testimony that we heard at committee.

For example, Patrick McGuinness, president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the standing committee:

—in terms of what we're looking at now, from the Fisheries Council of Canada's point of view we do not see any tangible negatives in the document. But we do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime.

He went on to say, “Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented”.

Bruce Chapman, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, told the committee, “In our view, it is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.

Now this is industry speaking. Does he recall those and why he—

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I will just stop the member there to allow more questions.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

December 7th, 2009 / 9:10 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to raise another point that I did not have a chance to mention in my speech.

I heard those comments. But at the same time, I did not necessarily hear everything about how people in the industry see what we have. I remember that I said I was willing to hear everyone who was involved in the issue. I felt that the people who appeared before the committee at the invitation of the NDP, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party were their best argument. But we have to be careful when someone comes to testify and gives us their opinion, because it is only one opinion among many. Just because a group of industry representatives or a single industry member tells us that the document is fine or that they could live with it, that does not mean that we should automatically take it as gospel. There are questions that need to be asked of the people concerned, and we asked those questions. Unfortunately, the answers were somewhat evasive.

Did the people who testified have a vested interest? I am not doubting their sincerity, but I believe that the testimony we heard and especially the answers to our questions were unsatisfactory because they were not detailed enough.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, would the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, as an experienced member of this House and certainly the fisheries committee, like to comment on the fact that we have had four very senior former officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a deputy minister, Bill Rowat, an ADM, Scott Parsons, a director general of International Relations Bob Applebaum and Earl Wiseman, another director general of International Affairs, between them 45 years of experience at that senior level of the department, all came out and resoundingly urged the committee and Parliament to reject the document?

Does he find that surprising? Does that tell us anything about this situation?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:10 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, that did surprise me because I had questions about it from the start, questions about whether the agreement in question, which was negotiated in 2007, might be a bad thing. In fact, I agreed that this organization, which I did not think had proven its worth, could be improved. I found that possibility interesting. When I first heard about those people's testimony, with all of their experience, I realized that something was up, that there was no smoke without fire and that we had to look into things.

I was really very interested in hearing what they had to say, and they were extremely convincing. Fishers from Newfoundland and Labrador, who told us the same thing, were also convincing. That is why, when people have worked in a department and held positions as senior as they did, nobody insists that they swear on the Bible. I think those people were all very sincere and convincing.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak in the continuation of this debate, a debate which was shut down the other day by the government for some mysterious reason. I guess it did not want the people listening to it to hear the full debate on the issue of the ratification of the amendments to the NAFO convention.

We are in a concurrence debate. In other words, a motion from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is before the House. The committee recommends that the government not ratify these amendments to the NAFO agreement and that it notify NAFO of its objection to the amendments, as per an article of the convention. That would effectively shut down these changes, which are regarded by most people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and many others who appeared before not only the fisheries and oceans committee but also before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, it being an international convention, as wrong. The objections brought forward were substantial and important.

At the outset, this is a very sad story. We are dealing with is an example of a failure and an unwillingness by Canada, as a nation, to take decisive action in an international area for the sake of conservation and protection of our fish stocks and, indeed, a continuation of our own sovereignty. This goes back to the operation of NAFO over many years.

There was an attempt to control outside of the 200 mile limit the action of nations and to protect the fish stocks and have a regime that offered the protection of the stocks but, at the same time, an enforcement of the rules among the nations. It was highly unsuccessful to the point there was continuous overfishing, there was a failure to report catches, there were bycatches being caught on more species under moratorium, essentially, directed fishing of moratorium species under the guise of bycatch.

Some will remember, and those in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly will remember, the turbot war of the mid-1990s and the arrest of the Estai by the Government of Canada, which led to an international incident, the bringing of the ship into Canada and the arrest of that ship and charges. That eventually led to some changes in NAFO, but the changes came at a cost because Canada had to give up turbot quota in order to get greater enforcement mechanisms. That has been the story of NAFO over the years.

Canada is a coastal state, the one that suffers the most from many activities that go on, particularly overfishing in the offshore. Yet in order for us to build a regime that protects the stocks, we end up having to give away quota.

The response to all of the negative things in NAFO was the development of a concept called custodial management. That was debated for a number of years, starting in Newfoundland and Labrador, but later adopted unanimously, in 2005, by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House, which travelled all over the Atlantic and heard from a large number of witnesses, and came back with a unanimous report to the House.

My colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, was a member of the committee. I believe the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte was a member of the committee as well. In fact, the former minister of fisheries, Loyola Hearn, was a member of the committee. They came forth with the unanimous recommendation that we should have custodial management.

This was a part of the plan and promises of the Conservative Party when it sought to be elected and then was elected in 2006.

The expectation then was that Canada would proceed to develop the concept of custodial management, which I think is a very simple concept. The custodial state, Canada, would manage the stock for the benefit of the stock itself and for all parties that had an historical interest in that stock. That would respect the rights of other nations. At the same time, it would put in place a regime, and this is an advancement of international law.

Those who are rather conservative in their thinking would say that we cannot do things like that, but we actually can. International law is something that changes and advances with time, particularly in areas such as environmental protection and conservation, and Canada should have pursued that course.

Instead, what the government and the minister did was pursue the old notion of incremental changes to NAFO. If all they did was break another promise, fail to take decisive and significant action, that would be sad enough, but they have gone the other way and in fact made things worse. That is the opinion not just of me, but of many people who testified before the committee and were active in the industry.

I have, for example, a letter from Ray Johnson, the chairperson of the Community Linkages Concept Committee. He who wrote the minister recently complaining about the amendments and asking the government not to support them.

We heard from the Fisheries Community Alliance, a group from Newfoundland and Labrador, headed by Gus Etchegary and others who have very strong views and a lot of knowledge and experience in the fisheries. They are very forceful in their objections to this treaty.

We know the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has stated strong objections having heard the arguments at a certain point. This is true to say. I see the parliamentary secretary looking through his papers to find a letter to read out in a few minutes. There was a point when the Newfoundland government supported the negotiations, but not after hearing the arguments, in particular the arguments made by the very senior former officials.

It is almost unheard of for officials to say that they think this is a backward step for Canada, conservation and the whole approach to fisheries management on the offshore. A former deputy minister, a former assistant deputy minister of fisheries and oceans with 20 years experience, two directors general for international affairs, one who negotiated the original NAFO, are extremely senior people. It is almost unheard of for them to actively participate in an objection process such as this.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador said in a press release in September:

I am convinced that the proposed amendments could be detrimental to the ability of our country to protect and conserve our fishery resources inside of our own 200-mile limit...Despite assurances by the Federal Government that the amendment proposed would never be used, we simply cannot as a sovereign nation agree to any wording that opens the door for such action. I am at a loss to understand why Canada would agree to an amendment that was drafted by EU officials to be allowed to proceed. Particularly in these times when Canada is dealing with issues of Arctic sovereignty, we cannot as a country in any way allow for the potential of other nations to make decisions about what happens inside of our 200-mile limit.

We heard from officials from Newfoundland and Labrador, former minister of fisheries, Tom Hedderson, who was recently replaced by Clyde Jackman. He has since written the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the last few days reiterating opposition to these amendments.

There are two most objectionable things. The first is the one that allows NAFO nations to make decisions about what goes on inside the 200 mile limit and carry out enforcement. That is with the request and consent of Canada. That is the provision. Nevertheless, it allows for this eventuality. The second provision is where they changed the voting pattern from 50% plus one up to two-thirds in order to make changes. This could include amendments to the convention itself, particularly quotas.

In the post-negotiated period, one of the first actions was the countries voted, including Canada, to reject the scientific evidence and for a quota larger than that which was recommended for strict conservation purposes. We are concerned about this because it is a backward step, one that will be very difficult to fix.

As has been said by the objectors, we will have to live for decades with the consequences of this. One witness said that it would take perhaps 20 or 30 years to try to undo the damage that is being done here. This is an opportunity to reject the ratification of this treaty.

The ratification process is very straightforward. Countries negotiate an agreement and then they have an opportunity to ratify it or not. What is this ratification process for? It is for the country as a whole and for its parliament to have what might be called sober second thought, to look at what was negotiated, to see whether it fits the desires and aspirations of that country, and decide whether to ratify it or not.

We have the right to object. If we object, the amendments are dead. It is as simple as that. We are seeking to have the government exercise that power, to go back to the drawing board, and try to get something better.

Why is it there? Let me put it hypothetically. Many people are interested in the Arctic, including the Europeans. European countries do not have any space in the Arctic. They are very interested as well. What if Canada had sent negotiators off to talk about Arctic sovereignty and negotiate with other people interested in the Arctic, and in some kind of global love-in, decided that we should have a global view of the Arctic, and not only that, that there be a provision that if Canada so desired, the Northwest Passage, which Canada claims to be its own, could be managed by a group of countries under the guidance of some new circumpolar convention?

