House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 41% of the vote.
Fisheries April 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled today, the auditor general says that the problems in the management of Atlantic groundfish are now appearing in the management of shellfish in the same region.
How does the government explain that the Atlantic groundfish management disaster, for which it was responsible, is now about to repeat itself with shellfish? Did the government not learn its lesson?
Supply April 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, before putting a question to my hon. colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who, by the way, is doing a great job as our critic for international affairs, I would like to say, with a catch in my voice, that I thought he made a very passionate speech.
Given what people are saying, what editorial writers are thinking, what headlines are saying, things like “Kosovo almost empty of its inhabitants”, I think it is very important that Canadian parliamentarians address the issue.
When newspapers and politicians use the word genocide, I think it is important for Canadian parliamentarians to rise in this House and exercise their responsibility. They must decide, based on their own conscience, whether or not their country should deploy peacekeeping forces or land troops, as the case may be, as mentioned by our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
I would now like to ask the member a question. In his speech, he referred to a precedent that occurred in 1991, when the House had a vote on a similar issue. I know the government can make its own decisions with regard to international treaties and agreements. However, it often gives Canadian parliamentarians the opportunity to do so. Bill C-27 is a good example of that. This bill, which deals with the United Nations fisheries agreement, will be put to a vote on Tuesday. Fish stocks are certainly important to me, but life in Kosovo is even more important.
Would the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry tell us what role Canada can play within the UN security council and give us some clarification about that? I know the fisheries, but I would like the UN to take this thing seriously and I would like the member to tell us about the situation in this House.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act April 16th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I listened to the Progressive Conservative member's comments. I take it from his conclusion that he would recommend that his party vote in favour of Bill C-27.
As I mentioned in my speech, I believe the bill is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations fishing agreement.
The first question I would like to put to the hon. member is the following. Is he more comfortable with the existing Canadian law system, as set in Bill C-29, which makes it possible to seize vessels caught in the act and slap penalties on them? If this is the case, it means he does not agree with the content of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. The agreement says that a country should act in a diplomatic way and give three days to fishing boats caught in violation.
This is the reason why I emphasised, in my speech, the need of diplomacy. We need to get as many countries as possible on side, to get 30 signatories, which is the minimum number required for the agreement to become binding internationally.
Once we reach that level internationally, signatory countries can find a way to give teeth to the agreement. For now, we cannot choose between them.
I want to be sure that the hon. member has understood, and I would like him to comment on NAFO's management policy, which already establishes percentages applicable to participating countries. This could allow a settlement of some disputes between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Quebec.
I also remind the House that NAFO's rules for establishing total allowable catches are transparent and known to all. Everyone provides information, while at present in the Canadian system officials and biologists at Fisheries and Oceans are the only ones who have the information and communicate it to the minister. We are forced to live with the decisions.
I would like to ask the hon. member two questions. Does he prefer to live only under Canadian legislation, Bill C-29? This would be the result if we vote for Bill C-27. And what does he think of allowing Canada to administer things the way NAFO does?
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act April 16th, 1999
I see people are agreeing to it. If the House so wishes, I will keep on talking about the United Nations fisheries agreement. Do I have the consent of the House, Madam Speaker?
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act April 16th, 1999
Madam Speaker, before oral question period, I read the preamble of the UN agreement on fisheries. I repeated that it was important to talk about that agreement, since Bill C-27 seeks to implement it.
I would like to go back to a number of points mentioned in the preamble. For example, the preamble refers to “calling for more effective enforcement by flag States, port States and coastal States of the conservation and management measures adopted for such stocks”. The members who are listening to me, and people who are watching us on television realize that this paragraph ties together three major links, namely the flag state, the port state where the landing of fish will occur, and the coastal state in whose waters the fish is caught.
There are other important points to mention. The countries that will ratify this agreement are conscious of the need to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment and minimize the risk of irreversible effects of fishing operations. At this point, the countries agree that rules of law must be established to achieve these goals. A little later on, we will see what it means to establish rules of law to make sure there are no irreversible effects.
The preamble also recognizes “the need for specific assistance, including financial, scientific and technological assistance to developing States”.
It is very important that member states, or those that will sign the agreement, agree to help coastal countries or states that have large bodies of water, but not necessarily the means to manage them. Unfortunately, we do not know how the costs will be shared. Of course, it is clear from the agreement that the signatories are giving themselves two years in which to come up with solutions not necessarily apparent at this stage.
The final, and I think the most important, point in the preamble is “convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security”.
Canada can come up with wonderful ideas, but they must be shared by other countries and put down in writing so that everyone agrees to observe them. This is where it gets interesting.
Now I will relate this to Bill C-27, which tries to make UNFA subject to Canadian law.
