David Anderson

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-31, an act respecting Canada Lands Surveyors, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Costal Fisheries Protection Act, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of getting my voice back.

I am actually getting to an interesting part, which is the turbot dispute of 1995.

At a special meeting held from January 30 to February 1, 1995, which marked a substantial discord, a majority of the NAFO members agreed on a sharing arrangement for the total allowable catch of turbot, or Greenland halibut as it is also known.

These decisions divided the total allowable catch in this way: Canada, 16,300 tonnes; the European Union, 3,400 tonnes; Russia, 3,200 tonnes; Japan, 2,600 tonnes; and 1,500 tonnes for other NAFO members. However, that was not enough to save the stocks of turbot.

Shortly thereafter the EU lodged an objection and set its own unilateral quota which was five times higher than the allotted quota of NAFO. Therefore, on March 3, 1995 the then minister of fisheries and oceans, my predecessor, the hon. Brian Tobin, now premier of Newfoundland, announced that the Government of Canada had amended its coastal fisheries protection regulations so that Canada could protect Greenland halibut on the Grand Banks from the Spanish and Portuguese vessels of the European Union. Until that date the regulations had applied only to flags of convenience and stateless vessels.

Hon. members know what happened next. Canada took action under the legislation and on March 9, 1995 seized a Spanish fishing vessel, the Estai , and charged its master under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Fisheries' patrol vessels also cut the net of another vessel.

The inspection of the Estai's hold when it was brought into St. John's showed that the vast majority of the product on the vessel was processed from undersized turbot. The net which the master had cut loose and which Canada later recovered had a mesh size of 115 millimetres, but it had a liner with a mesh size of 80 millimetres, which was 50 millimetres smaller than the NAFO requirement of 130 millimetres for Greenland halibut.

Canadians everywhere, in every province, applauded the action and so did the people of other countries. Canada's strong stand in defence of fish stocks struck a sympathetic chord in other fishing communities right around the world. Especially strong support came from communities in other coastal states that had suffered from foreign overfishing.

We had thousands of telephone calls, faxes and messages of support from outside our borders. In fact, some other European Union countries, such as Britain, France, and of course the Irish, started to fly the Canadian flag as a mark of support.

British parliamentarians urged their government to stand with Canada in the dispute and the British government did take a public stand on the need for tougher enforcement of conservation measures.

The British government also blocked several attempts by other members of the European Union to impose trade sanctions on Canada.

By April 15, which was some six weeks after the seizure of the Estai , Canadian and European negotiators reached a new conservation agreement. Under that agreement a new mandatory fishing enforcement regime would govern all Canadian and European Union vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. The agreement included: independent, full time observers to be on board vessels at all times; enhanced surveillance by satellite tracking; increased inspections and quick reporting of infractions; verification of gear and catch records; timely and significant penalties to deter violators; new minimum fishing size limits; and improved dockside monitoring.

In May 1995 Spanish authorities ordered a Spanish vessel to return to a Spanish port after officials of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans retrieved an illegal net suspected of coming from that vessel. That enforcement action gave us reasons for cautious optimism that the agreement with the EU would be effective.

September 1995 marked another important step. At its annual meeting, NAFO adopted the control measures of the agreement concluded between Canada and the European Community as control measures for all contracting parties effective 1996. They were welcomed as the most rigorous series of measures of any fisheries management organization in the world. At this meeting, NAFO decided to continue its moratoriums on dangerously weakened straddling cod and turbot stocks.

In Saint John's, Newfoundland, in October 1995, Canada hosted the very first meeting of North Atlantic fisheries ministers. This meeting brought together representatives of Canada, the European Union, Ireland, Russia, Norway, the Faeroe Islands, and Greenland.

All participants agreed to implement the cautious approach to fisheries management. They agreed to manage resources with respect for ecosystems. They agreed to restore resources in order to attain optimum yields. They agreed to work together in fisheries sciences. Finally, they agreed to ratify the new UN agreement and to encourage others to do the same.

At the September 1996 NAFO meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, Canada won the right to effectively determine the total allowable catch for northern cod, that is, cod in NAFO regulatory area 2J3KL. The total allowable catch will govern the level of catches both inside and outside the Canadian 200 mile limit.