If those negotiators came back to Canada with that deal, what would the reaction be? I would suggest that any government of Canada would send those negotiators packing as quickly as possible, probably even this government. It would say, “No, we cannot have that. We are not prepared to do it. This is a longstanding position of Canada that we have sovereignty over the Arctic waters and the Northwest Passage. It is not an international passage. It is part of Canada's internal waters”. The negotiators would be rejected. That treaty would never be ratified and that is what we are suggesting here.

How did it get there? Someone said it was in another treaty so we put it in this one. Who suggested it? It was not Canada. It was the EU that suggested it and Canada eventually agreed. It agreed to do something that was a backward step when it comes to custodial management.

Bob Applebaum suggested that if they had even done it the other way and suggested that if the other nations agreed, Canada could manage the stocks outside of the 200-mile limit in the interests of all the parties because we are a coastal state. That would be a step toward custodial management. That would lay the groundwork for Canada to be the protector of these fish stocks because we are the ones with the biggest interest in protecting them and we would be in a position then to take positive steps, but that is not what happened. In fact, we have taken a backward step.

Other people who testified before the committee included Les Dean, a former deputy minister of fisheries and aquaculture for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and David Vardy, another former deputy minister of fisheries and aquaculture for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These were very compelling and persuasive witnesses who have a storehouse of knowledge about what has happened in NAFO and how it has affected Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. They gave a lot of evidence about the nature of custodial management and how it would work. They are very distinguished public servants from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We did have witnesses on the other side. There is no question about that. The government negotiators came forward. The committee had people from the Department of Justice talk about this, and Foreign Affairs in particular, but their arguments were these father knows best arguments, I would call them, that “Everything is all right. Just because that provision is there about interfering with our sovereignty, we would never use it. We just put it in there. These countries are now changed. The whole world has changed”.

Between 2003 and 2008, the quotas for turbot were exceeded by an average of 30% each and every year, and now all of a sudden these countries have changed and there is now a much greater interest in conservation.

I do not know who got saved or who got religion about this because it was not happening two, three or four years ago, and the provisions for enforcement here are really no greater than they were before. If parties object to a quota being set, they still have the ability to continue to fish the quota set by themselves until the end of that fishing season, and there is really no significant penalty for anybody failing to abide by the provisions and the quotas that are set by NAFO.

This is a pretty important treaty when it comes to the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a treaty which can hurt over the next number of years by failing to ensure that we have the kind of regime that we need. We will not have the means and the mechanisms any more to insist on the proper protection of the stocks. We are not going to have the kind of protection that we actually need.

Let me read from a letter to the Prime Minister from these four individuals: Bill Rowat, Scott Parsons, Bob Applebaum and Earl Wiseman, the officials in question. It says:

We agree the existing NAFO Convention is out of date and should be amended to strengthen its provisions to make the organization more effective in achieving its conservation objections and to reflect current international law. However, we believe the current set of amendments fall far short in this respect, while creating substantial new problems which will, in fact, weaken the organization and also undermine Canada's ability to maintain sole control over fisheries management in the Canadian 200-mile zone.

They say further on in the letter:

We agree with Premier Williams that the proposed amendments are flawed. Further, in the long run they will not only weaken Canada's position in NAFO but more importantly Canada's position in any future arbitration or in any future reference to the Law of the Sea Tribunal.

That is an extremely important point because the provisions that are in the NAFO treaty will override other more liberal provisions that would protect Canada and allow Canada to act under the Law of the Sea with the NAFO convention with its more restrictive provisions prevailing.

What we have seen is a government that set out with good intentions. I will grant that. The promises that were made were ones that we supported in Newfoundland and Labrador. They reflected the all-party consensus in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans before 2005. There was some very positive feeling in Newfoundland and Labrador that at long last Canada was taking this issue seriously and someone was going to take the bull by the horns and act in the interests of Canadian sovereignty, in the interests of international stocks off our coast, and to provide some protection instead of having the stocks depleted continuously.

We know what the experience of that is in Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1992, there has been a moratorium on one of the largest, hugest biomasses in the world in terms of the codfish. The protein that was able to be produced on an ongoing sustainable basis from that biomass of cod was a gift to the world, a world that is starving for protein. That was destroyed by a failure to properly manage it. We see the same concerns being raised about what is happening outside the 200-mile limit.