I will take article 21, sub-regional and regional cooperation in enforcement, paragraphs (5) and (6).
Paragraph 21(5) of UNFA provides that:
What about the time frame? Paragraph (6) of article 21 provides that:
The flag State shall respond to the notification referred to in paragraph (5) within three working days—
So, if a long weekend is involved, it could be longer. It could even be as long as six days.
—of its receipt, or such other period as may be prescribed in procedures established in accordance with paragraph (2).
This is the spirit of the letter in the UN Fisheries Agreement.
Now, what does Bill C-27 do?
It provides the following change to subsection 16.2(3).
16.2 (3) In addition to the powers referred to in subsection (1), a protection officer may, with the consent of the participating state, exercise any powers referred to in section 16.1. The officer is deemed to have received the consent of the state if the state a ) has not responded within the period prescribed by regulation; or b ) has responded but is not fully investigating the alleged contravention.
I see no time frame in the bill. It is set by regulation. Therefore, I conclude that the governor in council, cabinet, will establish the regulatory measures. Will cabinet follow the spirit and the letter, as described in the UN Agreement on Fisheries? That is the question.
I would now like to turn to the most serious question I have about Bill C-27.
I will say it right off. The Bloc Quebecois supports the UN Fisheries Agreement. It is establishing international law. Naturally, it will not be perfect. However, when we ratify an agreement like that we must honour its spirit and its letter, and so we will have to respect the time frame.
I must refer to Canadian legislation, and this is what the bill does not say, because this will be done through regulations, that the governor in council will decide. However, Bill C-27, the bill to implement the agreement does not amend another bill we passed earlier—Bill C-29. It allows protection officers, with the approval of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Fisheries, to seize and bring the offending vessel to the nearest port, if this occurs in Canadian waters.
Such seizure is effective and immediate. The Canadian legislation makes no reference to five working days. That is where my concerns lie. The Minister of Fisheries has just repeated the same thing he told FAO countries at their March 11 meeting, recommending that the United Nations Fisheries Agreement be ratified and included in its entirety in national legislation world-wide.
I would not want to put any words in the minister's mouth that are not true, but I would like to point out that this seems to be contradictory and could mislead the House. They are claiming that the intention of Bill C-27 is to take the UNFA word for word into Canadian law. This would require us to do away with Bill C-29 and to specify, through regulation, that the time limits will be in keeping with those in UNFA.
I am not fully informed about Bill C-27 at this time, which is a serious shortcoming as we are at the stage of recruiting other countries to sign this agreement so that it will have the force of international law. I believe that 30 signatories are required. We do not have that number at present. Canada wants to give it a good start by being one of the first signatories.
But what signal is Canada is sending to the rest of the world when it claims to want to recommend signature of the agreement in its entirety, while in its own legislation it is not respecting the spirit and the letter of the UNFA?
This, in my opinion, is sufficient grounds for voting against Bill C-27, but I would again point out—and this is unfortunate—the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of the UNFA.
I will go still further to state that, at report stage—perhaps I did not emphasize this enough—we tabled about a dozen motions on top of what came from the other members, and if I remember correctly, there were some 18 in all. We worked on the motions in four groups.
The Bloc Quebecois motions in fact attempted to have Bill C-27 incorporate, to the greatest extent possible, the spirit and the letter of the UN Fisheries Agreement. Through Motion No. 1, I tried to include in the bill article 5 of UNFA, since Canada was in agreement with it.
Why did the government refuse to Canadianize the general management philosophy? These are very important principles. It is on the strength of these principles that management plans will be developed and our fishers told how Canada wants to manage in the future. If they are not given a vision or general definition, they are still flying blind.
The second motion we presented was designed to ensure that Bill C-27 was worded in such a way that Canadian courts could interpret it according to the letter and the spirit of UNFA. I repeat, if Canada wishes to sign the agreement, the fishery should be structured accordingly.
Worse yet, when 30 countries have signed it, it will have the force of international law. This is one more reason to Canadianize it, to bring it into line with the spirit and the letter of UNFA. Once again, the government has refused to agree to our motion on interpretation.
The second group of motions that I moved, seconded my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, was designed to offset the extraterritorial nature of Bill C-27, according to the spirit and the letter of UNFA.
What do I mean by that? Some will say that it is a question of terminology. International law use the expression zones désignées while Canadian law uses the expression zones délimitées. Why would Canada want to have its terminology differ from that used in the agreement. For some countries that want to sign the agreement, it is as though Canada were leaving a door open to depart from the spirit of the agreement.
The reason for using the expression designated areas is that they have been designated somewhere. It has already been agreed upon and appears in another treaty. In the world sub-regional organization, NAFO, everything is already designated, defined.