When the fishery in the NAFO regulatory area is resumed, the NAFO decision will limit catches in the NAFO area outside 200 miles to a maximum of 5% of the total allowable catch. This arrangement must be renewed in the year 2005. This measure ensures that no fishery can commence until Canada sets a total allowable catch.

Unregulated catches of northern cod outside of Canada's 200 mile limit were a contributing factor to the serious depletion of this vital stock.

At the 1996 meeting and again in 1997 NAFO confirmed the moratorium on northern cod as it had for most of the other straddling stocks of cod and flounder on the Grand Banks. This is vital to continue the process of rebuilding these resources. When the northern cod stock rebuilds to the point that fishing can again take place safely, the threat to foreign overfishing will no longer be there as it has been in the past.

In September 1995, following the Canada-EU turbot agreement of the previous spring, NAFO, with the aim of eliminating foreign overfishing, adopted new conservation and enforcement measures.

These measures took effect in January 1996, including a two year pilot program for independent, full time observers on board NAFO member vessels, satellite tracking on 35% of a fleet's vessels in the NAFO regulatory area, as well as mandatory dockside inspections and quick reporting and follow up on infractions. These measures were hailed as the toughest measures of any international fisheries management organization in the world.

Since the new conservation and enforcement measures have been put in place there has been a sharp decrease in the number of infringements by NAFO member vessels. This decrease is an obvious sign that the NAFO enforcement regime has become significantly more effective.

NAFO's implementation of new conservation and enforcement measures was the cornerstone in the recovery of Greenland halibut and other flatfish stocks currently under the NAFO moratorium.

We are now seeing a glimmer of hope for a modest recovery of the 3LNO yellowtail flounder stock which had been under a NAFO moratorium for the last three years. At the 1997 annual meeting NAFO agreed to reopen, subject to a number of conditions, the yellowtail fishery. The TAC, the total allowable catch, was set cautiously at 4,000 tonnes, 97.5% of which was to be fished by Canada. Recovery of that stock is good news for Canadian fishers. I hope that this limited opening signals the beginning of recovery for other NAFO managed stocks.

NAFO's observer program, with 100% coverage in a NAFO regulatory area, is a key element in ensuring the conservation and rebuilding of important groundfish stocks in the northwest Atlantic.

At the September 1997 annual meeting in St. John's, NAFO members agreed to extend 100% observer coverage for another year. It has again been extended and NAFO members will consider implementing 100% observer coverage on a permanent basis effective January 1, 1999. This decision, however, is subject to amendments to improve the current scheme which may reduce cost without compromising the effectiveness of current conservation efforts.

I would like to outline how the UN fisheries agreement, once fully implemented, will act as the main tool to protect from overfishing straddling fish stocks in the waters of Atlantic Canada.

The fisheries agreement contains strict provisions regarding regulatory enforcement on the high seas by member states of the organization responsible for the management of regional fisheries or subregional organizations, such as NAFO.

It states that coastal states and states that fish on the high seas must work together to develop measures to ensure the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks by applying a number of general principles.

Those principles include a requirement to adopt measures to ensure the long term sustainability of such stocks, an obligation to apply the precautionary approach to management and a requirement that conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas and those coastal states in their exclusive economic zone for the same stock be compatible.

Once these provisions come into effect Canada will be able to implement conservation and management measures in its 200 mile zone secure in the knowledge that a significant deterrent is in place to ensure the effectiveness of these measures and that they will not be undermined by fishing on the high seas by vessels from states party to the UN fisheries agreement.

In order to ensure that the conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas are respected, the UN fisheries agreement imposes strict obligations on the various parties.

States whose vessels fish on the high seas are required to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that their fishing vessels comply with the regional conservation management measures and that they do not engage in any activity which undermines the effectiveness of such measures.

Furthermore, the flag state is required to take very specific measures for compliance and enforcement, including the immediate investigation of any suspected infraction and the application of effective penalties for breaches of its laws and regulations concerning conservation.

What if parties are unable or unwilling to enforce high seas conservation management measures against vessels flying their flag? In such cases the UN fisheries agreement authorizes an inspecting state to take enforcement action against those vessels.

