Brian Tobin

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Chairman, if I am wrong, the officials will jump up, leap on me and drag me out of the House kicking and screaming to be re-educated. The purpose of those words is to make clear that in cases where we believe a vessel is fishing in a manner contrary to proper conservation rules we do not put ourselves in a position where we actually have to get the boat when it has its gear in the water.

In other words, we know a vessel is fishing an endangered species. The vessel becomes aware it is under aerial surveillance or through the means of radar it is aware that Canadian enforcement vessels are in the vicinity and pulls up its gear. We are saying that we should not set a standard whereby we can only arrest the vessel when we actually catch it with its gear in the water.

As the member knows, we are able to do aerial surveillance and to record the fishing activities of vessels. We want a clear piece of legislation so that the regulations can be published in such a way as to allow us, once we have designated a class of vessels fishing in a zone where endangered species exist, to move those vessels out of that zone and not be caught up in the details of whether or not the gear is actually up or down.

(Clause 5 agreed to.)

(Clauses 6 to 9 inclusively agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Chairman, I will refer to what is meant by section 5.2. Essentially the bill gives the government the enabling power, by amending the current Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to act outside 200 miles in a manner consistent with how we act inside 200 miles.

Generally when this kind of enabling legislation is proposed and passed by Parliament it gives legislation legal effect. Regulations will be published exactly as occurs with respect to any other piece of legislation. When those regulations are published they will be made public and will be available for the scrutiny of the member and all members of the fisheries standing committee.

With respect to the specific question as to what is meant by vessels of a prescribed class, it is simply a reference that allows the government to prescribe or designate a class, a type or kind of vessel we have determined is fishing in a manner inconsistent with conservation rules and therefore against which conservation measures could be taken.

For example, we could prescribe stateless vessels. Another example is that we could prescribe flags of convenience. That is all that is meant. Those regulations will be available to the member, to his party, and to the fisheries committee.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Chairman, I would be glad to give an answer.

Clearly the intent of the Government of Canada is to use the least amount in the event that Canada decides to seize, arrest or inspect a vessel. We use the minimum amount of force required to conduct an inspection. In other words, it is clearly Canada's intention at every stage of the game to avoid injury or worse to any vessel on the high seas, our own or other vessels.

That is what is intended. We are signalling here that we want to proceed in a manner that is the most peaceful possible in the circumstance. That is what is intended by the wording in the clause.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is a very good question and gives me an opportunity to make a couple of things clear that are perhaps less than clear.

The legislation gives Parliament of Canada the authority to designate any class of vessel for enforcement of conservation measures. The legislation does not categorize whom we would enforce against. The legislation makes clear that any vessel fishing in a manner inconsistent with good, widely acknowledged conservation rules could be subject to action by Canada. We cite as an example the NAFO conservation rules. Any vessel from any nation fishing at variance with good conservation rules could under the authority granted in the legislation be subject to action by Canada. There are no exceptions.

The government and I have said that we will stop foreign overfishing, not foreign fishing forever but improper fishing practices. We have said we will do it by agreement where it is possible to reach agreement and by unilateral action where unilateral action is necessary.

We believe we have the means. We hope we have the will and the measures within the NAFO regime for NAFO to police itself, for NAFO to take the steps required, and for NAFO member states to police their own vessels. We are a member state of NAFO. We believe that Canada can police Canadian vessels. We believe that all other NAFO member states can and should do the same. Our expectation is that they will do the same. If one is a party to an agreement one should want to see that the agreement is lived up to fully.

What we do not have is the capacity to make an agreement with flag of convenience vessels or with stateless vessels because they belong to no organization.

In answering the member's question let me say that the areas outlined on the map are NAFO regulatory areas. They cover straddling stocks and stocks regulated by NAFO. The area that is not outlined on the map, including the Flemish Cap, is not part of the straddling stocks that affect Canada. That is why we have not claimed any territory beyond those affected or covered by our own straddling stocks.