As set out in Bill C-27, the fact that Canada can delineate leaves things open to interpretation. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the Minister of Fisheries, but I do wish to indicate my concerns at this stage of the debate. The purpose of implementing this agreement with Bill C-27 is to maximize the number of signatory states. If one is trying to attract people, one must inspire confidence, not create scepticism.
The third group of motions we brought in at report stage concerned parliament's verification rights, and once again this was refused. We were asking that, if there were to be any new treaties, schedules to treaties, the House might be consulted within four months. That is not much, four months.
It is, of course, always the government majority that will get regulations passed. This was a way to get MPs involved in management of the country's assets.
Since this bill and the fisheries agreement and international treaties are so important that the government deemed that this House has a duty to vote on a bill to allow the UN Fisheries Agreement to be Canadianized, to make it part of our own Canadian legislation, I feel that, if there are other changes, Canadian members of parliament ought to have the right to discuss them. But no, they will have none of it.
In this connection, I would remind members that, in international law, in Canadian law, the Canadian government, the governor in council—or cabinet, in other words—may go to the UN on its own, sign and ratify the UNFA without consulting this House. This is according to Canadian law. I can go along with that.
However, I find it unfortunate that they are asking for my agreement to Canadianize certain parts of the UNFA while denying me the right to discuss amendments in the House, while the Canadian government can already do this. I do not understand.
Is this a delaying tactic? Are they trying to convince us that the Canadian government is looking after fisheries, because the UNFA is something that is easily passed in the House? As I say and say again, the hitch is that the agreement is not being respected. The spirit of the UNFA is not being respected, as is the case with Bill C-27. How are we going to get out of it? What is going to happen in all that?
In the light of what I have just said, on the one hand, Canada is saying “Yes, we will pass Bill C-27” in order to please countries that may become allies but, on the one hand, it is retaining its C-29 pistol, which enables it to intervene, board a ship and bring it back to port when it is found to be in the wrong. That is contradictory.
What is Canada really trying to do with all that?
I represent fishers in my riding and I have talked with fishers in other provinces, including Newfoundland. The people agreed with the spirit of Bill C-29, that is, when someone is found to be in error, the ship is boarded and brought to port with reasonable force, naturally, because no one wants loss of life. But now it seems to me, as the Reform member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned as well, that something happened at the UN so that Canada ended up losing the power to legislate and sanction a vessel found taken in error.
The only agreement Canada got, was along these lines “You can investigate, ask questions, take the evidence. However, you must, within five working days, ask the participating government that owns the boat to take police action, establish sanctions, and in this time period, the participating country can itself carry out the sentence or, in the worst case scenario, not”.
If Canada came away with only that, it is perhaps unfortunate, but, I repeat, the Bloc supports the UN fisheries agreement, because we have to start somewhere. In order to protect our resource and enforce all the fine principles set out in the preamble, I think we must join with other participating countries and provide a level playing field. A bit like what we are taught in the Bible, we are to turn the other cheek. This is sort of what the fisheries agreement is asking us to do.
Why do I say “turn the other cheek”? Because we must trust the other signatory country will also enforce the law on its vessel in contravention, and impress on its captain that he is in violation, deserves to be sanctioned and has to live with all the problems that causes.
At this point, we must trust the international community, the diplomatic channels. We must play the game. If Canada agrees to align Canadian law with the spirit and the letter of the fisheries agreement, it will be easier to get other countries to join. Again, once the agreement has come into force internationally—30 states must sign it—even those countries that will not have signed it will be forced to comply with it.
Once that is achieved, Canada can work with the signatory countries to begin to give some teeth to the agreement. Once the UNFA has force of law at the international level, consideration could even be given—and I call for this today—to establishing a special enforcement authority. We have peacekeepers; perhaps we could have a fleet, under the authority of a UN admiral, in charge of co-ordinating the forces of the various coastal states to protect the resource.
In order to achieve what we want in our waters today, what is provided under Bill C-29, we must be prepared to take a small step backward. I agree that this is a step backward, but that is par for the course, as we say.
A final comment on this, if I may. This is where our Canadian fishers end up getting hurt, and this is why I am taking a long time to explain today.
The last time I spoke on this bill, I acted what boarding of a fishing vessel might be like. Take the Estai for example. In that case, the Canadian fisheries officer boarded the ship it and brought it into port.
When we see a ship that, in our opinion, is in violation, what happens then? First, the captain of the Canadian patrol frigate boards the ship. He conducts an investigation and questions those on board. His patrol vessel is clearly identified. The foreign ship's crew has nothing to fear from him, since all he can do is talk to them.
