Fin Donnelly

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question. That is going to allow me to enter into the record what Mr. Caldwell had to say, and it is important. He said:

The CMLA is strongly in support of DFO’s initiative to curb IUU fishing through the implementation of this bill. Although we strongly support it, there is one area where we feel there could be some modest room for improvement....

A suggested modest improvement to the bill involves the proposed change to section 13 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Our proposal would be very similar to a change that was proposed by the Government of Canada to section 71(2) of the Fisheries Act back in 2007 when it tabled Bill C-32.

I enter that into the record.

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill S-3, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Port State Measures Agreement implementation act.

I just want to provide a little background. It is an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It was introduced in the Senate, about which of course we have some serious concerns, not only about that body in the upper chamber but how this bill was introduced. However, it was passed at third reading on March 7, 2013, after prorogation. The bill was then reintroduced as Bill S-3 and passed through the Senate again. It was introduced in the House of Commons on February 11, 2014.

The bill would amend the CFPA to implement the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. In addition, Bill S-3 would add to the act prohibitions relating to importing illegally acquired fish and marine plants, and would clarify some of the act's administration and enforcement provisions.

Under the CFPA, the act would also prohibit fishing vessels without nationality from fishing in Canadian or NAFO waters. The United States has introduced similar legislation in an effort to ratify the PSMA. It should be noted that the agreement can only come into force after it has been ratified by 25 nations.

We in the official opposition think this is a small step in the right direction. We, in fact, support this bill and support this measure. However, we have some serious concerns. We have some concerns about how this bill would be resourced and how it would actually come into effect and be implemented.

I want to talk about some of those concerns, whether they be the fisheries, the Coast Guard, or dealing with our oceans. I think this really speaks to the commitment of the government to invest in the real concern of illegal fishing, which is surveillance. We can look at the past actions of the government. When it comes to the fisheries, it has gutted the Fisheries Act.

This is a critical tool that has been used to protect our fishery for over 100 years in this country. It is a powerful piece of legislation. Under this watch, under this government, it has now been gutted. It specifically went after a section, under habitat, where it has made very significant changes that would weaken the Fisheries Act and the protection of our fishery.

The resources to habitat are critical because I think this speaks to what the government's agenda is, which is really focused on getting oil to the coast. We on the west coast certainly know that is a clear agenda the government has. It has been open about the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline, which would traverse northern British Columbia through watersheds that are critical to fish and fisheries. That is a clear objective that the government has, and it is overriding the fisheries and our commitment to a sound investment in fisheries.

We can also see that in terms of the government's lack of investment on science, or hearing from scientists. We are not getting that information from scientists because the government is muzzling those scientists. They are not able to speak out on some of these serious concerns. Once they find these concerns through their studies, getting that to the public is made even more difficult.

The government has made significant cuts to the department in terms of its resources over the years, and has not spent some of the budgeted funding that is available. We are seeing a pattern here in terms of the fisheries. When we look to the Coast Guard, which is there to protect our coast, to prohibit illegal vessels from coming into Canadian waters, we are seeing cuts there, as well.

We are seeing cuts in the busiest port in the country, Vancouver, to the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. There has been a huge outcry from many people across the political spectrum, from the province to cities to health concerns to mariners to recreational boaters. All have said the same thing, that closing that strategically located station in a key position in that port is going to not only cost lives but will make a difference.

My hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway mentioned we recently had a very small spill in English Bay, and that station could have played a key role in maintaining and confining that spill. Unfortunately, it was not able to do that. It is closed. The equipment that was there obviously could not be used. These are indications of a government that is not serious about investing in the resources needed to protect, investigate, and do the surveillance needed for an illegal fishery.

I come back to our Coast Guard. I am from the west coast. My riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam, along with Port Moody, right on the Fraser River, also touches Burrard Inlet, so I am nestled in coastal waters in an important riding that is part of the fisheries on the Fraser River. It is one of the greatest salmon rivers in the world. Therefore, it is important to my riding that the federal government is investing in coastal protection.

We had five MCTS stations on the west coast until the government closed three of the five. It closed the Ucluelet, Comox, and Vancouver stations. The Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres are really the air traffic controllers for the oceans. The centres play a critical role in knowing what vessels are out there and what is happening on the waters. The government is closing three of the five, leaving two, one in Victoria and one in Prince Rupert, near Alaska, to do the entire coast. This is unacceptable. This is going to cause problems. After the closure in Vancouver, there will be zero Coast Guard presence in Vancouver. Canadians and those on the coast in British Columbia and Vancouver find that completely unacceptable. It will lead to problems. They have been speaking out for years, in the case of the Kitsilano closure, and the government has refused to listen.

