Yvan Bernier

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure I understood correctly. I will be allowed to speak again, but will that be after all members in the House have spoken, or when my party comes up again in the rotation? That is my first point.

Second, I understand that the members who speak now will have only 10 minutes to address four groups of motions. If that is what the House wants, I will bow to its wishes, but I think members should understand that 10 minutes for four groups of motions is very little time, since the future of the fishery and the fate of an international treaty are involved.

However, if that is what the House wants, rest assured that when we come back at third reading I would like my speaking time to be longer than any fish ever seen.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I appreciate that the government members can talk about any group they want, but I want to make sure that I will be allowed to speak to the other groups. Usually, a member can speak only once to a group of motions.

If I understand my sheet, I should be able to rise another three times. For example, if certain members have to leave and if one wants to speak to the fourth group before the first, I have no objection, but on the condition that I may return to speak to the three other groups.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Since I am told I may continue to speak, I will address the criterion of relative stability.

I would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to use the meeting to be held in Quebec City after the parliamentary Easter break to ask his provincial colleagues what they think of the criterion of relative stability. Then we could total the factors the various ministers might take into account to establish the stability criterion.

I think traditional share should be a factor, and the proximity of the resource.

My final point concerns the problem of new species, new fisheries. I think this should be addressed urgently.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be very difficult for me today to finally get down to work on the fisheries problem, but here we go.

For those members who have just joined us, and for those listening to the television, I repeat that the purpose of Bill C-27 is to implement the United Nations fisheries agreement. This agreement flows from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The purpose of the first two amendments the Bloc Quebecois wishes to move to Bill C-27 is to clarify meaning and to ensure that Canadian legislation is consistent with the international agreement. In my view, there were oversights.

I will begin by looking at Motion No. 2 and then go to Motion No. 1.

The purpose of Motion No. 2, which we wish to introduce concerning Bill C-27, is to provide a basis for interpretation for tribunals that will be called upon to use this Canadian law. It reminds them that interpretation of Bill C-27 shall be in accordance with the fisheries agreement based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.

This may seem highly technical, but my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry has reminded me that all laws and agreements must draw their essence from somewhere. When an act is to be interpreted, when a case goes before a judge, it is important that the basis for interpretation of that act be written down in black and white.

Now, I return to Motion No. 1, still in Group 1. For the benefit of the public and of those who sat on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the objective of this motion is to add a new clause, 2.1, to Bill C-27, making reference to article 5 of the United Nations fisheries agreement, part 2.

Why do I take the time to make this clarification? Because the purpose of clause 2.1 is to provide a philosophical base for administration of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

When Canada wants to sign an international agreement, when it wants to implement this treaty, we must be assured of having the tools here in Canada to go along with the international law.

I have merely asked the clerk to include, word for word, the contents of article 5 of the UNFA, as I have already explained. I am simply trying to summarize, since it is a fairly long clause, unless the House will give me permission to read it entirely, without shortening my speech. I am summarizing it in order to provide some principles of the philosophy of management.

This clause sets out in subclause ( a ) administrative measures to ensure the long term sustainability of straddling fish stocks.

In subclause ( b ) our intention is to ensure as well that there is a data base containing verifiable and reliable scientific information that serves the interests of all parties concerned for the welfare of the so-called migratory species.

Subclause ( d ) concerns the assessment of the impacts of fishing and other human activities on the marine ecosystem.

Subclause ( e ) concerns the adoption of conservation and management measures. I would remind people that these are general management philosophy principles.

However, I draw members' attention especially to the following. Our reference in subclause ( f ) to minimizing pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear and such things should be noted. This is why I want this introduced into Bill C-27, so Canada may then set out its future policy on fishing, a statement of policy. For example, what will Canada do with respect to the measures including the development and use of selective environmentally safe and cost effective fishing gear and techniques.

That means we are prepared to be ecological and to give thought to the environment, but always from a cost effective standpoint. I agree with that, but we will have to get into the details one day.

I would draw members' attention to another point, still in this clause 2.1 we are proposing to the House. It is subclause ( i ), which provides that we must take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers.

This is important for me because I live in a coastal area. My house looks out on Gaspé Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence beyond, so there are lots of fish going by. We want to make sure that all those living in maritime areas will have artisanal and subsistence fishing rights because they were born near the sea and it is very much a part of their lives. We want to make sure that this right will always be respected. That is why it is important that this be included in the legislation.

But there is much more and I will try to summarize it in more general terms. When Canada is allowed to ratify and implement an agreement with an international treaty, Bill C-27 tends to Canadianize things. I did not find the management principles that are part of this agreement in the bill. Nor did I find them clearly stated in earlier legislation, unless members opposite can tell me where.

As far as I am concerned—and I would remind members that the auditor general had already asked the government to come up with a national policy—we in the Bloc Quebecois are still interested in helping to define such a policy, not that I intend to stay shackled to the centralist federal system forever, but so that we can have our say.