As I said, this is not an extension of jurisdiction; this is a conservation regime that we are introducing today.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his long involvement and interest in matters having to do with the fishery. The member has had a career in advance of coming into the House dealing with the fishery and fishermen in the province of Quebec.

The member has suggested that wherever possible and wherever stocks warrant we need to have exploratory fisheries, developmental fisheries or test fisheries. I totally agree with the member and would say to him that even in areas where we have a moratorium it is important for us to have some sentinel or test fisheries under way. In addition to the scientific evidence there is no better solid base of information for what is happening than to have an experienced fishing crew in a boat on the water conducting these test fisheries.

I totally concur with his suggestion. It is my intention to have such test fisheries occurring everywhere. The moratorium would continue. The commercial aspect of the fishery would continue. Having a few boats here and there to try to develop underutilized species or test the circumstance with respect to stocks in the moratorium is a sensible suggestion. I tell the member that the intention is to put the scientists and the fishermen shoulder to shoulder in the same boats working together. We have to close the gap of suspicion and mistrust between fishermen and scientists by having them work together.

I want to make another point. I acknowledge with great joy and enthusiasm the quick support of the Bloc Quebecois, just as we have had quick and strong support from the Reform Party.

My friend from Delta is also someone who had experience in the fishery before he came into the House. He was a fishermen for many years and knows the industry well.

I acknowledge the support of the Bloc Quebecois. I acknowledge the instinctive quick reaction to support a sound policy. I tell my hon. colleagues that I look forward, notwithstanding their wishes in other areas, to spending many years working with them in the House in the interest of Canada.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I think he has asked a very important and relevant question. I am glad he has raised it and has given me the opportunity to respond.

I had lunch today with a very enjoyable luncheon companion, the American ambassador. I did so for two reasons. First I wanted to have the opportunity to raise a number of outstanding issues, one of which was the issue of the Argentia base in Newfoundland and the American closedown of that base. We wanted to ensure there were reasonable conditions for the American departure there.

The second reason was that I wanted to talk specifically about the bill, what it does and what it does not do, to assure our friends and colleagues south of the border that we have a bill that is targeted at a particular problem which needs to be addressed. I thought there was certainly-I will not comment on the American formal response-some understanding for the plight we face. We had a separate discussion on the whole question of the Pacific salmon treaty.

I made very clear to the American ambassador, as did the Prime Minister when he spoke to the president a few weeks ago, that the successful conclusion of a salmon plan with our friends, the United States, is urgent and important for Canada.

I can assure the member there is no connection nor was any connection drawn by the American ambassador between the bill and its provisions and the separate question on the Pacific salmon treaty that we are attempting to resolve.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, if the House gives passage to this measure today-and we have had some discussions with all of the parties and I acknowledge that and thank them for it-then the matter will be referred to the Senate as early as tomorrow.

It is up to the Senate. It is its own creature, of course, its own authority. If it considers this bill as quickly as tomorrow it could pass and be given royal assent tomorrow, which I think would be almost a record passage of any bill before this Parliament. We would publish the regulations within a week and I can tell you we will be enforcing them very soon afterward.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to address the substance and rationale for Bill C-29. In doing so, may I express on behalf of the government and all the government supporters and as well on behalf of Atlantic Canadians, all those who have traditionally depended upon the resources of the sea for a livelihood and for a reason to be in many of our isolated and rural communities of Atlantic Canada, our thanks and appreciation to all members and to all parties in the House for the rare show of unanimous support to expedite the passage of Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

It is seldom in the life of a Parliament that such a rare show of unanimous support is forthcoming in the pursuit of a cause that is so worthwhile for all Canadians.

For generations fishermen have worked hard to make a living. It is a very tough existence but a good life from the resources of the ocean on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. All of that is threatened today.

We confront a very grim question. The question is will a way of life that has been sustained for 500 years now survive?

Environmental conditions have had a role to play in pushing down fish stocks. There are fewer, in fact historically low levels of young fish on the Grand Banks today. These fish are growing more slowly. They take longer to mature. More are dying because of natural causes. Indeed, we have record low levels of temperature on the east coast, 65-year record low temperatures. Therefore, we have a more natural death of fish stocks.