In terms of our oceans, we have a lack of science and knowledge about the changing of the oceans and the impact climate change, for instance, is having on our oceans. Also, there is acidification. The ocean is increasing in acidity, and that is playing a key role in how things change. That speaks again to a lack of investment to find out and to know what those key changes will be.

Earlier, I asked a question about why the government did not support my private member's bill to ban the importation of shark fins to Canada. Our scientists are telling us that sharks are playing a key role in maintaining the health of the oceans, and we are losing them at a dramatic rate, more than 100 million sharks a year. It is hard to fathom that we are losing that many sharks a year. They play a critical role in maintaining the balance of our ocean ecosystem, yet we are not getting the response needed from the government. It was a very close vote. It lost by five votes. All it needed was three more Conservative members. We did have three who stood up and voted with the opposition on that vote, but unfortunately, we did not have enough. That was a simple measure that could have made a difference.

I know the bill is just really a housekeeping measure, but if the government is really serious about tackling illegal fishing, then it must invest the resources needed to deal with our fisheries, including our Coast Guard, and also to look at our oceans.

It is important to mention some of the validators that have come forward to lend their concerns. I want to quickly finish by mentioning two. The Pew environmental group has said:

Illegal fishing is a major threat to the sustainability of the world’s fisheries. Some estimates are that illegal and unreported fishing accounts for up to $23.5 billion worth of fish annually worldwide, and up to 20 percent of all of the wild marine fish caught globally. In some parts of the world, the situation is even more dire. For example, fisheries scientists estimate that illegal fishing accounts for up to 40 percent of fish caught in West Africa.

I can go on. I wanted to mention Brad Caldwell, who is the west coast co-chair of the fisheries committee of the Canadian Maritime Law Association. However, I am out of time. Maybe somebody will ask me a question about what he had to say on this bill.

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on this act and the amendment and proposed changes. He did talk about illegal fishing, as did the parliamentary secretary earlier.

My question is in terms of illegal fishing. We are well aware that one of the worst offenders is the shark fishery. Scientists tell us that over 100 million sharks a year are being fished out of our seas. They are being targeted for their fins. It is a very brutal fishery where the fins are cut off and the shark is then tossed back into the ocean, often alive and left to suffocate. It is a brutal way for this fishery to do that to these animals. As members know, sharks play a key role in maintaining the health of our oceans.

If the government is serious about illegal fishing, I am wondering why we have not been able to make more inroads. For instance, I put forward a private member's bill to ban the importation of shark fin to Canada. The government had an opportunity to vote on this to make a difference in illegal fishing. We know this fishery is mainly composed of illegal fishing. The Conservatives could have made a difference by voting with me and with the opposition but they did not. I wonder if the hon. member could explain why they did not do that.

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague make some excellent points about this bill. While he acknowledged we are supporting it and it is a small step in the right direction, he listed quite a few concerns in terms of illegal fishing, what our government is doing, and what could be done, including increased surveillance and the lack of surveillance that we currently have.

The member talked about the cuts to the Coast Guard. Certainly on the west coast, in the busiest port in the country, we have lost the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. It was shut down. He also pointed out the Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres being shut down, on the west coast again. We have had five centres consolidated down to two. We have lost three centres.

The question is to the point of surveillance. The member mentioned that, when the officials came to committee, they were not able to provide the answers needed by the committee. I want to know from my hon. colleague if he believes the government is serious about protecting our coast and about monitoring our fishery and providing the surveillance needed in terms of investments and resources. I also want to ask, finally, if he could comment on this: while there is a 200-nautical-mile limit on the west coast, late last year the government quietly reduced from 50 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles our responsibility and jurisdiction.

Could the member comment on either of those two questions?

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. He talked about the government's commitment to protecting Canada at home and on the world stage in terms of our fishery and strengthening our fishery.

I want to ask the member then, why the government has gutted our Fisheries Act, which should normally be handled through a committee and looked at separately, and has done this through an omnibus budget bill. I am very concerned about how that was done and how the government went after a specific section of the Fisheries Act. The government has also cut resources to DFO, especially for habitat and science.

Why has the government not implemented the 75 recommendations from the Cohen inquiry, on which the government spent nearly $30 million? I remember this inquiry well, because when I was first running, it was a huge issue in my riding and on the west coast. We had just had a collapse of the sockeye salmon. That was almost six years ago, and we have had no action from the government on the 75 recommendations. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary on that.

[Iran Accountability Week, May 5th, 2015]

Basic human rights.

[Iran Accountability Week, May 5th, 2015]

We're not talking about climate.

[Iran Accountability Week, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, absolutely, countries that have democracy get the support of their government in terms of an investment in that democracy in the resources that are needed. We are seeing clearly that this is not happening in Iran. In fact, we are seeing the opposite.