So the captain goes on board, and he asks “What is your country of origin? What was your catch today? May I see your log?” Then he asks to see the fishing gear and the hold, to measure the fish and see whether fish that are too small are being taken, for example. If they caught turbot the size of my hand, for instance, they are in violation.
Under Bill C-29, what would he do? He would read the captain of the offending foreign vessel his rights, then open up his jacket, take out his revolver and hold it at the ready if the captain does not want to co-operate.
Perhaps things will be done a bit more peaceably with the UNFA. The Canadian protection officer will have a new weapon, instead of his revolver. He would have a new tool in his arsenal He would open up his jacket, but instead of taking out his revolver, he would take out his cell phone and call the department of Fisheries of the other country, and say “I am giving you five days notice. We have just picked up one of your people who is in violation”. Canadian fishers are going to find that hard to take, and hard to understand.
I invite them to accept it nonetheless. I am making this prediction: if Canada boards a foreign ship twice in a row, I believe that all the other signatory countries are going to bring pressure to bear, saying “We have no choice. We wanted to do this the honourable way, but some people are not following the rules. We are going to give the fisheries agreement more teeth by giving officers more powers and letting coastal countries catching people red handed apply their laws according to the their own legal code”. That I think is what needs to be done.
The objective is to get people to understand the spirit of the agreement, which they do not currently. As members can see, it is a bit contradictory. It is as if Canada in the scenario I have just painted were trying to give its fishery officers two tools at the same time. But no provision is made in C-27, which serves to implement the agreement.
At the moment, the only weapon a fishery officer can carry is a revolver. Under the new legislation, he will have to use his phone first. There are no other interpretations. In this regard, I think that the members of the House will have to be very sensitive to the issue and vote no. When they come to vote on Bill C-27, they will have to make the effort to reread the UN Agreement on Fisheries, especially paragraphs 5 and 6 of article 21. There is a clear reference to three working days. Now, when we look at Canadian law, we see it is immediate.
However, if we want, by voting in favour of Bill C-27, to implement the UN Agreement on Fisheries, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, because our law provides exactly the opposite in Bill C-29.
Before I conclude, I mentioned earlier that we had concerns, my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry and I, about the words used, for example délimité and désigné. We prefer the English choice of designated. We should perhaps use the same words in applying international law.
Under the UN Fisheries Agreement, a Canadian protection officer is allowed to board and inspect where “there are clear grounds for believing”. Bill C-27, which is supposed to implement this agreement, uses the expression “reasonable grounds”. Why has the terminology been changed?
Some will say that I am making a mountain out of a molehill today. I would point out that the purpose of the bill is to implement an international treaty. All other nations will have to live with the same vocabulary. If we are trying to get them to ratify the agreement, why are we changing the vocabulary?
I have already pointed out in my speech that, on three occasions, we have stepped back from this agreement, a bit like Saint Peter when Jesus was arrested: “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice”.
The bill has not yet been passed, the international treaty has not yet been ratified and already, in at least three places in the bill to implement it, Canada is going against the spirit and the letter of the agreement. Worse still, it is going back on its own word. On the one hand, it is telling all nations of the world to incorporate the UN Fisheries Agreement in their legislation. On the other, Canada has stepped back from the bill at least three times.
This is why I will be voting against the bill. It is too bad. I hope that members will understand from what I have said that I am in agreement with the UN Fisheries Agreement, but I cannot allow the House, and in particular the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government members, to pass this bill because it is contrary to UNFA.
In conclusion, I would like to raise a few points. Time is being devoted to a debate of this bill, but I remind the House that the government could have gone to the UN and signed and ratified this agreement without our approval. In any event, if there are other annexes or treaties to sign, it is henceforth denying us the right to amend them.
I would have liked it if, this spring, the government had not put us through the problems we experienced in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last summer. The government likes to find out what is going on elsewhere. It is fond of international treaties.
Canada belongs to an international subregional organization called NAFO. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has a management regime. Every participating country already knows what its allocation will be in the Atlantic.
The rules used to determine the total allowable catches and the mathematical formula that will apply to a particular cod, halibut or shrimp stock are known in advance. Each participating country provides the biological information it has. That information is fed into the computer, the total biomass figure comes out and, the mathematical formula having been determined in advance, there nothing anybody can say about it. Every country at the table knows the percentage allocated to it. I think it is paradise at sea.
Canada is part of that management regime, but it does not apply within its own waters the methods used by NAFO.
Why do I mention that? I do not want take away from Canada its constitutional right to manage fisheries. However, once Quebec has achieved sovereignty—or maybe that will never happen even though that is not what I wish—I think it should come to an agreement with its neighbours, namely New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, since all five of them share the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Why could we not do what NAFO does, which is to allocate a specific share to each jurisdiction and ensure that the method used to determine the total allowable catches is transparent so as to take the politics out of the issuance of fishing licences? This is what every fisher, everyone whose livelihood depends on fishing, wishes for.