All of these ecological factors are happening today, but these factors are only one small part of the resource crisis that we face.

Beginning in the mid-1980s there was massive destructive overfishing of cod, flounder and other resources on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks just outside Canada's 200-mile economic zone. The fisheries in this area just outside the 200-mile limit is regulated by an organization called NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The catches set by NAFO are determined as a consequence of the scientific evidence that is gathered from all of the nations that participate in fisheries outside our 200-mile limit. Canadian scientists on Canadian fisheries patrol vessels, Russian scientists, Japanese scientists, European union scientists all collaborate to establish what the proper harvesting levels should be to sustain the resource. NAFO, as an organization, works collaboratively to set quotas and to start harvesting plans in a manner that is sustainable.

During the 1980s Canada fished within the quotas set by NAFO. So did the fleets from most other countries fish within the quotas established by NAFO. We did what we thought was right then in the mid-1980s. We know now that we took in fact too much fish.

I have to say here and now that even as we fished within the assigned quotas as did many others, the European union in the mid-1980s showed no such restraint. The European union as a member of NAFO would participate in establishing global quotas, would be assigned its share of the quota and then would unilaterally establish for itself its own quota and fish according to its own fishing plan.

Canada and many other nations set out to do the right thing. In retrospect it turned out we were not doing the right thing. The European union in the mid-1980s set out to do the wrong thing and regrettably it succeeded.

The heavy overfishing of cod and flounder in the mid-1980s severely depleted those resources. It was in the early 1990s that nature, because of a changed environmental condition on top of the heavy overfishing of the mid-1980s, dealt a second crushing blow. These stocks which were depleted, weakened and overfished are now in a rate of rapid decline.

How many Canadians realize that the once great 2J, 3KL cod stock, an important part of the protein, the food basket of the planet earth, a cod stock that once sustained the great North American fleet, all of the European fleet, the Spanish and Portuguese fleet, the Russian fleet, the Japanese fleet, a stock that fed a good part of the planet, the once great northern cod stock has been decimated and that the spawning biomass of that stock since 1989 has declined by 99 per cent. A scant four or five years later only 1 per cent of the spawning biomass that existed five years ago remains today. This stock is in crisis. This resource that belongs to the planet earth is on its last legs today.

Man has been slow to realize, but we had better realize soon, that we cannot command nature. We can only obey nature. If we do not understand that in the context of fish stocks, we face a terrible consequence for our ignorance. We face the commercial if not the biological extinction of once massive fish stocks.

This could happen to northern cod. It could happen to southern Grand Banks cod, 3NO cod, and it could happen to four endangered species of flounder as well on the Grand Banks.

Canada has stopped fishing all of these endangered stocks, every one of them. Canada has participated with NAFO in putting moratoriums in place, the most recent in February in Brussels, to protect 3NO cod. Prior to that, four moratoriums were put in place to protect flounder. A moratorium was put in place to protect the great northern cod stock that I have just described as having been devastated. There is a moratorium in place to protect American plaice in area 3M on the Flemish Cap.

Within Canada we have not only participated in moratoriums to protect straddling stocks, but today as the minister of fisheries I preside over 14 moratoriums within Canadian waters. We have shut down virtually the entire cod fishery, the entire groundfishery of all of Atlantic Canada. We have done all that we can in the name of conservation. We have even denied after 500 years of settlement and existence the right of those who live in the Atlantic region to take simple biblical level technology, a simple hook and line and fish food for a living.

We can do no more than we have done literally in the name of conservation. We submit that those who come from distant water nations to fish off our shores can do no less than what we have imposed upon ourselves.

We proposed a bill to give Canada the capacity, authority and ability not to extend our jurisdiction out beyond 200 miles, not to make a territorial grab, not to expand our economic zone and not to pull unto ourselves more territory or water. That is not Canada's nature. It is not Canada's way. It is not part of our history. It is not part of our culture. We have never been an expansionist power or some kind of imperialistic power.

