Gerry Byrne

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor what the perception is of the statement that has been made by the Government of Canada, by the Conservatives, that Canada now exerts Canadian custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

I am not aware of any changes that have yet been ratified at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. I am not aware of any changes to international law between now and 2008 when this statement appeared as a matter of public policy in the Conservative Party of Canada's platform for the election campaign. What exactly has changed that allows the Government of Canada, after years of criticizing the NAFO regime when they sat in opposition, after years of criticizing the lack of action, to now find out that custodial management has been with Canada since 1977, since the formation of NAFO?

How does the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor react to that kind of myth?

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there was a recent decision in NAFO to allow the harvesting of Greenland turbot well above and beyond the scientifically recommended conservation limit.

I want to point out something that the member highlighted. Under the revised convention, not only is there no capacity for Canada to act on other contracting parties in this regard, under our provisions that were allowed to us under our ratification of the Law of the Sea, NAFO circumvents or overrides the Law of the Sea. We actually have our sovereign rights under the Law of the Sea provisions diminished. NAFO takes pre-eminence over the United Nations Law of the Sea.

That is the testimony we heard at committee and that is one of the most problematic things. We could have achieved greater things if we had just stopped at the Law of the Sea. The revised NAFO commitments mean that we actually have fewer rules than other international players can enjoy.

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what Conservatives fail to understand is that 50% of nothing is still nothing. That is the problem.

They talk about stock rebuilding and making sure that Canada enjoys every pound of fish that it can get and that Canada harvests every pound of fish it can get without any concern or relationship to other NAFO members that are conducting foreign overfishing in the offshore area.

What is very clear is that some of the very same stakeholders that the parliamentary secretary alludes to were the very same stakeholders who said in 1989, “Let me take the last fish. Let me keep fishing. The consequences will be too grave”. They said again in 1990, “Let me take the last fish”.

There has been a strong conservation ethic that has been pronounced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador by stakeholders, industry specialists and those who would prosper in the short term by an increased capacity to take that last fish. They are the very ones who came to our committee. They are the very ones who spoke very passionately and vocally in the public domain saying, “Let's not do this. Let's preserve the fish stocks so that we can enjoy them for generations to come. Let's not make the same Conservative mistake of 1980 and 1990”.

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented on Wednesday, November 18 be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I wish to raise on the floor of the House of Commons the serious issue of the revised NAFO convention and the effect on Canadian sovereignty on the capacity of Canada to manage fish stocks not only domestically, but on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks as well as the Flemish Cap. These are very serious issues that are conjured by the revised NAFO convention. Quite frankly, we have had quite a discussion outside of the House on this issue.

The government tabled the revised NAFO convention on June 12 as a sessional paper, invoking its new procedure for parliamentary consideration of international treaties and conventions. On several occasions, post that tabling, my opposition House leader attempted to bring forward debate in the House on this important treaty, however, was met with no success, even with actual interference from the government itself.

However, we were able to circumvent the government's intent not to allow debate on this issue to occur by bringing the matter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to have the matter debated. There we heard expert witness testimony from people such as former deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and former director generals of international policy, all of whom told our committee that this revised NAFO convention was not in the Canadian interest. It is a direct affront to Canadian sovereignty and will provide significant negative impact on the capacity to properly manage fish stocks with the point of view of conservation in mind.

Canadians call on their government to ensure that Canadian sovereignty is protected and secured. They call on Canada to use all legal instruments, those that were provided such as in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to take advantage of any and all new opportunities for increasing Canadian sovereignty over our current coastal limits.

A point in case is this. One such expectation that is top of mind with Canadians is the issue of Canadian Arctic sovereignty in the Northwest Passage. We expect the extension of Canadian jurisdiction to beyond our current recognized international limits to include a huge area of sea and subsurface area of the Arctic stretching toward the North Pole.

We also expect our government to entrench exclusive Canadian sovereignty over the area of the fabled Northwest Passage, the body of water inside the Canadian 200 mile exclusive economic zone that meanders through an Arctic Archipelago of islands, all claimed by Canada.

Let me put in perspective what the revised NAFO convention will do. It is the equivalent of our Conservative Canadian government standing in the House and saying to the people of Canada that it is no longer asserting a greater jurisdictional control over the waters extending toward the North Pole beyond our 200 miles, that Canada is now abandoning our policy of Arctic sovereignty.