The agreement provides that in any high seas area covered by a subregional or regional fisheries management organization or arrangement a party that is a member of such organization or a participant in such arrangement may board and inspect fishing vessels flying the flag of another state party to the UN agreement whether or not the latter is a member of the organization or participant in the arrangement. In practice this means that Canada as a NAFO member could board and inspect a vessel of a NAFO or non-NAFO member that is party to the United Nations fishing agreement.

If evidence of an infraction is found, the flag state will be notified and must respond within three working days and either investigate itself or if the evidence so warrants take enforcement action or authorize the inspecting state to investigate.

When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel has committed a serious offence, as defined in the agreement, and that the flag state has failed to act or take the necessary action, after three working days, the inspecting state may take steps, including bringing the vessel to port to pursue the investigation.

In such cases, the inspecting state shall advise the flag state of the name of the port where the vessel must go and forward the findings of any subsequent investigation.

At any time, the flag state may decide to take steps to meet its obligations under the agreement. If and when it does so, Canada, as the inspecting state, must return the vessel to the flag state, along with any information available concerning the conduct and conclusions of the investigation.

For Canada this means these provisions will permit Canadian enforcement action in the NAFO regulatory area against vessels flying the flags of states parties to the United Nations fisheries agreement whether or not they are also members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

The UN fisheries agreement also makes provision for compulsory and binding dispute settlements concerning the interpretation or application of the UNFA itself. At Canada's initiative the UN fisheries agreement provides for compulsory and binding settlement in any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of subregional, regional or global fisheries agreements related to straddling stocks or highly migratory fish stocks such as the NAFO convention.

This provision establishes a mechanism that could be used to settle future disputes arising out of the future use of the NAFO objection procedure unless NAFO adopts its own dispute settlement procedure in the meantime.

If a dispute is not settled by the state parties concerned by means of their own choice the UN fisheries agreement mandates recourse to the provisions set out in part 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea whether or not the state parties concerned are also parties to that convention. Where a state, party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has chosen a compulsory or binding settlement procedure under that convention that will also apply to dispute settlements under the UN fisheries agreement.

Under both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN fisheries agreement state parties may choose at the time of signature ratification or accession or thereafter from among the international court of justice, the international tribunal for the law of the sea and either general or special arbitration.

The amendments before us will enable Canada to ratify the fisheries agreement. The amendments will enable Canada to implement new high seas enforcement provisions. They will enable Canada to authorize foreign state enforcement authorities to take enforcement steps against Canadian vessels suspected of committing a violation outside our waters.

The bill when adopted will repeal the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act definition of straddling stocks which refers to fishing occurring in Canadian waters and adjacent areas. Why? Because the United Nations fisheries agreement straddling stocks can occur anywhere in the world.

The bill also creates new offences to enable Canadian enforcement authorities to take action against the vessels of participating states. It will provide regulation authority under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to include implementation of the UN fisheries agreement.

I think there are many good reasons for us to ratify this agreement. It is a further step in the development of the protection of our fish stocks on the east coast, stocks which straddle both the Canadian area and the international area.

I believe this agreement should meet with the approval of all members of the House and I urge them all to support this bill.

[Costal Fisheries Protection Act, April 29th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill which paves the way for Canadian ratification of the United Nations fisheries agreement. You have given its full title so I will not repeat it but will simply refer to it as the UN fisheries agreement.

The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement certain provisions of the UN agreement. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this United Nations fisheries agreement and what it can accomplish in the cause of conservation of fish stocks for this generation and for future generations.

I begin my remarks by briefly outlining the background of the agreement and what it means to Canadians. I will elaborate on these points in greater detail but I would like to start with the overall picture.

The UN fisheries agreement was concluded in August 1995 at a UN conference arranged to discuss problems of conserving and managing straddling stocks and highly migratory species. The agreement was ready for signing in New York on December 4, 1995.

Straddling stocks migrate for much of their life cycle beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal states and in the high seas where they may be found on either side of the 200-mile limit. Highly migratory species migrate in high seas and in the marine areas of coastal states. Both types of stocks have been overfished in the high seas.