We propose a measure today to give us the ability to enforce the conservation measures necessary to protect endangered species not just for ourselves but for the world.

Overfishing has occurred on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, overfishing on occasion by Canadian fleets. Let us have the courage, the integrity and the honesty to admit that and stop that overfishing. We have demonstrated in the last months that where a Canadian vessel breaks the rules Canada shall reach out the long arm of its enforcement power and impose proper conservation measures. A month ago we went out 300 miles to arrest the Stephen B , a Canadian tuna boat fishing against ICCAT rules, to protect bluefin tuna, a highly migratory species. We went out 228 miles to arrest the Kristina Logos , a Canadian registered vessel catching 3NO cod. We are not asking the world to accept a standard that we do not impose upon ourselves first.

The vessels overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks can be divided into two rough categories, those that belong to the multilateral organization that I described earlier, NAFO, that fish within NAFO quotas and according to NAFO rules within a NAFO management plan, and those that do not.

A moment go I said that European vessels in the mid-1980s did not abide by NAFO's rules even when a member of NAFO. Even today some European vessels do not comply fully with the rules but by and large the quotas and the management plan set by NAFO are complied with by European union vessels.

While we occasionally have differences, we have the means as a member of NAFO to settle those differences by agreement and within an existing management structure.

May I say there is nothing so unholy, nothing so repulsive, nothing more predatory than the spectacle of tying up Canadian fishermen, tying up Canadian boats, closing down Canadian fish plants, wiping out the very reason for existence of Canadian coastal communities in the name of conservation, and even as that sacrifice is made to restore this resource for future generations, watching a handful of what we call flag of convenience pirate vessels targeting those same endangered species that we Canadians have set aside to be saved to rebuild this fragile resource. I say to the pirates their day has come and we are going to stop that kind of predatory action. We are going to stop that kind of exploitation.

Why? Because we have some desire to be in conflict on the high seas? Not at all. It is contrary to our nature. Because we have some macho desire to flex our muscles on the high seas? Not at all. It is contrary to our nature, to our history.

We hope that we as a House of Commons who have come together to produce this legislation, unanimously proposed, unanimously supported, unanimously implemented, will not have to move against a single vessel. We hope that those who make exploitation, risk capital, their gain, will understand that their best course of action is to pull up gear and leave.

We do not want to confront a single vessel on the high seas. We do not want to arrest a single vessel on the high seas. We do not want to interfere with a single crew, wherever it comes from, whatever flag of convenience it flies on the high seas. But we will confront and we will arrest and we will seize and we will prosecute each and every one if they do not pull up their nets and leave the zone.

Last month Canada arrested a Canadian registered vessel, the Kristina Logos , 228 miles out. The vessel was flying the Panamanian flag, with a crew from Portugal. We towed it into port in St. John's.

Do you know what we found? We found over 100 tons of product aboard that freezer vessel. Do you know what else we found? We found nets with something close to legal mesh size. Of course a legal mesh size would allow a small juvenile or baby fish to escape because it could swim through the mesh. Yet aboard that boat were 100 tons of juvenile cod, juvenile flounder, and juvenile redfish. I was down in the hold of that boat. I want to tell my colleagues that I saw not a single fish of the 100 tons in that hold that was bigger than the palm of my hand. I want you to stop and think about that. Not a single fish aboard that vessel was longer than the palm of my hand.

Those who come from Atlantic Canada know when you are catching those kinds of fish you are slaughtering the species. It is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against an important resource that belongs not to a single nation but to the planet. That is what was found in the hold of that vessel.

You ask yourself, how can they catch such a small fish? It looks more like it belongs in the aquarium at home, not in the hold of a commercial fishing vessel. How is it done? Then fisheries officers uncover what is called a liner. Inside the legal sized fishing gear is put a liner so that everything that swims into that net is being held inside it. Nothing can escape, not juvenile fish, not any species. Everything goes into the hold of the boat.