Regarding the Northwest Passage, it is also the equivalent of Canada saying that it no longer views this as an exclusive Canadian jurisdiction, that it is actually now providing a right for the circumpolar Arctic council to come forward with a proposal that we will jointly manage the Canadian Northwest Passage. That resonates with Canadians as being wrong. It should resonate with the government as being wrong.

The problem is that exact same model is being applied to the waters of eastern Canada from Baffin Island right to the southern tips of Nova Scotia, our entire exclusive economic zone on the east coast, an area of equivalent size.

The particular offensive passages within the revised NAFO convention include the following. The inclusion in the rights of NAFO, an international management body, a legal tool for NAFO to enter and manage inside Canada's exclusive economic zone, our 200 mile limit. That right does not currently exist under the NAFO convention. If NAFO tried to do such a measure at this point in time under current circumstances, it would be barred from doing so under the NAFO convention itself. Under the revised convention, article VI, paragraph 10, that legal opportunity, that tool, would actually exist at the request of the Conservatives.

The measures of the revised NAFO convention also include a continuation of the objection procedure that would allow contracting parties to fish unilaterally set quotas throughout the entire fishing season. Fishing industry stakeholders understand extremely well the consequences of the current objection procedure.

After NAFO makes a decision, any contracting party, any member of the 13 members of NAFO can simply say that it does not accept the decision and that it is filing an objection. That party can begin immediately to fish unilaterally at its own set quotas, well above the conservation limits.

In this revised NAFO convention, the objection procedure is not done away with. In fact, it is legalized and institutionalized. The objection procedure still exists. The contracting parties can still file an objection and still continue to fish unilaterally at their own pre-set quotas. The only difference is that three years down the road, after the fishing season is over and the consequence of the decision is already exhausted and expired and the fish are now gone, a legally binding tribunal under the International Court of Justice or some similar international legal mechanism can present a binding ruling.

The problem with that is very clear and obvious. The consequences of the decision take less than 12 months to extract. However, the process of resolving the objection proceedings, under this guiding set of rules under NAFO, takes three and a half years to complete. That is what makes the objection procedure a non-answer to the current problems of the NAFO convention. They tout it as being the answer or solution. It is definitely not.

There is also a change in voting structure within NAFO from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority requirement. That has a huge impact on conservation. Some stakeholders have pointed out that, in their opinion, it does provide increased protection to Canadian shares as shares increase in stocks that are rebuilding, that Canada gets to assert its traditional share structure by moving to the two-thirds majority.

The problem is obvious to anyone and everyone who understands the past track record of NAFO. The problem arises when stocks begin to decrease through overfishing. The problem is that certain NAFO members, distant water fishing nations that have no true coastal state incentive adjacent to the waters themselves to actually embark on and enact conservation measures, are the very ones that simply say that they will not subscribe to any reduction in quotas.

That is the past track record of NAFO. It will be entrenched as the rule of thumb of NAFO, the guiding principle of NAFO under a two-thirds majority rule. It will be tougher for NAFO contracting parties, our supposed partners in conservation, to arrive at a binding consensus to lower quotas when they are needed most.

In fact, recently the government has touted a new revised and strengthened NAFO and a new understanding and culture within NAFO. Just a few short days ago, the government brought forward to NAFO a request to suspend fishing of shrimp on the Flemish Cap. The NAFO Scientific Council itself recommended such a measure. What did NAFO do? The European Union and all of the other contracting parties said, “No, thanks. We are more interested in taking fish until the last fish is gone”.

That is not good enough in this current environment. An ethos of environment and conservation has to persevere.

The government has wasted a tremendous opportunity. Canada could have re-bolstered itself, reinvigorated its capacity as the coastal state to protect our fish stocks and those offshore. It failed to do so.

Imagine Canadians' contempt for a decision of the government to say that it is no longer acting to extend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, that it is no longer acting to enforce exclusive jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage, that it is going to allow foreigners to totally control the Arctic and that it is going to allow joint management of the Northwest Passage. That would meet with outrage from Canadians. That is what Canadians have to know. That is exactly what it has done on the east coast of Canada for an area just as great and just as significant.

[Airline Industry, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, putting consumers first is an interesting slogan.