Under Canadian legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to decide who gets what. Of course, I do not mean to say that the minister is an ogre. He is doing what he can with what he has, but I would like to give him a hand by suggesting that, in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, we model our management system on NAFO's.
I would add one last criterion, which could make things easier. When we talk about fixing quotas, some people might get scared and say “No, we do not want fixed quotas for Quebec. We do not want fixed quotas for Newfoundland”. Quota is a scary word. Some people will say “That is it for us”. But that is not the point here.
I would like to borrow an approach from French law. In 1992, French law allowed the European Parliament to set relative stabilization criteria between participating Mediterranean states. What does that mean? It means that the fishers or the participating states know how much fish they can catch. If these stabilization criteria are not quotas, what are they?
One job at sea creates five jobs on land. The main problem is that a live fish is federal and a dead fish is provincial. Could the federal and the provincial governments not find a way for the provinces to set stabilization criteria that would ensure that the five jobs on land do not come and go all the time? That would be a step towards harmonization.
I would remind the House that we must downsize. There is not one province willing to downsize and lay-off everybody working in the fisheries without knowing what its relative basis is.
With the consent of the House, I could speak all afternoon, even all weekend long, on this topic.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act April 16th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is a bit amusing to in the House to speak on a bill right after a tribute to the great hockey player Wayne Gretzky. I hope the Canadiens will forgive me. I will try not to skate around the issue but rather will attempt to explain the bill we are examining.
Before addressing Bill C-27, whose purpose, I would remind members, is to implement the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, it is necessary first of all to see what that agreement is all about. I will then look at how Canada intends to Canadianize certain parts of it.
I have a copy in front of me of the United Nations Agreement, and I think it is important to review it. I would like to begin by reading its preamble. This is an agreement that will go down in history and will govern all countries on the earth, if more than 30 countries ratify it in the coming weeks and months.
In its preamble, the agreement states:
The States Parties to this Agreement,
Recalling the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982,
Determined to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks—
This refers to the stocks which straddle or migrate across exclusive economic zones.
—and highly migratory fish stocks,
Resolved to improve cooperation between States to that end,
Calling for more effective enforcement by flag States, port States and coastal States of the conservation and management measures adopted for such stocks,
I am still reading the preamble:
Seeking to address in particular the problems identified in chapter 17, programme area C, of Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, namely, that the management of high seas fisheries is inadequate in many areas and that some resources are overutilized; noting that there are problems of unregulated fishing, over-capitalization, excessive fleet size, vessel reflagging to escape controls, insufficiently selective gear, unreliable databases and lack of sufficient cooperation between States.
Committing themselves to responsible fisheries,
Conscious of the need to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment, preserve biodiversity, maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems and minimize the risk of long-term or irreversible effects of fishing operations,
Recognizing the need for specific assistance, including financial, scientific and technological assistance, in order that developing States can participate effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.
Convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security,
Affirming that matters not regulated by the Convention or by this Agreement continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law, have agreed as follows.
And so forth.
Why do I take the time to read the foreword? This document sets out and puts on the table the general philosophy of the countries signing it. I would like to make a few comments at this time.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act March 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, after a full day of practice, you are now able to pronounce the name of my constituency almost perfectly. I invite you to visit my beautiful riding this summer. You will love it.
We are now looking at the fourth group. I know that clerks are trying to work miracles to find a connection between motions but I will do my best to quickly find the link.
Motions Nos. 8 and 12 were both introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. Motion No. 8 concerns section 7.01, which would read, and I quote:
7.01(1) If a protection officer has serious reasons to believe that a fishing vessel—
The purpose of this change is to bring the terminology in line with that found in the United Nations fisheries agreement, instead of referring to reasonable grounds. Some will say I am splitting hairs here. This is not my intention but, if we want to make the work of lawyers easier, I believe that in dealing with an international treaty special attention must be paid to terminology and format.
The same goes for Motion No. 12. The Bloc Quebecois proposed these motions in order to bring the terminology used in the bill in line with that found in the agreement.
I will now comment on Motions Nos. 10 and 13 put forward by the Reform Party.
Motion No. 10 also concerns clause 4 and relates to terminology. They replace “with the consent of that state”, that is the flag country of the offending vessel, with “with the consent of the Minister”, which would enable the Minister to decide what he will do. Same thing in Motion No. 13 I believe.
It is very difficult. I will read immediately Motion No. 14, put forward by the NDP member who spoke earlier. With respect to clause 8, he asks through this motion—and this was the subject of his first speech this afternoon—that: a ) has not responded within forty-eight hours after a notification was given to the state under subsection (2); or
It is the 48-hour concept the NDP member would like to change.