Who are these people? The people who own these vessels see them as an opportunity to make profit. These are people who do not have the mentality of fishermen. Fishermen believe you must harvest the sea as a farmer does his land. A farmer knows you must sustain the fields. You must leave them to lie fallow on occasion. You must replant a different product from time to time. You must sustain the power of the fields to produce crops.

The ocean is no different. It cannot be exploited, it must be harvested. You must catch fish in such a way as to leave the young, let them grow older, let them reproduce. You move your effort from fragile stocks on to healthier stocks.

Not these vessels, not these pirates, not these flags of convenience or stateless vessels. No, they do not have the mind of a farmer or a fisherman, they have the mind of a miner. Take the resource. That is understandable in mining, it is not renewable, it is not sustainable. You take the resource, mine it, clean it out and then move on.

That is not acceptable to Canada. That is why Canada as represented by all of its political parties today will act in record time to pass this bill.

Our legislation says: "The bill will enable Canada to take the urgent action necessary to prevent further destruction of straddling stocks and to permit their rebuilding while continuing to seek effective international solutions".

Lest anyone be in doubt, let me affirm once again three fundamental commitments by the Government of Canada. First, Canada is committed to the rule of international law. Second, Canada's goal remains effective international controls over high seas fishing. Third, the Government of Canada will use the powers under this legislation only where other means to protect threatened straddling stocks have failed.

Our commitment to the third principle is no less strong than our commitment to the first two; that is, the rule of law and our desire to seek effective international controls to deal with the problems of high seas fishing.

That is why even as we propose a measure that allows us to go beyond 200 miles and to use the force required to ensure that NAFO conservation rules and other conservation measures are respected, we continue to work at the UN Conference on High Seas Fishing which will undertake its third session in August in New York to seek a permanent solution to the problem of overfishing.

The measures we take today under Bill C-29 are an interim measure, a temporary measure. They are necessary now because if we do not act those fish stocks will disappear, perhaps forever.

The world needs, and Canada needs, not a temporary solution taken by one nation but a permanent solution taken by all nations under the auspices of the UN. That is why Canada has worked hard at the UN both last summer and again this spring and we will do so again in August to get a new convention on high seas fishing.

I say to those people in Atlantic Canada who ask if it is too late, no, it is not too late. We can build this resource. It takes the commitment not of a single province, not of a single region, not of a particular group of people, but the commitment of a nation. I say to those people in Atlantic Canada who believe that their country has abandoned them in this crisis and that Canadians elsewhere in Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba do not know or do not care about this crisis, it is not true.

This is a particularly proud day for me, not as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but as a member of Parliament from Newfoundland. I have been here for 14 years. I stand here today in an emergency debate and look across and see colleagues from every party and from every part of Canada who give the confidence that this measure is supported. The country does care and does have the will to solve this problem.

I would like to acknowledge the work over many years to raise the consciousness of the nation to this crisis of all the Atlantic premiers. Members would understand if I were particularly to acknowledge the work of Premier Wells of Newfoundland. He went across this country to raise the consciousness of the nation about this problem.

Members would understand as well if I said that it takes a Prime Minister with vision, it takes a Prime Minister with courage and it takes a Prime Minister with great integrity to have said during the heat of an election campaign that Canada will act and to have delivered during the calm of the first serious

and sober days of government the ability to act. I thank our Prime Minister.

[Fisheries, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the member is right. As was promised by the Prime Minister, we tabled legislation today to deal with foreign overfishing. Another red book commitment has been kept.

Let me say as well, because it is important to note it, that the legislation is not partisan in nature. It has received the support of the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party. I want to acknowledge the support of the leader of the Reform Party and his party, the support of the New Democratic Party, and I understand the support of the Conservative Party.

We will give the same kind of attention to the problem of fishing and overfishing on Canada's west coast that the House of Commons, united, has given to the problem of overfishing on the east coast. This is one case where the country speaks as one in the interest of Canadian citizens.