The problems with the straddling stocks occur in several areas of the world: on New Zealand's Challenger plateau, along Argentina's Patagonian shelf, along the coast of Chile and Peru, in the Barents Sea, along the Norwegian coast, in the heart of the Bering Strait, in the Sea of Okhostk and, as the hon. members are well aware, along the Grand Banks of Newfoundland outside Canada's 200-mile fishing limit.

What have been the effects of this unregulated fishing? The Food and Agriculture Organization told the grim story in its 1995 report “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”. I quote from that report:

In 1989 world fish production reached a peak of 100.3 million tonnes. Marine catches subsequently declined as a result of significant overexploitation. About 70% of the world's marine fish stocks are fully to heavily exploited, overexploited, depleted or slowly recovering.

The Food and Agriculture Organization report identifies key causes of this global depletion of fish stocks. One is fishing industry overcapacity and the provision of subsidies to ensure continued operation of vessels. Another cause is the failure to take the precautionary approach to resource management. A third cause the FAO cites is inadequate control of fishing activity, resulting in widespread overfishing contrary to conservation measures.

Overfishing by foreign vessels outside 200 miles has been a major factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines have devastated hundreds of Canadian coastal communities. They have left more than 30,000 fish harvesters and fish plant workers unemployed in our Atlantic Canada region.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allowed coastal states, that is, states which border on the oceans, exclusive rights to control fisheries within 200 nautical miles or 370 kilometres of their shores.

However, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not specify what the states' legal rights and obligations are regarding straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas. The new fisheries agreement fills this gap left in the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Canada played a leading role at the conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, which resulted in the UN fisheries agreement, and in the lengthy negotiations that led to it.

The agreement will come into force once the required 30 states have ratified it. These states will therefore help develop a new legal framework for high sea fisheries. This framework will ensure effective regulatory control and enforcement to protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas.

When it is fully implemented, the United Nations fisheries agreement will provide a significant deterrent to unauthorized fishing of straddling stocks on the high seas. The parties to the agreement will have to comply with management measures made by regional fisheries conservation organizations such as NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

The agreement will give coastal states such as Canada the power to take action outside 200 miles if the flag state is unable to control its vessels. The flag state is a state that licenses the vessel to fish.

Finally the UNFA will also provide for binding and compulsory settlement of fishing disputes among states. The UNFA is good news not only for Canada but for the whole world. Overfishing of these straddling stocks on the high seas deprives coastal states of legitimate catches and threatens the viability of this critical food source for future generations.

A word on the history of Canadian involvement. Canada can take great pride and a great deal of credit for this United Nations fisheries agreement. It is important that we understand the tremendous Canadian effort and the Canadian involvement in bringing us to where we are now. By recalling this effort, I also want to show how important it is that Canada continue its international effort. I also want to show how crucial it is that we show an example to the world by the way we manage our own fisheries.

Canada signed the United Nations fisheries agreement along with 26 other states on December 4, 1993. Fifty-nine other states have also signed. Seventeen, among them the United States, Russia, Norway and Iceland, have now ratified the agreement.

The UN fisheries agreement strengthens and supplements the high seas fisheries provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It does so through specific rules designed to ensure the long term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Hon. members are well aware of the depleted state of our straddling Atlantic groundfish stocks. It was not always so. For almost 500 years fishers harvested from a seemingly limitless bounty of cod in the waters of the Grand Banks. From the earliest settlement of Canada, in fact even before, commercial fishing provided the economic base for many in the area in question. Cod and other groundfish stocks were once abundant but by the mid-1960s and in particular by the mid-1980s they declined sharply due to excessive fishing by both foreign and domestic fleets.

I would like to say a few words about the 200 mile limit and NAFO.

In 1977, new developments at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea prompted Canada to declare a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone and to exercise strict control over this zone.

Canada was not the only state to take such action. Other coastal states also declared a 200-mile limit. In most cases, all major ocean resources were within national jurisdiction, but not in Canada.

The Canadian 200-mile zone does not include the Grand Banks southeast of Newfoundland. Approximately 10% of the area known as the nose and tail of the banks is outside the Canadian 200-mile limit. Important groundfish stocks like cod, sole, halibut and perch straddle this limit and have been harvested commercially in international waters outside Canadian jurisdiction.