I have a big problem when I listen to what Newfoundlanders, NDP members and all other members are saying. Everybody seems to want to protect our fisheries, and that is fine. They are right when they say this agreement on fisheries does not have enough teeth. The point the NDP member is making in Motion No. 14 says a lot. I do not want to create any panic, but I want to show if I may the new weapon the fishery officer will now have to use when he boards and inspects a vessel.
Try to imagine a fishery officer boarding a ship. He will wear a uniform, he will have a handgun on one hip, but what will he have on his other hip, under the regulations? His new weapon is here, a cellular phone. He will need a phone to enforce this agreement.
From now on, he will not be allowed to board and inspect a fishing vessel without first notifying the country of the vessel caught in the act. Gun in hand, he will have to ask “Okay, wait a minute. What is the phone number of your government? I have to call your prime minister to ask for his permission”. That is what we have in this agreement.
In a more serious mode, I am sure members understand the problem I have. I come from a fishing community, and I want to protect our fisheries, like all other members here. This is what we did with Bill C-29, when international law did not cover this.
There was the Estai episode in 1995 and, oddly enough, it is in 1995 that the UN fisheries agreement was drafted, and Canada was actively involved in that agreement. But what do we want to do exactly? Today, the House is not being asked to protect fisheries, but to agree to implement the UN fisheries agreement.
I did not negotiate this agreement. I hear members say that it is not strong enough. Is this the proper forum to discuss it? I do not think so. We will have to go back to Rome with DFO drafters, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, because we are being asked to comply with the agreement in its entirety.
This means the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believes it is the best tool in the world. Now it recommends “the new best tool in the world”, as our Prime Minister would say, to its fishery officers, saying “Now, you must have a phone because that is the way that, at the international level, it was decided to proceed when you want to board and inspect a boat or when you have serious reasons to believe that someone did something illegal with regard to fishing”. But the proper forum to talk about it is at the international level.
If it is really to protect fisheries, and we all agree to say “We are strong and we try to have it our way like this”, let us stick with Bill C-29. However, if Canada is now ready to sign such an agreement, it may mean that Bill C-29 is not enough at the international level.
We have to find allies. People have to understand that fisheries need to be protected. Foreign countries must streamline their fisheries as we did on the east coast and on the west coast too. If we want to stop our stocks from being depleted, we have to ask people not to help themselves to our food locker. But we also have to understand that people need time. A way to increase public awareness through international diplomacy is to implement a fisheries agreement.
According to what I have heard here today, the proposed agreement would not be enough. If people really want strong tools, this agreement will not be enough. I would expect that when the House returns on the Tuesday following the Easter break, all the parties in the House will not agree to let Canada sign the agreement, because we really want stronger tools.
The main point here, that tool in question, is a telephone given to fisheries officers, who have to contact the foreign countries involved and give them three days to respond. It is as if the telephone service in these countries did not allow them to respond any faster.
If we want to live in an international law environment, and I think we must educate people about this, we may have to set aside our desire to get tough internationally and try this mediation, have the agreement ratified; once covered by this agreement, we could then try to find some way of incorporating into it the stronger measures requested by the hon. members, but if we want firm measures now, this agreement should not be ratified.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with an international law system. We will support the United Nations fisheries agreement, but we do not agree with Bill C-27, which I believe completely misses the mark and fails to respect the spirit and the letter of the agreement. By trying to keep two pots on the boil, Canada might miss the boat.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act March 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 comprises Motions 4 and 7.
Motion No. 4 is made for concordance purposes. The purpose of Motion No. 7 is to ensure that MPs have a right to review when the minister wishes to enter into other treaties or when the minister or the governor in council wishes to apply something different.
I am not speaking here of restricting the power of the minister, but of allowing us as parliamentarians, since we are asked to participate in the ratification and implementation of the UNFA, to have a say in it subsequently.
Ratification of an international treaty does not require the creation of Canadian legislation. At the very least, out of simple politeness, they could have simply tabled a notice of motion. We would have treated this like a motion, exactly as they did in the case of the motion on distinct society. It was fine to use that approach for distinct society, but not for Bill C-27, while all their legal experts tell us that they could have signed and ratified this agreement without asking us.
Since I have the microphone at this time and we are still on the air, allow me to point out that the purpose of Motion No. 7 is to introduce two new subsections. First, subsection (2) reads as follows:
(2) No regulations shall be made under paragraph 6( e ) or ( f ) unless the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations that are to be made at least 120 days before the regulations are made.