It is important that we be given an opportunity to provide input. I would like to be able to go into more detail in this clause, but because its only purpose is to implement the fisheries agreement, I would merely remind the House that spring is upon us. On April 1, the fishing season will be opening in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for many fisheries, including shrimp and crab in certain areas.

Every time the fishing season opens, there is always a debate among fishers from the various regions. Since quotas are set by the federal government, there are very few mechanisms, if any, to guarantee to these fishers what quotas they will get. Some would like to have, to the extent that it is possible, historic quotas by province.

I would go even further. We should take into account provincial historic quotas, the proximity of stocks as well as the regions within a province.

This is why I am asking hon. members to think about the French management model, which includes since 1992 the criteria of relative stability; it is designed to put an end to the bickering between fishing regions since people know what their quotas are and can work with them. This would help fishers.

Second, and we often forget this, plant workers should be allowed to know what volumes will be handled by and go through their plant during the year.

I will come back to the other groups later, unless the House consents to my continuing to speak, but I see the other side is in a hurry to talk too.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 13 to 17 on page 9 with the following:

“a.1) soit dans un espace maritime désigné au titre du sous-alinéa 6(e)(ii), à bord ou au moyen d'un bateau de pêche d'un État assujetti à l'accord;

a.2) soit dans un espace maritime désigné”

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended

(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 5 on page 7 with the following:

“dans un espace maritime désigné au titre du”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 7 with the following:

“un tel traité ou entente et désigné au titre du”

(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 7 with the following:

“maritime désigné au titre du sous-alinéa”

(d) by replacing, in the French version, line 19 on page 7 with the following:

“espace maritime désigné au titre du sous-ali-”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 7 with the following:

“subparagraph 6(e)(i). An officer who has serious reasons to believe that the vessel has”

(b) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 7 with the following:

“(2) If the protection officer has serious reasons to believe that the vessel has contra-”

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following new clause:

“1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:

2.1 The objectives of this Act include the implementation of the Agreement, in accordance with which, in order to conserve and manage straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, coastal States and States fishing on the high seas shall, in giving effect to their duty to cooperate in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982:

(a) adopt measures to ensure long-term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and promote the objective of their optimum utilization;

(b) ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global;

(c) apply the precautionary approach in accordance with article 6 of the Agreement;

(d) assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent upon or associated with the target stocks;

(e) adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent on or associated with the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened;

(f) minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques;

(g) protect biodiversity in the marine environment;

(h) take measures to prevent or eliminate over-fishing and excess fishing capacity and to ensure that levels of fishing effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources;

(i) take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers;

(j) collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as set out in Annex I, as well as information from national and international research programmes;

(k) promote and conduct scientific research and develop appropriate technologies in support of fishery conservation and management; and

(l) implement and enforce conservation and management measures through effective monitoring, control and surveillance.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following new clause:

“1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:

2.1 This Act shall be interpreted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and the Agreement, including the designation of any area of the sea falling under the jurisdiction of regional organizations, regulated by regional arrangements or established by other international fisheries agreements or treaties.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 3 with the following:

“espace maritime désigné au titre du sous-ali-”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 36 on page 3 with the following:

“maritime désigné au titre du sous-alinéa”

(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 41 on page 3 with the following:

“me désigné au titre du sous-alinéa 6e)(ii) ou”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 4 with the following:

“6. (1) The Governor in Council may make”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 25 on page 4 with the following:

“(ii) désigner les espaces maritimes tom-”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 21 on page 5 with the following:

“(ii) désigner les espaces maritimes visés”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

“(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.

(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.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-27, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 6 with the following:

“7.01 (1) If a protection officer has serious reasons to believe that a fishing vessel of a”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-27, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“se trouve dans un espace maritime désigné au”

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that today, when we were to debate Bill C-27, we are spending so much time debating a private member's bill because of delaying tactics.

I do not want to get into an argument about the possible merits of this bill, but since spring is upon us and the government is taking such a long time defining a fisheries management policy, I would like to propose the following motion:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The purpose of this motion is to allow us to proceed to orders of the day to hear what the government has to say on the fisheries bill and to have done with it.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member referred to the fact that the trick the Minister of Human Resources Development had discovered was to make the unemployed disappear.

Initially, about two thirds of the unemployed in his province were entitled to unemployment insurance. Now the figure is no more than one third. Does he agree with the following statement. Just as the great magician David Copperfield always has an assistant, does the Minister of Finance have an assistant too—that is, the Minister of Human Resources Development—to make the unemployed disappear and to create the illusion that there is no more deficit?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf is absolutely right. The government's behaviour makes no sense.

I will conclude with the following statement: great magician that he is, the Minister of Finance, he tried to make his deficit disappear. This time he tried to make people in fishing disappear, and that makes no sense.

You can take an individual out of the Gaspé, but you cannot take the Gaspé out of the individual.