This was an opportunity for Canada to take some leadership in the international field and act to protect those stocks, to act in the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada to ensure that there was a possibility for these communities, that for hundreds and hundreds of years not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but as we have heard in Îles de la Madeleine, eastern Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, to continue their rural existence to fish and to continue that way of life.

That is put at risk. We ask and urge the government to reject this treaty. We will wait for a vote in the House and hope it will succeed, and that the government will listen to the will of the House and reject this treaty, file an objection, go back to the drawing board, and see if we can get a better deal.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Mr. Speaker, the hearings that we held on NAFO were interesting. There were many tremendous witnesses on both sides and I thought they gave some very compelling arguments. When Phillip Saunders, dean of law at Dalhousie University, was talking about the 200-mile limit, he had a concern. He said:

I've tried to work through the scenarios in which it would become a real problem, and I find they mostly require an awful lot of steps to take place before something really bad could happen. Because the Canadian government holds complete control.

That was stated by a number of other witnesses who came before the committee as well. They said that nobody could come inside those limits unless they are actually invited by the Canadian government. Nobody could think of a scenario, unless someone was talking about science, for example, needing help. Could the member comment on that?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to. I agree with the hon. member that there were many very interesting witnesses who came forward to this committee. However, one of the scientific principles talked about in conservation was the precautionary principle. I would suggest that the precautionary principle of science in terms of conservation be applied to the activity of this particular convention as well.

We should err on the side of caution. I understand that the professor could not find a scenario, but perhaps he is not as involved in the practical aspects of international trade and the kind of thing that can go on. It will start to go on very quickly, the management of particular resources to a certain degree of sustainability, so as to get access to the European market, for example, and who will make the decisions about what standard applies? The people who are going to make those decisions are the Europeans. They are going to say what standard applies and what can come into their countries. They can use that as a lever to get the kind of control—

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avalon.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from St. John's East a straightforward and pretty simple question. I am wondering if he could reflect on Art May's comments and report that NAFO, at the end of the day, will not work.

Does he see any reason for us to even continue staying within NAFO at the end of the day? Does it work? Will it work? Recently, a decision was made on the Greenland halibut, where the NAFO members accepted a TAC approximately 82% greater than their own scientific council. They are going to have a scientific council making a recommendation to them, but they are not going to listen to the scientific council. Why would it work at all?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, the issue is really how we get from here to there if we are talking about custodial management. NAFO is not going to work. It has not worked in the past, but we have to take a position that is very forceful at the beginning and, in a sense, lay down the law as to what is to be expected and happen.

I do not think that NAFO would work in the long run, but we did hear from Les Dean and David Vardy from Newfoundland and Labrador. They talked about how that process would take several years and probably a few failed attempts to make progress before custodial management would be put in place.

However, this is considered a backward step. In fact, it has been suggested that if we go down this road, it could be 20 or 30 years before we ever get out of this kind of agreement.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:35 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. He talked about the issue of debate being shut down by the government. I would like him to comment further on that. The government side seems to think the member is chirping from his seat. The government is getting used to issues like closure, which it is doing to us today on the HST question. I would like him to comment on that whole issue of why the government would try to shut down the debate.

Second, I would like to ask the member a question about the concept of custodial management. Can he give us some of the elements of that, but also tell us why the government is resisting it?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I was ready to speak on this when the motion was brought forward after the committee passed it. Everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador knew the debate was going to take place; it was all over the radio and in news reports. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor spoke. Then the parliamentary secretary spoke and then sought to shut down debate after three speakers.

Why? The government must have been afraid that too many people would be watching and knew the debate was taking place. It did not make any sense at all for the government to do that.

Custodial management is where the coastal states take on management for the benefit of the stock and the resource while guaranteeing and honouring the historical rights of the people who are entitled to a share. If the other states were not prepared to do so, Canada and the coastal states would do it and enforce it.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few inaccuracies in the comments made by my colleague from St. John's East. Perhaps when some of my colleagues get to speak, they will correct some of those.

The member makes the concept of custodial management sound simple. I know he was not at committee, and so he did not hear the testimony. This is a subject that we actually investigated with international experts. The dean of Dalhousie Law School said that custodial management is a term that has no definition in international law because it is not an accepted concept. He said:

Whether it is a government policy or it's been stated—and I did read the previous testimony of the minister—I can say from an analyst's point of view that if custodial management is what it was said to be by the Senate committee previously, by this committee at one point, and by the legislative committee in Newfoundland in the early 2000s, then no, we haven't achieved that, and we can't.