Canada has a role to play in ensuring that kind of democracy is happening around the world. We need a seat at the table to stress to countries such as Iran that have clear human rights infringements, political imprisonments, torture, that this sort of thing is unacceptable on the world stage and must be addressed.

We need to be engaged with regimes that are doing this. Clearly, we must play a role. That is also how we are going to play a role in terms of nuclear disarmament. We need to be engaged with the regimes that are out of step or out of line.

In saying that, it is clearly important that we provide the resources and the funds needed for countries not only like Iran but of course Canada, to engage in that kind of real diplomacy around the world. We need to resource our staff and our embassies in order to obtain the kinds of results that we need around the world. If they are not resourced, we are not going to see the kinds of results that are needed in terms of a diplomatic solution, and then we would get an escalation of violence, which is not the kind of result that is helpful.

[Iran Accountability Week, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I do not know how I can dignify that comment with a response.

The NDP has a strong concern with many nations around the world, including Iran. I just finished laying out the concerns that we have for the rights infractions. I am sorry, but it is very sincere after consultation with those people in my riding who have explained to me the torture that some of those they know have experienced under that regime.

To say that we are not concerned about how we as a nation are to engage with our partners in a diplomatic way is completely off-track. Also, I cannot believe that the member would make comments about union dues that make no sense and which have no reference to what we are talking about tonight.

[Iran Accountability Week, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

As the representative of a large diasporic Iranian community in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and also Port Moody, I have had the opportunity to discuss Iranian human rights abuses with residents, such as Ali Pahlavanlu and Fred Soofi, as well as the Tri-City Iranian Cultural Society. I am therefore quite pleased to rise in the House to participate in tonight's take note debate regarding Iran Accountability Week.

As we know, the Iranian regime record on human rights has been utterly deplorable. The international community and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned widespread violations of political, economic and social rights in Iran. Violations include deprivation of the freedoms of religion, expression, assembly and democratic participation. As well, there is political imprisonment and torture. Women face substantial and systemic discrimination. Homosexuality is punishable by flogging and execution. Journalists and bloggers are often targeted for arbitrary arrests. Baha‘i leaders and observers have been persecuted and imprisoned.

For instance, in January 2013, 11 journalists were arrested on the accusation of co-operating with foreign media organizations in a targeted clampdown against the BBC and Voice of America. This followed the January 2010 execution of two men, arrested solely for exercising their right to peacefully protest during the period of unrest that followed the disputed presidential election in June 2009.

These two stories are not unique. Tragically, the arrest and execution of political dissidents is all too common in today's Iran. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, issued two reports last year that found “an apparent increase in the degree of seriousness of human rights violations”, and expressed alarm at the “rate of executions in the country, especially for crimes that do not meet serious crimes standards”. He found “no sign of improvement” on rights issues previously raised by UN monitoring mechanisms.

Canadians expect their government to do the hard diplomatic work and international engagement needed to advance accountability and human rights in Iran and around the world. Canada's New Democrats believe that our great country has an important diplomatic role to play in bringing Iran back into the mainstream international community, and to continue advancing the notion of a role that a Canadian diplomatic presence would have on that regime.

This sentiment was shared by former Canadian ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor, when he stated:

Diplomacy for me is, one way or another, a method to influence an adversary. And to do that you need an exchange, you need to even though you’re not partial to that regime.

We all recognize the need for continued caution in our diplomatic approach, but the Conservatives must do more than just condemn Iran. Denouncing the Iranian regime cannot replace strong diplomacy. Instead, the government should be looking at how Canada can engage responsibly with Iran to encourage more reforms.

As former British foreign secretary William Hague stated:

This agreement shows it is possible to work with Iran, and through diplomacy address intractable problems.

This statement calls into question the Conservatives' decision to sever diplomatic relations with Iran in 2012, given the important diplomatic role that Canada could be playing to strengthen human rights protections and foster democratic change. Despite our strong opposition to the Iranian regime, New Democrats nonetheless believe that Canada must have a seat at the diplomatic table. Without one, our criticism of the Iranian regime is largely rhetoric, lacking the leverage which a strong diplomatic presence would create.

In conclusion, Canada's New Democrats will continue to stand with the people of Iran and speak out when their voices are unfairly silenced in their pursuit of freedom, peace, democracy and fair application of the rule of law. We will also continue pushing the Canadian government to engage diplomatically with the Iranian regime. As such, an engagement could have a tangible impact on altering the most deplorable actions of the regime.

Finally, I would also like to commend the members for Ottawa Centre and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for their active participation in Iran Accountability Week and their continued efforts on behalf of Canada's New Democrats to raise the issue of these serious human rights violations.