In 1977, we drew a line in the ocean, but straddling stocks do not see it and do not stay within that line.

In 1979, the responsibility for conservation of fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic outside Canada's 200-mile limit was given to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

NAFO now has 17 contracting parties: Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Estonia, France on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, the European Union, and the United States of America.

NAFO's responsibilities include straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and other fish stocks on the Flemish Cap, a part of Canada's continental shelf which lies outside our 200 mile limit.

In 1982 another breakthrough for conservation occurred when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was signed. Even though that convention did not come into force until 1994, some 12 years later, its fisheries provisions have been considered customary international law. I would like to cite two important articles of that convention.

Article 118 provides that states must co-operate in the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas and use regional organizations such as NAFO to work toward that United Nations goal. Article 119 requires all states to work together to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield.

The creation of NAFO and the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not save our straddling stocks. As is well known, in the mid-1980s the European Community used the objection procedure in the NAFO convention so as not to be bound by the quotas established for NAFO stocks. The European Community catches were far above the quotas set by NAFO.

Then another problem arose. Vessels from states that were not members of NAFO, including Panama, the United States and Korea, began to fish in the NAFO area despite having no quotas.

At that time we began a major Canadian conservation campaign. In 1989 scientific evidence showed that there was a serious decline in fish stocks in areas where overfishing had been prevalent. Canada launched a comprehensive campaign at home and abroad aimed at ending overfishing by foreign vessels in the northwest Atlantic Ocean.

In 1990 Canada hosted the St. John's Conference on High Seas Fishing. There, experts from key coastal states joined together to launch a new initiative to develop more effective rules for high seas fisheries.

In 1991 in another advance for conservation the European Community adopted most NAFO quotas for the following year, 1992.

In May 1991 in Santiago, Chile, another significant step was taken in the quest for effective controls in the high seas fisheries. A meeting of experts was held on high seas conservation around the world. At that meeting three countries, Chile, New Zealand and Canada, developed a text of principles and measures based on the conclusions reached at the St. John's conference. The text of principles and measures became known as the “Santiago text”.

In 1991 NAFO began discussions on improving surveillance and control in the regulatory area and eliminating non-NAFO fishing. Steps were taken by the European Community and other NAFO members to improve surveillance and control and to stop fishing by non-members. A European Community fisheries patrol vessel was assigned to the NAFO regulatory area for seven months of the year.

In 1992 the European Community took stronger steps to control fishing by vessels of its member states. The European Community patrol vessel was to be in the NAFO area for 10 months of the year. The European Community fisheries were closed when NAFO quotas were reached. Canadian surveillance and inspection confirmed that the European Community had complied with the closure and the NAFO fishing rules.

At its 1992 meeting NAFO unanimously accepted a ban on fishing for northern cod outside Canada's 200 mile limit for the following year 1993. NAFO also decided on improvements to the surveillance and control systems, improvements that were to go into effect for the 1993 season. The European Community agreed to all NAFO conservation decisions made at that 1992 NAFO annual meeting.

It was also in 1992 that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was held. During that conference, better known as the UNCED conference or Earth Summit, Canada got global support to organize an intergovernmental conference on high seas fisheries management, including that of straddling and highly migratory stocks.

During the long negotiations that led to Rio's Earth Summit, Canada took the lead in drafting the initial UNCED text on the problems associated with high seas fisheries. That document was eventually incorporated in the chapter on oceans adopted by the UNCED conference. That draft document basically included the Santiago text, to which I just referred.

UNCED participants had to deal with various issues and submit a series of non-binding recommendations. For these reasons, coastal states concluded that UNCED's recommendations should include the holding of a UN conference exclusively on the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Also in 1992 as a result of strong pressure applied by Canada, the republic of Korea agreed to withdraw three of the six vessels it had in the NAFO regulatory area by April 1993 and to phase out the use of Korean crews on third country vessels which were operating in the NAFO area. Korea withdrew its vessels from the NAFO regulatory area at the end of April 1993 and became a contracting party of NAFO in the following year.