One hundred and twenty days, or four months, is not all that long. It allows the parties time to learn the contents of the regulations, to sound out those who will have to live with application of these regulations, or in other words the fishers, and to get back to the House, to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to make comments. This could not help but improve any regulations the minister would be tempted to make.
Once again, this would allow us, as parliamentarians, to have a say in the matter. We are the ones who are accountable to the public—public servants are accountable to their minister—but we should also be given the opportunity to have a say.
Motion No. 7 proposes to add subsection (3), which reads as follows:
(3) No regulations made under paragraph 6( e ) or ( f ) of this Act shall come into force unless they have been approved by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to fisheries and oceans.
Again, this only makes sense. If the House of Commons says that it needs a standing committee on fisheries to clarify and understand marine-related issues, it would be appropriate for the department and the minister himself to respect the wishes of the House regarding anything that may concern the implementation agreement, and have the issue come back before that committee.
This motion is based on common sense. I will sum things up by saying that parliamentarians must have a look at the issue. This is very important.
I want to go back to the motions we discussed earlier. Since I am the sponsor of the motions included in the first three groups, I was the first one to speak, but I have not yet had the opportunity to comment on remarks made by hon. members.
I did mention that the fisheries agreement could be ratified and signed without the approval of this House. I would like members opposite to realize what we are really trying to do.
We are talking about the way to protect our stocks at the Canadian level—the hon. member from Newfoundland wished we would go further—but we already have Bill C-29 for that. We have the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to protect what is in our waters. As for straddling stocks, we already have Bill C-29, which allowed us to behave the way we did with the Estai . The international community understands that. The important thing is to make the international community understand.
The subtleties of language are very important in international diplomacy. If a word is used in French or English, the people who have to live with the French expression provided by the government are perhaps better qualified to say care should be used in that regard.
I am not claiming to be the best linguist Quebec or the francophone community ever produced. Sometimes I murder my own mother tongue. But God knows I want to try to improve it.
When we ask that care be used in choosing the words, it is because we feel, perhaps with our Latin blood, that it is important for the countries we will be inviting to sign the agreement. I think that is what counts at the moment. We want a UN fisheries agreement.
With this umbrella, we can try to add a little more bite and make sure people understand the same thing, but if to increase the bite we frighten potential signatories, we will miss the boat. So we must choose our words carefully.
The Bloc Quebecois knows a good thing when it sees it. In this case, is that not getting the largest possible number of signatories to the agreement? I think that is the aim. Or does it lie in protecting fish stocks?
The Bloc Quebecois has already helped do this in the absence of international law. We worked with the government to move Bill C-29 through all three stages in a single day. We have shown common sense and co-operation because we believe that our stocks must be protected.
With Bill C-29, Canada has already done its part. The important thing is to get the maximum number of countries on board. The Bloc Quebecois is holding out its hand precisely so that the House will be careful.
I do not know whether I will be allowed to table the document. I will not hold it up right now, but it is here on my desk. It is a press release dated March 11 issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it took part in an FAO forum in Rome. There was a question about this earlier during Oral Question Period.
This press release is very eloquent. The fifth paragraph reads as follows:
In Rome today, Canada called on all nations that have not already done so to ratify and fully implement key international agreements, in particular the UNFA, before the end of 2000. For its part, Canada has already introduced legislation in Parliament with the objective of ratifying UNFA by the end of the year.
The key word in this paragraph is not something I made up. It is the representative of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans addressing all countries of the world in Rome and calling on them to fully implement key international agreements.
When I ask that some provisions of the UNFA, like article 5 of part II, be included as general interpretation and management principles, I am not being mean. I did not write them, they are in the agreement. Now I am told “This is not necessary. DFO already applies these principles in the measures it is taking”, but a measure and legislation are two very different things.
One can change a measure like one changes one's shirt—some people change shirts every day. I have the feeling DFO sometimes changes its mind two to three times a day.
It is important to know that DFO recommends integral measures. I think the minor amendments we put forward to ensure that Canada can get the most people possible to sign the agreement are laudable efforts and I urge all my hon. colleagues to weigh all of this very carefully.
I remind the House that the Bloc supports the UNFA, but has some difficulty accepting the way the government is using Bill C-27 to pick and choose the parts of the agreement that suit it. We could miss the boat here.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act March 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that, in the time remaining until the end of the sitting today, which is 5.30 p.m. I believe, the three groups of motions can be debated. I urge all participants to make sure that we can cover all three. This will mean splitting our time at some point.
I will therefore set an example by picking up the pace. The purpose of the motions in Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17—I am trying to put this briefly to give people the idea—is to address the so-called extraterritorial role the Canadian government could assume by slipping certain terms into Bill C-27 that, in my view, are open to interpretation because they are not consistent with the terms already used in the UN fisheries agreement, or UNFA.