I am just wondering if the member could point to some kind of international legal precedent he is using to indicate that—

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for St. John's East.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the dean of the law school would have told us 10 or 15 years ago there was no right to intervene in a sovereign state for humanitarian reasons. That has now changed, and it has changed because international law has changed and has developed based on new concepts and ideas of protection of other countries.

The law of the sea in this particular case does not prevent a custodial state from ensuring that an international resource will be protected. The very problem is that the regime that was there was ineffective; it was not working to protect the stocks and someone had to do something about it. That is where custodial management comes from.

No, it did not exist 10 years ago, but it is something that has to be developed and put into place.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about custodial management and, of course, as we know, the Conservative Party made an election promise that it would offer custodial management.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on why they did not enforce in the amendments made to NAFO any of the provisions currently available under some international laws. Why did they not take extra caution in some of the amendments they were making to the NAFO agreement and look at some of the provisions that are available under international law?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure why they did not. We were told by some people that there seemed to be a lot of pressure to come back with a deal or with something. One cannot get a deal, of course, unless the people one is working with are prepared to agree. Apparently they were only prepared to agree with something that said, we would like to go inside your 200 mile limit under certain circumstances, with your permission, as part of our regime. They wanted changes made. The enforcement mechanism was not fully enforceable, and is still not enforceable voluntarily. They just could not agree. The negotiators wanted to come back with something and this is what they came back with.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order.

The hon. member for Saint John.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

The Government of Canada understands the importance of ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic, in particular, for the benefit of the many Canadians and entire communities whose livelihood and economy depend on these resources.

Given that these fish stocks extend to waters outside of Canada's jurisdiction, we cannot single-handedly and unilaterally ensure their conservation. In this context, international co-operation is necessary for the successful management of these fish stocks.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, better known as NAFO, was formed in 1979. A lot has changed since that time. The face of the fisheries has changed, the players have evolved and the organization was badly in need of tune-up, if not a complete rebuild.

Despite knowing the need for NAFO reform, the previous Liberal government did nothing for 13 years. It was only in 2005, in the dying days of their government, that the Liberals turned their attention to this serious problem. The Liberals did what they do best and held a big, showy, international conference in St. John's to discuss reforms. Canadians should know that while the Liberals are now fearmongering on these NAFO reforms, they were singing a very different tune in 2005.

At the conclusion of the St. John's conference, the member for Halifax West, then fisheries minister, felt very differently. In signing a declaration calling for the reform of NAFO and organizations like it, he proudly stated:

The Government of Canada considers the Conference as a positive step toward stronger international fisheries governance. We will continue to press for further progress to modernize fisheries management on the high seas.

Like so many other issues, the Liberals talked a good game, but did nothing to back up their empty words. It took this government, largely under the strong leadership of the former fisheries minister, Loyola Hearn, to deliver.

Our government pressed for action when Canadians voiced their desire for change in 2006 and NAFO members were forced to agree that it was time to modernize the organization. We know we have been forward looking and we need to give ourselves the modern decision-making tools required to deal with the problems we face. This package of reforms does that and has the broad support of those in the fishing industry today.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has heard from numerous representatives of the Canadian fishing industry who are uniformly behind these changes.

Patrick McGuinness, for example, the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the committee:

—in terms of what we're looking at now, from the Fisheries Council of Canada's point of view we do not see any tangible negatives in the document. But we do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime....Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented.

Also Bruce Chapman, president of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council and the executive director of the Canadian Association for Prawn Producers, told the committee, “In our view, it is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.

Ms. Rosalind Walsh, the executive director of the Northern Fisheries Coalition, took the time to write to the committee to express her organization's support for the good work done by our government, “In summary, the amended NAFO Convention is a positive development for Canada and the Canadian fishing industry, and one that is supported by the Northern Coalition”.

There are more. Earle McCurdy, the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, and hardly a frequent supporter of our government, also supports the convention because it will be good for his members in the processing sector.

In fact, we have yet to hear from anyone currently involved in the fishing industry who is opposed to the progress Canada has made at NAFO. This fact should be very telling.

We have heard some questions recently about whether Canada is effectively protecting its sovereign rights under this amended convention. The answer is very clear. The changes to the convention recognize and respect Canada's sovereignty over its 200 mile limit.

It is worth mentioning that the first paragraph of the amendment notes that coastal states have established exclusive economic zones consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within which they exercise sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing living resources.