As a result of continued diplomatic pressure applied by Canada, Panama also agreed to impose sanctions on Panamanian vessels that violated conservation measures of NAFO. Those actions included fines and removal from the registry.

In May 1994 Canada became the first nation to become party to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's compliance agreement regulating high seas fishing. Parties to that agreement must control high seas fishing by vessels flying their flags to ensure they do not undermine conservation decisions of international or regional fisheries management organizations such as NAFO.

Canada had participated actively in negotiating the FAO agreement. The agreement required acceptance by 25 nations to come into force. So far, 10 acceptances have been received.

It was also in May 1994 that Canada took another powerful step for conservation. Parliament passed new legislation. The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act introduced as Bill C-29 enabled Canada to take action against stateless vessels and vessels flying flags of convenience outside the 200 mile limit.

The law had an immediate impact on all such vessels clearing off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Bill C-29 constitutes an effective deterrent to the return of these flag of convenience fishing vessels to the nose and tail.

One serious conservation issue remained, Greenland halibut or turbot which was not a stock initially managed by NAFO quotas. The Greenland halibut had been fished entirely in Canadian waters until the late 1980s. Then when other major groundfish stocks declined, the Greenland halibut became the object of a large scale foreign fishery outside 200 miles primarily by Spanish vessels. Abetting this development was the fact that more of the Greenland halibut stock had moved out of Canadian waters.

In February 1994, Canadian researchers surveyed Greenland halibut stocks along the Labrador coast and eastern Newfoundland. Their findings were surprising. The biomass had decreased by no less than two-thirds since 1991.

A still greater reduction was detected in the number of large fish. Their findings indicated as well that the population included a higher proportion of young fish, three or four years old. If they were to contribute to increasing the stocks, these had to be left to age and reproduce. Greenland halibut cannot reproduce before they are at least ten years old.

In June 1994, the NAFO Scientific Council re-examined the Greenland halibut situation, and warned that deep-sea fishing levels in all of the sub-zones were in excess of what stocks could sustain.

Canada immediately responded by reducing its domestic quota off Baffin Island, which is in division O of the NAFO charts, by more than half and by terminating a fisheries development program in area 2GH which is the area off the coast of Labrador. Canada also substantially reduced its quotas for divisions 2 and 3 and limited access to harvesters who had fished in those areas.

At its annual meeting in September 1994, NAFO agreed for the first time to establish a total allowable catch for Greenland halibut. That total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes was a significant reduction from annual catches of more than 60,000 tonnes in previous years when NAFO had not set a total allowable catch for the stock.

I now come to the 1995 turbot dispute. At a special meeting held from January 30 to February 1, 1995—

[Crab Fishing, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly aware of the situation in the crab fishery in that area. He will understand that putting in place an agreement, which takes into account the interests of all the various interest groups and people affected, is not at all an easy task, particularly in light of some of the declines in crab stocks.

We are trying to make a system that is fair to all. That unfortunately takes time. It is easy when there are plenty of resources, but it is difficult when the resources are limited.

[Fisheries, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misread the committee on the status of wildlife in Canada's designation as vulnerable for cod stocks in the Atlantic. That in fact indicates that this is a matter of serious concern which I think is well recognized by every member of this House, particularly those who have read the report of the House committee on fisheries and oceans.

I think the member should also recognize that cod stocks are not a single mass out there, that are different stocks. There is the possibility of some fishing in some areas, for example on the south coast of Newfoundland, this year as there has been in past years.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on many occasions in this House we have responded to the many dilemmas that are faced by the post TAGS situation.

I would agree with the hon. member that we have had useful input from the premier of Newfoundland in this regard as well as of course from Newfoundland members in this House. I would point out to the member that it is a complex problem. The measures announced by the government cannot be piecemeal or minor. I think that may have been some of the problems we have encountered in the past. In due course the member will receive the answer he is looking for.

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, we had a co-management agreement with south gulf crabbers. This agreement provides for a percentage split with non-crabbers in order to help the traditional fleet achieve a break-even point. Each year, the size of their share depends on the price and the size of the TAC.

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the plan for gulf crabbers will soon be in place.