The purpose of Bill C-27, let us not forget, is to implement this agreement. It would be very wise to use the terminology found in the agreement as an example to bring other countries around the world to sign that agreement.
At this point, I would like, if I may, to make use of some notes left to me by my colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, when he had to leave to travel with the foreign affairs committee this week. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry worked with the members of the standing committee on fisheries, precisely because an international treaty is involved and he is far more familiar with international jargon than I am.
Here are the notes my colleague wanted me to bring to the attention of the hon. members. Reference is made to changes that ought to be made to Bill C-27 to ensure full conformity with the UNFA. One of these changes would be to replace, in French, the term “délimitation” by “désignation” throughout the bill; clauses 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 would be affected.
This would bring the French more in line with the English version of the text. In French the term “délimiter” confers a kind of power upon Canada to decide what the zones will be, while the fisheries agreement speaks of “désigner”, and in English “designated”. So why not take advantage of this opportunity?
As well as bringing the terminology more in line with the English version of the text, using the word “désignation” would also have reassured Canada's partners, particularly those in the European Union, who are still concerned that Canada may again wish to confer an extraterritorial scope to its Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, in contravention of its new obligations to be assumed when it becomes a party to UNFA.
In order to ensure that the bill does not assume this scope, we also proposed adding a new clause 2.1, to which reference has already been made earlier.
The point of all that is to bring the report into line with the fisheries agreement.
Still on the subject of the bill's conformity with the UNFA, we also proposed that the words “serious reasons” used in the text of the agreement itself replace the words “reasonable grounds”, as we were not convinced that the test of reasonability the government wanted was as exigent as that provided in the treaty being implemented.
The interpretative provision we proposed to add to clause 2.1 could also have promoted the alignment of the concept of reasonable grounds with that of serious reasons, but its rejection by the government does not guarantee it would necessarily be interpreted in this sense.
What should be understood here, and I am pleased other members have already mentioned it, is that the fisheries agreement is inherently good. What the government is trying to do is ensure that it is indeed the United Nations fisheries agreement they want to allow to be Canadianized and to incorporate in our laws. However, they must be very careful. As someone mentioned earlier, only six countries have signed and ratified this agreement.
An example must be set. Insofar as possible, it must be incorporated textually into Canadian law. I think the parliamentary secretary said that we can do it integrally for the moment, since it has not yet become international law. For sure, but I would remind the House we may have a problem.
The aim is to permit the maximum number of countries to sign it. Thirty countries are required for it to become international law. Right now, there are people getting ready to sign, the European Community in particular, and there are 11 countries that I think will sign this agreement. We must show confidence and then urge these people to sign.
How can we do this? By means of the United Nations fisheries agreement. If we do not agree with the agreement, let us use international diplomatic channels to amend and improve and, in certain cases, as the member for St. John's has proposed, put more bite into this agreement, so that straddling fish stocks will be off limits in Canadian waters.
I agree, except that, with the present wording of Bill C-27 making it possible to Canadianize certain passages of the fisheries agreement, I am afraid we are missing the boat. I am concerned that we are scaring off allies who are getting ready to sign this agreement.
Earlier, the member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned the problem raised by the boarding of the Estai .
I personally took part in drafting Bill C-29, which allowed the boarding of vessels fishing our straddling stocks. The Bloc Quebecois worked on Bill C-29 to prevent illegal fishing because it could not be stopped under international law.
Now, with the UN fisheries agreement, we have a proposed framework, but the spirit of the letter included in that agreement is in contradiction with the fact that to implement the agreement by enacting Bill C-27 is to forget that Bill C-29 contradicts this agreement.
I am in favour of the agreement, but I do not agree with how Canada wants to implement it in its own legislation. It is inappropriate and even contradictory.
I wonder what we want to do exactly, particularly since the Canadian government can, without consulting the House, without getting its approval, sign and ratify this agreement on its own, thus promoting its signing by other countries, including the European Community. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, we will come back later in this House to Canadianize the texts of the agreement.
If we really want to implement that agreement, we might drop Bill C-29. I am in favour of having a system based on the rule of law. If we do not agree with such a system, we must notify the proper authorities. As the hon. member for Delta pointed out, we will have to go back to the UN and ask for a clarification.
I realize we were dragging so far behind, internationally, as regards the conservation of fish stocks, that this first step, with the UNFA, is a necessary one.
However, the terminology used in Bill C-27 leads us to believe that Canada does not intend to respect the spirit of the agreement, but to assume the role of a protector, which is good in itself. However, one cannot have it both ways. We will have to choose.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act March 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While we are all in a good mood, I would ask for the consent of the House to allow members to discuss the four groups during the 10 minutes allocated to them if they wish to do so. I would not object to that.