The House may recall when the Minister of Transport voted in favour of my motion to bring in new, robust, legally binding protection for airline passengers. However, what members will not recall is that prior to the vote, that same minister, the industry's regulator, ordered professional lobbyists to mount a public relations campaign to undermine the very policy of which he voted in favour.

Which is it? Is it the lobbyists who are running the transport department, or is the transport department running the lobbyists? This collusion occurring between the government regulator and the airline companies must end. When is airline passenger protection coming in?

[Status of Women, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, increasingly Canadian and international issue action groups use full and partial nudity of female employees, models and former celebrities as part of their fundraising and publicity campaigns. This is indeed a very disturbing trend.

Lush Cosmetics recently used an employee of the company to pose nude in a public area of downtown Toronto to promote one of the company's product lines. While the employee herself was nude save for makeup, the company attempted to wrap itself in a cloak of virtue with a thinly veiled association with marine mammal populations.

Other activist organizations such as PETA, competing with other groups for donations, regularly use attention-grabbing female nudity to draw attention to themselves. Former B movie celebrities are contracted as prime spokespersons. They are often people whose only achievements have been simply to surrender themselves to public female objectification.

I would like to remind the House and all Canadians that treating women as objects is wrong, and exploiting women by presenting them as nude objects of attention purely for commercial purposes and without any overarching artistic merit is wrong. It is vile.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is no answer at all.

What is troubling here is that NDP members are asking for more time. What is it that they need to know about this convention? What is more important is that Conservative members are about to vote against the policy established by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House. They are about to vote non-confidence, not only of the policy but in the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to announce to the House that he will change his policy on the tabling of treaties before Parliament to allow a 42 day period for consultation? Is he or is he not?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals received a notice of motion supported by Bloc, NDP and Conservative members of the fisheries committee asking the government for more time to consider the revised NAFO treaty.

Even Conservative members of the committee said that the government's policy on the tabling of foreign treaties in Parliament needs to be changed by extending the 21 days of House consultations to 42 sitting days.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House if he is prepared to change his policy accordingly? Is this a realistic coalition request or is this just another one out of the Conservative Party playbook: delay, deny, deceive?

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, late yesterday, I transmitted to you, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2). a request for an emergency debate on an amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, otherwise known as the revised NAFO Convention.

The revised NAFO Convention was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on June 12. The revised convention is a very serious matter for Canada, with serious implications both in terms of economic and political. I could get into a very substantive debate or discussion about this but I what I will discuss right now is that I am hoping to establish that debate.

The government announced to the House that it would invoke a procedure for House consultation on international treaties and conventions. Under the government's adopted policy, which it announced to the House, it would provide just 21 sitting days for the House to pronounce itself or debate or discuss matters that are tabled before the House regarding international treaties or conventions.

This particular treaty does not require enabling legislation, so there is no actual indication of any procedure by the government to establish that debate. It is up to us as opposition parties to call upon the government to invoke that debate. We have done so. My House leader has asked the government on several occasions for a take note debate but that has not been adopted.

Twenty-one sitting days provide the House up until October 19 for the House to inform the government on its position, after which the government can simply invoke what is a Governor in Council ratification of the treaty.

The House is trying to establish a means to pronounce itself on this particular issue. Right now, the only means to be able to do so within that government imposed deadline of October 19 is to ask for permission from you, Mr. Speaker, to allow that debate to occur.

This is a very serious issue. Literally billions of dollars annually are on the line regarding resources that are shared not only by Canada but by international players as well. This is a serious economic issue and, of course, it is a serious political issue as well dealing with sovereignty.

I would like to make those points more clearly to the House through a debate but the only mechanism I have at this point in time, within that October 19 deadline imposed by the government, is to have you, Mr. Speaker, allow an emergency debate, and I am hoping that will happen.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister continues to insist that custodial management of the entire Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap now mysteriously belongs to Canada. Yet, European factory freezer trawlers continue to plunder Canadian cod stocks inside Canada's supposed new territory. It was NAFO, however, not Canada, that resumed fishing of cod on the Flemish Cap this year after 10 years of closure and it was NAFO that set these irresponsible quotas beyond the scientifically recommended amounts.

Why did the minister simply not use her new-found powers of custodial management to stop this foreign fishing activity inside the Canadian management zone? Why not? Because it does not exist. It is a--