Nonetheless, the standing committee took the time to invite leading Canadian experts on the law of the sea and ocean governance to discuss the new amended convention. Both gentlemen agreed that the new convention represented real progress in the international management of the North Atlantic and both dismissed the conspiracy theories floated by the opposition.

Ted McDorman, a professor of law at the University of Victoria, told the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans:

By the standards of other organizations, there's actually been some significant progress made here with the NAFO amendments.

He went further and said:

I've looked mostly at the institutional structural issues, and I see there's a positive rather than negative.

Phillip Saunders, the dean of the law school at Dalhousie University, also came before our committee on that same day and stated:

I... tried to look for something that I would consider to be a deal breaker, and I don't think I found one.

He also told the committee that it was difficult to understand the apprehension of the opposition to article VI, paragraph 10, because the government maintains “complete control”. I will quote him further:

I've tried to work through the scenarios in which it would become a real problem, and I find they mostly require an awful lot of steps to take place before something really bad could happen. Because the Canadian government holds complete control....

He went further and said:

I've also tried to think of a possible usefulness for it that the Canadian side might have wanted. One thing I can see is that Canada did want to push for, as an example, a protected area for fishing habitat that straddled the outer limit. This would provide a way of pressing that point and showing good faith, as we want this area, this habitat, protected outside and we want it protected inside, and we're prepared to make it one measure.

Therefore, far from seeing the negatives in the contentious article VI, paragraph 10, leading Canadian experts actually see potential benefits. Indeed, under article VI, paragraph 10, NAFO measures will not be applied in waters under Canadian jurisdiction unless, and I want to be very specific about this, (a) Canada requests that they apply and (b) Canada votes in favour of such measures.

It is clear that the amended convention does not give NAFO the mandate to take management decisions within waters under Canadian jurisdiction, nor does it give foreign fishing vessels the right to fish in these waters.

Fundamentally, the amended convention provides for a more modern decision-making process that reflects the current challenges faced by NAFO. Canadian industry and provincial governments participated extensively in the negotiations on the amended convention and were supportive throughout the process. The amended NAFO convention explicitly maintains the sovereign right of Canada to take management decisions on fisheries within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. To say otherwise would be incorrect.

We will continue to fight for changes at NAFO that are beneficial for Canada and for those Canadians who depend on the resources in the North Atlantic. These amendments will improve the NAFO convention and Canada's ratification will serve to consolidate our efforts to date to improve oceans and fisheries governance internationally.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Saint John and chair of the fisheries committee took the time to read the speech that was provided for him and written for him by the fisheries minister's office. I also want to say that I appreciate the fact he took the time just recently to sign the letter to the editor that was also prepared for him by the minister's office.

I am just wondering about something. The member agrees and said so in the letter to the editor of the St. John's newspaper, which reaches province-wide in Newfoundland and Labrador, that he agrees that the issue is far too complex for Parliament to resolve; that there are issues far outstanding and far exceeding the grasp of his side; and that he agrees that this should be put to an independent outside panel of experts to decide whether or not Canada should ratify the NAFO treaty, because he says that Canada does not have the expertise in this Parliament to be able to decide that, and he agrees that his party and his government does not have the expertise.

Will he commit to an outside independent panel to decide this, as he said he would? Yes or no?

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite flattered that the member opposite has taken the time to listen so carefully to my speech here tonight, and actually to go even further and to talk about the letter I sent to the editor of the Telegram and also, certainly, to take note of the details in it.

I only wish the member had taken that same time and given due consideration to the witnesses who came before our committee. During the committee proceedings when we had a witness who did not necessarily agree with his point of view, he would dismiss him out of hand.

As a matter of fact, during our committee proceedings he interjected at one point in time to say the witness had nothing further to add to the debate and that he thought the committee should end its discussions with the witness and move on to other business.

I am really pleased the member opposite has taken the time to listen, finally.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

9:55 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for his excellent speech. I thought it was an excellent speech, and I am sure my colleagues in the House would agree. He covered some ground.

I want to get him to comment on an aspect that has not been raised so far, or at least has been just barely touched on in this debate on the amended convention. It is the fact that it incorporates precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and decision-making.

I wonder if the member agrees with me that we are in a new era. We have to realize that no country can single-handedly or unilaterally ensure the sustainability of fish stocks, especially the straddling fish stocks, although that appears to be what is being proposed by some members on the other side. These new approaches are explicitly mentioned in the amended NAFO convention, and I wonder if my colleague could comment on them.